Circus Nurgling Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I posted that on my facebook page :tu:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristoff Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Whatever. The FAQ is pretty vague on the subject, and doesn't specifically state that they aren't Flying Monstrous Creatures. Actually, the English version is not vague at all. It specifically spells it out as any unit (including Daemon Princes) with Wings (NOT Daemonic Flight) have the Jump profile added to their unit type. There is ZERO mention of Flying Monstrous Creatures in the Amendments, Errata, or FAQ. So, sorry boys, either learn German or French, or face up to the fact that our boys aren't as Warp-bound as those who hang around exclusively with Daemons so their wings just aren't as strong. I like how you quoted me out of context, there. It helps prove your point well. So, actually it doesn't spell out "including Daemon Princes". The vagueness I'm talking about is, as exactly as you mentioned, that there is zero mention of FMC in the CSM FAQ. The fact that the german and french faq, as well as C:D faq, state that CSM DP with wings are FMC suggests that someone just simply neglected to mention Daemon Princes in the CSM faq. Like I said, I'll go with the general consensus that they aren't, for now, so I don't really know why it was necessary to draw me out like that considering I already said that. But then, if you'd quoted me in entirety, that wouldn't have backed up your position I guess. But the point is C:D Princes DO NOT HAVE WINGS! The vagueness you talk about is only in your head and applying another codex's upgrades and rules to another book that have not received it in print or Amendment. It's as vague as Lesser Daemons Assaulting after arriving from an Icon right away and Bloodletters dropping in and staying put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't even see how this is an argument. The FAQ for the CSM Codex states specifically that Wings add "Jump" to a profile, not "Flying" like the FAQ change for Daemonic Flight did. We don't get Flying Monstrous Creatures, at least not until the new Codex comes out if they bother to change it (since they'll have to change the FAQ anyway). They boned us, fair and square, we can either get over it or not but it's right there in magenta and white and isn't subject to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circus Nurgling Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Whatever. The FAQ is pretty vague on the subject, and doesn't specifically state that they aren't Flying Monstrous Creatures. Actually, the English version is not vague at all. It specifically spells it out as any unit (including Daemon Princes) with Wings (NOT Daemonic Flight) have the Jump profile added to their unit type. There is ZERO mention of Flying Monstrous Creatures in the Amendments, Errata, or FAQ. So, sorry boys, either learn German or French, or face up to the fact that our boys aren't as Warp-bound as those who hang around exclusively with Daemons so their wings just aren't as strong. I like how you quoted me out of context, there. It helps prove your point well. So, actually it doesn't spell out "including Daemon Princes". The vagueness I'm talking about is, as exactly as you mentioned, that there is zero mention of FMC in the CSM FAQ. The fact that the german and french faq, as well as C:D faq, state that CSM DP with wings are FMC suggests that someone just simply neglected to mention Daemon Princes in the CSM faq. Like I said, I'll go with the general consensus that they aren't, for now, so I don't really know why it was necessary to draw me out like that considering I already said that. But then, if you'd quoted me in entirety, that wouldn't have backed up your position I guess. But the point is C:D Princes DO NOT HAVE WINGS! The vagueness you talk about is only in your head and applying another codex's upgrades and rules to another book that have not received it in print or Amendment. It's as vague as Lesser Daemons Assaulting after arriving from an Icon right away and Bloodletters dropping in and staying put. lol whatever dude. Calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevak Dal Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I've never been a fan of Nurgle (as in the chaos patron). Even using 'count as' didn't appeal to me, because it would mean still having a mark of Nurgle on my guys, even if they were outfitted with extra cybernetics/whatever. It may be the hotness now, but I've been building my guys with an eye for the future and what works now-for all we know it could go back to the over-lauded Archaic Codex where you chose between Bolter and Bolt Pistol, or Bolt Pistol and Close combat weapon (or however it went). I'm building my warband around Space Marines-and if Khorne Beserkers go to Elites...well, I only got one squad of "Bunny Ear" Khorne Beserkers anyway (all with Chain Axes...I just hope Chain Axes don't end up being I1 Chainswords...) I have a Terminator Lord that I want to model with a Axe or Spear Bliss Giver. Yeah, the +1 to I wouldn't help the axe, but it'd always be S5 and when it hit, would more easily cause Instant Death-a Further case can be made for a Maul, cause 1's (or 2's) will come up, you'll keep your initiative and get the Whack-a-Mole and have a s6 Instant Death Weapon. The spear gives you the +1 strength for those Radical Good Speed assaults. Of course, a spear would be pretty cool with a Tzeentch weapon, cause I'm a fan of Stargate and it'd be neat to go "JAFFA KRE!" when I fire off the shooting, and then (hopefully) charge into Melee to whack them again. But, I don't know what, if anything is going to change. For all I know, we may get LESS options, or Daemon Weapons might not be able to use the "What it Looks like equates to how it handles" thing. The new power weapons have added a manner of customization that previously wasn't there for me (though I do have the Tzeentch Spear weapon partially made) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Things we're sure of: There will be cultists, with a choice of autogun or autopistol and ccwep as default gear. There will be dreadnoughts, though it might be called something else, and a multimelter will be a gun they can use. There will be chosen, with the ability to take multiple different power weapons in the same squad. We know these things because the starter box contents are solidly leaked at this point, and they're not going to invalidate models that the put into the starter box before it's even published. They might tweak their stats, but in all likelihood the stats on display in the starter box will also be the stats in the codex, which means guardsman stat cultists and chosen with the same stats as now. Other then that, anything is anyone's guess, but you can probably safely count on daemon weapons being specific things, not generalized things. I sincerely doubt that you'll be able to buy a daemon weapon, then choose whether you want it to be an axe or a spear or a sword with the related benefits thereof. You can't do that now, thanks to the 'special power weapons' clause. Whether your manreaper's an axe or a spear or a sword, they're all normal init, AP3, and the only exception is Typhus, because the FAQ specifically makes him an exception. The rumors say that cult units are all going elites, but that there will be some option to shift them back to troops via characters - though its fuzzy whether this would be any HQ with the appropriate mark or just special characters. But that's rumors, and those are really iffy these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhukov Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 lol whatever dude. Calm down. Tip: Sometimes it's easier to just admit that you are wrong instead referting to an Ad Hominem attack, which makes you look like a spoiled child who doesn't like to be told that he's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circus Nurgling Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 lol whatever dude. Calm down. Tip: Sometimes it's easier to just admit that you are wrong instead referting to an Ad Hominem attack, which makes you look like a spoiled child who doesn't like to be told that he's not right. You talking about me or him? Because the way I read it he was attacking me for holding an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfGuardVortek Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 The Codex:Daemons entry for Princes has no bearing on Princes from Codex:CSM. They are quite frankly different units as they are from different codices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskie Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The rumors say that cult units are all going elites, but that there will be some option to shift them back to troops via characters - though its fuzzy whether this would be any HQ with the appropriate mark or just special characters. But that's rumors, and those are really iffy these days. When did this become a rumor? This was what I said would happen, or what I would do to placate the mobs. There is a difference between rumors and what people want and prediction by bloggers... I guess I know some GW staffers and some ex-GW staffers, but what I would do with the Chaos Codex is my own thoughts based on the current ork codex and rulebooks passed. Old Blog post What I worry about as someone who has played all Nurgle for over a decade is that I'll have to use Typhus to run an all Nurgle army. I much prefer the Ork Dex model where a regular Warlord makes a unit of Nobz troops and a Big Mek makes a single dread a Troop choice. Of course Chaos players want an all Bezerker army so a Khorne warlord would have to make all Bezerkers troops... Chosen could be in terminator armor or power armor just like Nobz. Biker chosen were a possibility years ago around 3rd Edition but I don't mind keeping biker and jump pack dudes as fast attack only. Abaddon could make Chosen Terminators Troops to allow the deathstar Leeroy Jenkins build. I'd move Dreads back to heavy support, make them akin to smaller defilers, make them all demoniacally possessed maybe or have the "Daemon" rule or whatever the 6th edition solution is. This makes Heavy Support very crowded with the new flyer going in FA. I'd have minimal troop choices just like the Ork dex, Chaos Space Marines and I guess cultists. There is no need now to have demons in the next Chaos Codex, if you want a Great Unclean One you take it as an ally. Ditto for Nurglings and every thing demons maybe even including Demon Princes... Removing Demon Princes from the Chaos Space Marine codex would upset some people, but they could put everything "demon" in the Chaos Demon Codex and say "just ally". So you'd have a Chaos Lord or Sorcerer or hopefully a 2 wound HQ and then you could have an allied demon prince + little demons... People want more powerful demon princes, the ones in the Demon Codex are more powerful, the rules are already written, tested, and FAQ'd. Cultists + Flyers + new kits will pacify the masses, plus GW will say "just ally" or start a second army. I have enough Nurgle demons to run an all Nurgle Demon army, though I've never done it in 40K... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristoff Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 lol whatever dude. Calm down. Tip: Sometimes it's easier to just admit that you are wrong instead referting to an Ad Hominem attack, which makes you look like a spoiled child who doesn't like to be told that he's not right. You talking about me or him? Because the way I read it he was attacking me for holding an opinion. Opinion? Nope, I was referencing your poor choice of word used to describe your disgust with the ruling. vague adjective 1. not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed. 2. indefinite or indistinct in nature or character, as ideas or feelings. 3. not clear or distinct to the sight or any other sense; perceptible or recognizable only in an indefinite way. 4. not definitely established, determined, confirmed, or known; uncertain. 5. (of persons) not clear or definite in thought, understanding, or expression. The only vague thing about the Amendment/Errata was the reasons behind how they defined it, not the definition itself. Personally, I agree that it was a stupid move on their part, and I never said otherwise. All I said was that is how they choose to roll with it. It makes as much sense as Tau Target Locks being deleted instead of giving Split Fire. *shrug* Personally, trying to explain their decisions usually results in :P. The rumors say that cult units are all going elites, but that there will be some option to shift them back to troops via characters - though its fuzzy whether this would be any HQ with the appropriate mark or just special characters. But that's rumors, and those are really iffy these days. When did this become a rumor? This was what I said would happen, or what I would do to placate the mobs. There is a difference between rumors and what people want and prediction by bloggers... I guess I know some GW staffers and some ex-GW staffers, but what I would do with the Chaos Codex is my own thoughts based on the current ork codex and rulebooks passed. Old Blog post What I worry about as someone who has played all Nurgle for over a decade is that I'll have to use Typhus to run an all Nurgle army. I much prefer the Ork Dex model where a regular Warlord makes a unit of Nobz troops and a Big Mek makes a single dread a Troop choice. Of course Chaos players want an all Bezerker army so a Khorne warlord would have to make all Bezerkers troops... The Dark General on Whineseer first brought it up. He didn't know the details behind it. Heck, for all we know it could be one of those Warlord abilities exclusive to Chaos Marines. But one thing he did say was that it was NOT dependent on Special Characters. As with all rumors, it's probably not true, so you should tell everyone you know with the annual requirement of NaCL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Nihm Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 A general reminder. Please keep the discussion levelheaded/civil, otherwise feel free to post elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhukov Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Because the way I read it he was attacking me for holding an opinion. I doubt that he meant any personal harm to you, most likely he attacked your opinion. He even (and this part is rare) backed it up with solid argumentation which you were unable to refute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.