New FAQ (April)

[Onisuzume]

yes. Brother techmarine has to jog along side the vehicle or ride a bike.

Lil' Jawa in sidecard holding PFG.

as Im coincidentally thinking about and working on making banners atm, how do these banners even FIT inside the vehicles? Like the ones attached to backpacks.. unless they are clip on/off but then when disembarking.. "hold on guys, brother Bethor is attaching and securing his banner".

Backpack ones are retractable iirc. Old fluff.

Likewise, I think there was a mention once of them having a spare magazine in one or both of the lower legs.

Hmmm good point. Here's my explanation

Of course not.

Friendship Banners.

Because Friendship=Magic.

 

"The alien fails because it cannot embrace the Emperor."

That DW Sarge TYPO is just hogwash. So what, we can no longer make a dedicated Terminator assault unit like any other marine dex? It's a typo, it must be. As someone already mentioned above, I think they intended to clarify the TH/SS + CML combo and inadvertently made a new problem.

Really, I don't see much of a problem.

A mixed squad is, imo, a better idea anyhow, even if you got just two heavy weapons and rest melee.

[cielaq]

Sure it does, unfortunately. I'm just trying to explain why (at least in my opinion) they have introduced this change.

[Dillithium]

I'm a little unfamiliar with reserve rulings, but does the update basically mean that if I have 3 units of Deathwing(as troops) I cannot turn one DWA them?

So I'd have to deepstrike half of them?

 

Does having normal greenies as troops too make any difference?

[cielaq]

Basically, only half of the units can be held in reserve. Units in DWA are included in that half. So if you army consist of only 3 DW units, you can put only one of them in reserve (either using DWA or normal reserve to arrive at random turn), the other two must start on the table. The "greenies" are making difference - if the army has say 3DW units and 3 other units, then you can put those 3 DW units in reserve/DWA, and leave the other 3 on the table. Another help would be Land Raider - this way you have 4 units, sso 2 DW units can go into reserves/DWA

[shabbadoo]

Content removed due to reading error.

This FAQ is practically perfect. The only oddball thing is the power field only affecting the unit in the vehicle, without any mention of the vehicle itself. The addition of two members to the Ravenwing Command Squad is the best thing, period, as the unit now has a bit of staying power such that it will actually have a chance to get a respectable amount of benefit from its special rules, standards, the apothecary, etc. Excellent Errata/FAQ for the most part.

[Dillithium]

Basically, only half of the units can be held in reserve. Units in DWA are included in that half. So if you army consist of only 3 DW units, you can put only one of them in reserve (either using DWA or normal reserve to arrive at random turn), the other two must start on the table. The "greenies" are making difference - if the army has say 3DW units and 3 other units, then you can put those 3 DW units in reserve/DWA, and leave the other 3 on the table. Another help would be Land Raider - this way you have 4 units, sso 2 DW units can go into reserves/DWA

 Thank you, brother!

[cielaq]

shabbadoo, the only problem is that sarge does not have power fist, and only "storm bolter and power fist" can be replaced. It's not a matter of "any model" vs "any Terminator", unfortunately.

[Disruptor_fe404]

Except that your Deathwing Sergeant has no powerfist.

 

EDIT: Naaman'd.

 

EDIT #2: None of this changes how I'm playing my pure Deathwing list.

[shabbadoo]

Dammit. I was so fixated on the title I neglected to fixate on the gear needed for the swap. Still, not a big deal, as the DW Sgt. is decent enough with whatever power weapon you want to give him. It could be that this will change, and may be chalked up to an errata cut-n-paste error (i.e. not realizing the differences between the two different unit compositions, and how using the same errata wording would work perfectly for the DW Command Squad, but would adversely change something on the basic DW Terminator Squad). So, two minor oddities, so far as I can tell, is not too bad, and the DW Sgt. thing isn't really that bad at all.

The changes in Deathwing Assault will alter some game play, but I guess we'll see more Dreadnoughts in Drop Pods used to put more forces on the ground sooner in all Deathwing armies, as units that *must* be held in Reserve do not count towards the 50% unit limit.

Also, Reserves are limited to 50% of units, rounded up, and three DW units in Reserves means that TWO are able to DWA, not one (I could word that better no doubt, so look up the Reserves rule to avoid any confusion).

[elphilo]

Basically, only half of the units can be held in reserve. Units in DWA are included in that half. So if you army consist of only 3 DW units, you can put only one of them in reserve (either using DWA or normal reserve to arrive at random turn), the other two must start on the table. The "greenies" are making difference - if the army has say 3DW units and 3 other units, then you can put those 3 DW units in reserve/DWA, and leave the other 3 on the table. Another help would be Land Raider - this way you have 4 units, sso 2 DW units can go into reserves/DWA

The reserve rule says you round up. So he would be able to reserve 2 of those 3 Deathwing as is :P

[cielaq]

I was sure I will get something wrong. :) 

[shabbadoo]

Happens to all of us. We are here to keep each other honest/informed.

Oh, and now I need to get three more boxes of Black Knights instead of two. Woe is me.

[JeffJedi]

Can we just write out the rule the way we want it and send it to GW?

 

Any model may replace his Storm Bolter and Powerfist (or Power Sword)...

[Interrogator Stobz]

I think Shabbz is correct in his logic about 'Model' vs 'Deathwing Terminator' in that GeeDub did not intend to leave DW Sgts out of the upgrade loop. It's just that even their FAQ team have halfwits as employees so here we go again .

Score= B- and falling fast.

:D

stobz

[Disruptor_fe404]

If we're writing in to GW to petition for changes, I'd rather give the Deathwing Sergeant access to the Armoury.

 

I agree that the DW Sarge being left out of the upgrade loop is probably unintentional though.

[Brother Amarel]

Dammit. I was so fixated on the title I neglected to fixate on the gear needed for the swap. Still, not a big deal, as the DW Sgt. is decent enough with whatever power weapon you want to give him. It could be that this will change, and may be chalked up to an errata cut-n-paste error (i.e. not realizing the differences between the two different unit compositions, and how using the same errata wording would work perfectly for the DW Command Squad, but would adversely change something on the basic DW Terminator Squad). So, two minor oddities, so far as I can tell, is not too bad, and the DW Sgt. thing isn't really that bad at all.

The changes in Deathwing Assault will alter some game play, but I guess we'll see more Dreadnoughts in Drop Pods used to put more forces on the ground sooner in all Deathwing armies, as units that *must* be held in Reserve do not count towards the 50% unit limit.

Also, Reserves are limited to 50% of units, rounded up, so three DW units in your army equals TWO in Reserves, not one.

The DW Sergeant does not have access to a choice of Power Weapons, he has a Power Sword.

[[TA]Typher]

The DWA ruling isn't completely surprising. It does make you wonder why they specifically worded it so strangely in the first place.

 

'Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits". To me, this says strikes me odd. It tells me that there is something I'm missing. I'm sure that the only reason people started the order of operations argument is the oddness of the wording on this.

 

Why not say "place them in DWA during deployment?" or "DWA units follow normal reserve rules?".

 

Hell you could have just not added the "Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits" phrase and the rule would have been easier to understand.

 

Of course this isn't a game breaker, but it's another reason to be unhappy with GW.

 

 

 

The Sgt. Debate on the other hand is really irritating, near game breaking for me. This doesn't make sense in any aspect. I could understand the PFG causing some imbalances, but the DW Sgt's loadout? golly gee?!? It's broken stuff like this that make me want to start looking into other games.

[elphilo]

The DWA ruling isn't completely surprising. It does make you wonder why they specifically worded it so strangely in the first place.

 

'Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits". To me, this says strikes me odd. It tells me that there is something I'm missing. I'm sure that the only reason people started the order of operations argument is the oddness of the wording on this.

 

Why not say "place them in DWA during deployment?" or "DWA units follow normal reserve rules?".

 

Hell you could have just not added the "Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits" phrase and the rule would have been easier to understand.

 

Of course this isn't a game breaker, but it's another reason to be unhappy with GW.

 

 

 

The Sgt. Debate on the other hand is really irritating, near game breaking for me. This doesn't make sense in any aspect. I could understand the PFG causing some imbalances, but the DW Sgt's loadout? golly gee?!? It's broken stuff like this that make me want to start looking into other games.

Because if we were able to do DWA in deployment then you could react to your opponent's deployment. Its a weak excuse but that's all I could think of. It is strong to be able to come down on turn 1 or 2 with no rolls. 

[[TA]Typher]

 

 

 

The DWA ruling isn't completely surprising. It does make you wonder why they specifically worded it so strangely in the first place.

 

'Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits". To me, this says strikes me odd. It tells me that there is something I'm missing. I'm sure that the only reason people started the order of operations argument is the oddness of the wording on this.

 

Why not say "place them in DWA during deployment?" or "DWA units follow normal reserve rules?".

 

Hell you could have just not added the "Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits" phrase and the rule would have been easier to understand.

 

Of course this isn't a game breaker, but it's another reason to be unhappy with GW.

 

 

 

The Sgt. Debate on the other hand is really irritating, near game breaking for me. This doesn't make sense in any aspect. I could understand the PFG causing some imbalances, but the DW Sgt's loadout? golly gee?!? It's broken stuff like this that make me want to start looking into other games.

Because if we were able to do DWA in deployment then you could react to your opponent's deployment. Its a weak excuse but that's all I could think of. It is strong to be able to come down on turn 1 or 2 with no rolls.

It is strong to all come in on turn 1 or 2 I agree, but against some armies that castle up, it really isn't very strong at all. DW armies have really been weakened in this edition. I own 50 Terminators... and only 1 of them has a powersword.

[Disruptor_fe404]

From my perspective, DWA never said that I could ignore the normal Reserve limits, and 40k is a permissive ruleset, so I never DWA'd an entire army/all my Deathwing.

 

I still want Deathwing Sarges to break into the Armoury and make off with combi-weapons and power mauls though.

[elphilo]

The DWA ruling isn't completely surprising. It does make you wonder why they specifically worded it so strangely in the first place.

'Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits". To me, this says strikes me odd. It tells me that there is something I'm missing. I'm sure that the only reason people started the order of operations argument is the oddness of the wording on this.

Why not say "place them in DWA during deployment?" or "DWA units follow normal reserve rules?".

Hell you could have just not added the "Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits" phrase and the rule would have been easier to understand.

Of course this isn't a game breaker, but it's another reason to be unhappy with GW.

The Sgt. Debate on the other hand is really irritating, near game breaking for me. This doesn't make sense in any aspect. I could understand the PFG causing some imbalances, but the DW Sgt's loadout? golly gee?!? It's broken stuff like this that make me want to start looking into other games.

Because if we were able to do DWA in deployment then you could react to your opponent's deployment. Its a weak excuse but that's all I could think of. It is strong to be able to come down on turn 1 or 2 with no rolls.

It is strong to all come in on turn 1 or 2 I agree, but against some armies that castle up, it really isn't very strong at all. DW armies have really been weakened in this edition. I own 50 Terminators... and only 1 of them has a powersword.

I agree, it isn't that strong now that it doesn't get around the 50% rule. I mean pure Drop Pod lists could do the same versus an opponents deployment. Was I expecting it to count? Absolutely. Was I hoping it didn't? Absolutely.

And I hear you on the terminator thing. Luckily I magnetized mine

[[TA]Typher]

 

The DWA ruling isn't completely surprising. It does make you wonder why they specifically worded it so strangely in the first place.

'Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits". To me, this says strikes me odd. It tells me that there is something I'm missing. I'm sure that the only reason people started the order of operations argument is the oddness of the wording on this.

Why not say "place them in DWA during deployment?" or "DWA units follow normal reserve rules?".

Hell you could have just not added the "Immediately place units in DWA after picking warlord traits" phrase and the rule would have been easier to understand.

Of course this isn't a game breaker, but it's another reason to be unhappy with GW.

The Sgt. Debate on the other hand is really irritating, near game breaking for me. This doesn't make sense in any aspect. I could understand the PFG causing some imbalances, but the DW Sgt's loadout? golly gee?!? It's broken stuff like this that make me want to start looking into other games.

Because if we were able to do DWA in deployment then you could react to your opponent's deployment. Its a weak excuse but that's all I could think of. It is strong to be able to come down on turn 1 or 2 with no rolls.

It is strong to all come in on turn 1 or 2 I agree, but against some armies that castle up, it really isn't very strong at all. DW armies have really been weakened in this edition. I own 50 Terminators... and only 1 of them has a powersword.

I agree, it isn't that strong now that it doesn't get around the 50% rule. I mean pure Drop Pod lists could do the same versus an opponents deployment. Was I expecting it to count? Absolutely. Was I hoping it didn't? Absolutely.

And I hear you on the terminator thing. Luckily I magnetized mine

I drop pod army is BETTER than DWA. you can place them closer without fearing the scatter. I played a Casting Tau a week ago and two of my three DW units scattered away. I had placed them 9 inches away from his units, fearing that I'd scatter into them. Only Belial was accurate (Because of his rule). This led the Tau player to piece meal my army. I conceded on turn three. If I had a Drop Pod army I could have dropped right next to them without fearing the scatter. That way even if you got a bad scatter you'd still probably get a charge on your next turn, unlike the DW.

but like I said.. this isn't game breaking, just disappointing that a pure DW army isn't really viable if you want to be competitive. I don't own a RW army, and never will. They just don't appeal to me.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Chip, chip, chip...they just keep chipping away...

Must want us to start new armies

[Disruptor_fe404]

Now, now, they're not that bad. They're still fun to play. Though I guess if the play is the only fun you get out of the hobby, then perhaps moving on would be best.

 

GW does want you to start new armies though!

[IndigoJack]

The only thing I think GW hates is assault deathwing terminators. They gave TH/SS a point cost on top of the point increase for DW terminators (for special rules that assault terminators can't use). Now your sergeant is stuck with a stock power sword, the worst CC option DW terminators have.

Um, they just brought our TH/SS into line with everyone else's. We pay a 4 points per model premium on our terminators, for which we get Deathwing Assault, Fearless, Preferred Enemy (CSM) and Vengeful Strike, only one of which is unusable by assault terminators; on top of which we can mix and match ranged and assault terminators within squads and give an assault terminator a Heavy 2 missile launcher if we wish. That doesn't seem like the result of "hatred" to me...

The question is, did we need to be brought inline with other codexes? I don't think so. I don't believe there was anything overpowered about them before. Split fire is a rule that assault terminators can't use either. We already had DWA and fearless, so the only new rules are PE(CSM), vengeful strike and split fire. Adding new special rules just bloats their cost and it doesn't make them a better unit. My point is GW is making tactical terminators a more efficient choice over assault terminators, and limiting the wargear the sarge can take really makes me feel like GW doesn't want to use assault DW at all.

Personally, I think the improvement to DWA alone is worth the extra 1pt per model compared with the previous 'Dex but, hey, that's just me

I'm struggling to think of a better term than "overpowered" for a free 3++ save that any other SM player would have to pay 5pts per model for - happy to take suggestions, though...

It's not"free, vengeful strike becomes useless and split fire as well unless you paid for a CML. Losing two special rules IMO makes up at least half the point cost of a TH/SS. You're paying 9 points more for a TH/SS terminator than C:SM and all your getting out of it is fearless, PE(CSM), and no combat squads and combat tactics. If we compare them to BA (who are the only other marines that have to pay for TH/SS so far), we still lose combat squads and we don't get red thirst for 4 more points. A difference of 9 or even 4 points per model is a bit much when your entire army is made up of such models and you have special rules that you can't even use. Despite having the option, it seems clear to me that GW does not want us playing TH/SS DW despite having the option.

IMO, the best way to fix it would be any model may exchange vengeful strike and split fire for LCs for free, and pay 2pts to upgrade to TH/SS. This would make TH/SS more reasonably priced without making them "overpowered." The only option that really takes a hit here is TH/SS armed CMLs.