New FAQ (April)

[Bryan Blaire]

They do accept questions directly on their website in the Gaming tab, Errata and FAQ Articles, then open the Shrine of Knowledge. It's down at the very bottom on the line or two before the Next button.

[Brother dean]

They fixed the RWCS but this is a bad joke cause to upgrade it to 5 bikes you need two boxes of 3 bikes so you have a spare bike that you pay but you could not use and you have 5 bikes Limit that prevents you to get another RWGL.

m2c

Well, that spare biker can now hang out with the other three boxes you bought to bring your Black Knights squad up to a full 10...

I think they missed a trick by not giving Black Knights FNP....   :p

 

I somewhat agree with your points on overcosted units but compared to what we had this codex is almost top tier...  

[BigGumbo]

Or you could build the spare bike as Apothecary or Champion so that you've got the models available but aren't forced to use them ;-)

[march10k]

Its a one wound model with a 3++ save it still fails 33% of the time.

...beats the pants off of making the save 33% of the time!

 

 

Problem though was never to make the LRs get the inv, but to extend the bubble to engulf multiple squads. Thats the reason you used the raider.

 

Ah, that was one use...covering two or three land raiders with a single PFG was another!

 

 

 

The only oddball thing is the power field only affecting the unit in the vehicle, without any mention of the vehicle itself.

 

I agree that it was probably supposed to cover the vehicle, but not extend beyond the hull.  C'est la vie!  I think dropping a knight to upgrade the PFG bearer from a passenger techie to a biking prescience libby (who cowers out of LOS behind one of the tanks during the approach march!) made my list stronger.  Rerolls to hit for one squad per turn, especially when popping smite, is nothing to sneeze at, and should the libby survive that long, I've also gained a decent speedy OBJ-contestor for the end-game.

 

 

• And I didn't put more than 50% of DW squads into reserve (rounding up) anyway - besides this to me is a rule clarification rather than an outright change.

 

This.  I didn't think DWA should get around the 50% rule, but when Adepticon FAQed it that way, I accepted it, pending a GW FAQ.  But you're right, it's a clarification, not a nerf (change).  The rule always was that way, it was just poorly understood.  People have a right to be butt-hurt that they didn't get their way, but it's not a change, they just had it wrong in the first place.

 

 

They fixed the RWCS but this is a bad joke cause to upgrade it to 5 bikes you need two boxes of 3 bikes so you have a spare bike

1.  Cry me a river.  GW pulls that "hot dogs in packages of six, buns in bags of eight" stunt across the board, they're not singling us out for that abuse.

 

2.  Make a bike character.  I find that I suddenly need a librarian on a bike. 

 

 

I have 5 x TH/SS sergeants. I believe that it was a mistake and it was made to clarify the Cyclone issue - anyone know an email address to ask GW about this? Do they accept FAQ suggestions?

 

Correction.  You have a critical shortage of sergeants, but you've gained 1.25 extra squads' worth of generic thundernators! 

[elphilo]

I agree that it was probably supposed to cover the vehicle, but not extend beyond the hull. C'est la vie! I think dropping a knight to upgrade the PFG bearer from a passenger techie to a biking prescience libby (who cowers out of LOS behind one of the tanks during the approach march!) made my list stronger. Rerolls to hit for one squad per turn, especially when popping smite, is nothing to sneeze at, and should the libby survive that long, I've also gained a decent speedy OBJ-contestor for the end-game.

You know what's funny? In your Army List thread I suggesting just dropping the techmarine and taking a terminator Librarian

While its not the same it is similar, great minds eh? :P :D

[march10k]

I agree that it was probably supposed to cover the vehicle, but not extend beyond the hull. C'est la vie! I think dropping a knight to upgrade the PFG bearer from a passenger techie to a biking prescience libby (who cowers out of LOS behind one of the tanks during the approach march!) made my list stronger. Rerolls to hit for one squad per turn, especially when popping smite, is nothing to sneeze at, and should the libby survive that long, I've also gained a decent speedy OBJ-contestor for the end-game.

You know what's funny? In your Army List thread I suggesting just dropping the techmarine and taking a terminator Librarian

While its not the same it is similar, great minds eh?

Hmmm...it is similar...but...a terminator librarian would presumably be inside the crusader, and therefore no 4++ for the tank! I'm looking forward to modeling a bike libby! My first thought was "hey, I have a bike chappy, and they can carry PFGs," but then I noticed the MASSIVE points differential between a libby and a chappy.

[elphilo]

I agree that it was probably supposed to cover the vehicle, but not extend beyond the hull. C'est la vie! I think dropping a knight to upgrade the PFG bearer from a passenger techie to a biking prescience libby (who cowers out of LOS behind one of the tanks during the approach march!) made my list stronger. Rerolls to hit for one squad per turn, especially when popping smite, is nothing to sneeze at, and should the libby survive that long, I've also gained a decent speedy OBJ-contestor for the end-game.

You know what's funny? In your Army List thread I suggesting just dropping the techmarine and taking a terminator Librarian

While its not the same it is similar, great minds eh?

Hmmm...it is similar...but...a terminator librarian would presumably be inside the crusader, and therefore no 4++ for the tank! I'm looking forward to modeling a bike libby! My first thought was "hey, I have a bike chappy, and they can carry PFGs," but then I noticed the MASSIVE points differential between a libby and a chappy.

True, my plan actually didn't include the PFG at all

And where are you going to get these extra points? I was scurrying to get the bike upgrade for the Techmarine lol

This is off topic so we should probably start posting in your list thread

edit: two thoughts in one sentence that creates a sentence that makes no sense? Say it ain't so elphilo!

[Upstartes]

I had a techmarine on bike that I modeled up back when I was playing vanilla marines. I've been pondering whether to tear him down to do something else with the bike. Now it looks like I'll be keeping him to run as a mobile PFG hiding behind a land raider.

 

I am glad that they tried to make the CML + TH/SS and CML + LC builds explicitly legal, but am disappointed that the new wording kicks the sgt in the pants. I think that was probably unintended.

 

It is interesting to me that they were willing to buff the RW command squad, but not to buff the overcosted flyers. I keep hoping against hope that a faq will come along and make that awesome-looking model worth buying and fielding. It is beginning to look like I will be hoping until 7th edition.

[Brother Immolator]

While we're on the subject of "making sense": how does it "make sense" that a flag can change the physical nature of a boltgun to make it more shooty? I'm not objecting to the rule, by the way, just pointing out the absurdity of claiming "but this doesn't make sense" when discussing the details of a fantasy wargame set 39,000 years into the future

Hmmm good point. Here's my explanation

http://i.imgur.com/d4eJ9xz.gif

By inspiring the marine about the gravity of the situation and switching to full auto would be a nice explanation IMHO

Problem

though was never to make the LRs get the inv, but to extend the bubble

to engulf multiple squads. Thats the reason you used the raider.

You mean multiple LRC like in my Bolter spam list right?

Well however t'was interesting that a crusader containing a standard of devastation may get a 4++ save...

I generally think that in 6th focusing on using a wall of high AV is not a good prospect. I at least field a decent amount of anti tank and I would welcome the challenge, even if all of them had said inv. You would be lacking in a lot of other departments.

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...

Mark my words: All of them will be stuck into this configuration come next codex.

Also I would remove the word 'premium' since what we get vs what the others loose is a ton.So in general I agree Gumbo on this.

Assault terminators are not the only ones out there.And we have a better replacement for them to boot.

[IndigoJack]

I had a techmarine on bike that I modeled up back when I was playing vanilla marines. I've been pondering whether to tear him down to do something else with the bike. Now it looks like I'll be keeping him to run as a mobile PFG hiding behind a land raider.

 

I am glad that they tried to make the CML + TH/SS and CML + LC builds explicitly legal, but am disappointed that the new wording kicks the sgt in the pants. I think that was probably unintended.

 

It is interesting to me that they were willing to buff the RW command squad, but not to buff the overcosted flyers. I keep hoping against hope that a faq will come along and make that awesome-looking model worth buying and fielding. It is beginning to look like I will be hoping until 7th edition.

 

I really want to think this is unintended as well, but upon closer examination of the FAQ, DW command squads and DW terminators even have different wording. In the FAQ, DW command squads says:

 

Any Deathwing Terminator can replace his storm bolter and

powerfist with:

- a pair of lightning claws ……………………………….free

- a thunder hammer and storm shield ………….5 pts

 

and for DW terminators it says:

Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist

with:

- a pair of lightning claws ……………………………….free

- a thunder hammer and storm shield ………….5 pts

 

Why bother with different wording for the DW squad unless you didn't want the sarge to have LCs or a TH/SS?

[Brother Immolator]

 

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.

The only thing I am thinking right now, is that they try to return the terminator sarge load out to the default.

That OFC does not make any sense if you consider how the unforgiven terminators operated.They were far from default.

I think Stobz(?) put it in the right context, namely they copy pasted the writting and the Company wide IQ of the company is rapidly falling.

It only requires a look at the deamon faq. Why they released that one is beyond me....And why didnt they adressed issues that needed clarification is beyond a normal brain...Either we are dealing with extraplanar entities or when you submit a resume to GW you have to write two things in it: I WANT TO STEAL EVERYBODIES LAUNCH (money) AND I BELIEVE GOOFY IS THE PERFRECT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENCY OF THE US / CHINESE CHAIRMANASHIP.

 

In bold so they can understand you mental abilities.

[Upstartes]

The way I read it, the different wording indicates that they wanted the sgt to be able to replace his weapons. The only models that have a storm bolter and powerfist are the ones that aren't a sergeant. So "any model" here is practically the same as "any Deathwing Terminator". The reason you would want it to say "any model" would be that you also wanted the sergeant to be able to take LCs or TH/SS. So, in my mind, this is even more evidence that there's a typo of sorts going on here, and that they really intended it to be "any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist or powersword..."

[BigGumbo]

By inspiring the marine about the gravity of the situation and switching to full auto would be a nice explanation IMHO

I'd hope that the Emperor's Finest would be aware of situational gravity without needing to check which flag's been brought out for an airing

"Holy crap, guys, they've brought the dakkapole today! Let rip!"

[Chaplain Lucifer]

The problem is that while you may read the intent, you can't change the words written... if a model doesn't have a powerfist and a storm bolter he can't exchange his gear

[Upstartes]

One way to look at it is that the rate of fire of a boltgun is not necessarily a reflection of how many shots it can fire at a time, but how many reasonably accurate shots it can generate in the hands of a professional soldier firing it according to his training. It may be possible to just "let 'er rip" and send more bullets flying, but when doing this you aren't going to really hit any more targets - or maybe you'll have an even worse chance of hitting because you're firing so wildly.

 

Then out comes the banner, and it fills the marines with such a sense of purpose and clarity, that they are able to fire that many shots but make more of them count. Maybe they're pushing their minds and power armor to their limits to hold their guns steady while putting out that much crazy firepower kicking their gun around and maybe even overheating it.

 

*shrug* Or, you know, magic.

[Upstartes]

Chaplain Lucifer:

Oh, I absolutely recognize that you gotta play the rules as written. I was just throwing in my 2 cents as to why I expect sometime in the future this will probably be corrected. Of course, GW FAQ cycle being what it is, we could be looking at a good number of months of living with this even if it is a typo.

[Bryan Blaire]

Chaplain Lucifer:

Oh, I absolutely recognize that you gotta play the rules as written. I was just throwing in my 2 cents as to why I expect sometime in the future this will probably be corrected. Of course, GW FAQ cycle being what it is, we could be looking at a good number of months of living with this even if it is a typo.

Why? It's a game. Maybe in a tournament or against an annoying FLGS guy you have to play rules as written, but against anyone else? Even a tournament may have some different rules, look at the AdeptiCon FAQ (I'm not sure if they've changed it immediately or not), it had different rules than this new FAQ (which actually aren't rules, even the doc says they are "official interpretation") does.

 

Heck, if you have the time and a good opponent, see if they will play two games: one using the "official rules" and one using the actual way you both enjoy the game, see if the results are different and which one you both agree is better. :D

 

That actually brings me to another point about rules: a lot of people are hung up on how things are written, but I've also seen some distaste for the iBooks stuff. However, in the Altar of War rules, it seems to indicate you can play one of the scenarios in there in place of the Eternal War scenarios and it doesn't really seem to need your opponent's consent according to the rules. It says that you roll off to see whether you play the opponent's wish for an Eternal War scenario or yours for an Altar of War scenario. Do tournaments make allowances for this? Would it upset you as a player to have someone come in and do that to you? It is written like this, so RAW, you really don't have a choice (I can get exact wording this afternoon if anyone wants it), and there are Altar of War scenarios for each new Codex in 6th Edition if I'm not mistaken, so Chaos Marines, DA, Chaos Demons, and Tau all have these new options to play already (and it seems that they are doing these for each we book), so rolling off to see who gets to use what scenario is only truly unfair to those Codexes not updated yet.

[elphilo]

That actually brings me to another point about rules: a lot of people are hung up on how things are written, but I've also seen some distaste for the iBooks stuff. However, in the Altar of War rules, it seems to indicate you can play one of the scenarios in there in place of the Eternal War scenarios and it doesn't really seem to need your opponent's consent according to the rules. It says that you roll off to see whether you play the opponent's wish for an Eternal War scenario or yours for an Altar of War scenario. Do tournaments make allowances for this? Would it upset you as a player to have someone come in and do that to you? It is written like this, so RAW, you really don't have a choice (I can get exact wording this afternoon if anyone wants it), and there are Altar of War scenarios for each new Codex in 6th Edition if I'm not mistaken, so Chaos Marines, DA, Chaos Demons, and Tau all have these new options to play already (and it seems that they are doing these for each we book), so rolling off to see who gets to use what scenario is only truly unfair to those Codexes not updated yet.

You're probably not going to get away with forcing your opponent to play one of the other missions from the iBook series in a tournament. Reason being is because most tournaments (at least the ones I know of) have a packet explaining the different missions for the different rounds. Yes some are pretty much copied and pasted from the BRB, but some are not. I know in the local tournament I played in January the TO used the eternal war missions but then set primary and secondary objectives. That way we didn't have one board with 3 objectives and another with 5. I also know the BAO uses a mix of multiple eternal war missions, but making some objectives count more so than others. While I haven't played a game with this mission set I hear its pretty popular for tournaments because it means you can win with secondary and tertiary objectives and not just having to rely on primary. So while it is RAW and you could make an oppoent play it in a friendly game (though I don't know how friendly that game will be if you force your opponent to play a mission set he has no knowledge of/want to play ), tournaments don't tend to say roll off and figure out which mission you're playing!

[Polythemus]

The way I read it, the different wording indicates that they wanted the sgt to be able to replace his weapons. The only models that have a storm bolter and powerfist are the ones that aren't a sergeant. So "any model" here is practically the same as "any Deathwing Terminator". The reason you would want it to say "any model" would be that you also wanted the sergeant to be able to take LCs or TH/SS. So, in my mind, this is even more evidence that there's a typo of sorts going on here, and that they really intended it to be "any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist or powersword..."

Ah think again Mr. Upstartes, "any model" clause only refers to dwcs, which doesnt have a sargent therefore, everyone comes with a storm bolter power fist. The normal dw has four that come with powerfists and one (the sargent) who doesnt. I think the intent is perfectly clear, no exchanges if your a sergent.

 

What baffles me slipghtly is that as of last night these changes were not refelected in the iBook version of the codex.

[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...

Mark my words: All of them will be stuck into this configuration come next codex.

Also I would remove the word 'premium' since what we get vs what the others loose is a ton.So in general I agree Gumbo on this.

Assault terminators are not the only ones out there.And we have a better replacement for them to boot.

Ok, so I think I'm just not explaining myself clearly. Tactical DW > assualt DW. Assualt DW lose vengeful strike and split-fire (unless they bought a CML) and pay the same cost per terminator (more with a TH/SS) as a tactical DW terminator. And now, the sarge is locked into PS/SB. Mixing and matching only decreases the efficiency of vengeful strike.

 

3++ storm shields are not the powerhouse people think they are. At adepticon this weekend my teammate and I killed 15 TH/SS terminators in 2 turns, leaving only Belial on the board for his half of the team. People who think they're overpowered either have an imbalanced list, or don't know how to effectively handle them.

[BigGumbo]

 

 

 

 

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...

Mark my words: All of them will be stuck into this configuration come next codex.

Also I would remove the word 'premium' since what we get vs what the others loose is a ton.So in general I agree Gumbo on this.

Assault terminators are not the only ones out there.And we have a better replacement for them to boot.

Ok, so I think I'm just not explaining myself clearly. Tactical DW > assualt DW. Assualt DW lose vengeful strike and split-fire (unless they bought a CML) and pay the same cost per terminator (more with a TH/SS) as a tactical DW terminator. And now, the sarge is locked into PS/SB. Mixing and matching only decreases the efficiency of vengeful strike.

 

3++ storm shields are not the powerhouse people think they are. At adepticon this weekend my teammate and I killed 15 TH/SS terminators in 2 turns, leaving only Belial on the board for his half of the team. People who think they're overpowered either have an imbalanced list, or don't know how to effectively handle them.

I think where your point of view is causing an issue is in the distinction between "Tactical" and "Assault" DW. This is a distinction that applies for vanilla SMs because they can't mix and match, but it simply is not relevant for DW as we can mix and match - if you choose to go all-assault weapons, then you are choosing not to make use of the rules that apply to ranged weapons. Nobody's forcing you to do this and, arguably, the new Codex and FAQ are encouraging these mixed squads rather than making mono-build DWT squads the most efficient. That you can choose not to make use of certain special rules does not mean that somehow GW has it in for you, or that your army list has been shafted, since you could equally well choose otherwise - whingeing about having more choices than anyone else seems a bit perverse to me.

 

If you think that your preferred choice of loadout is now overcosted, doesn't that suggest that you ought to be rethinking whether it's the best loadout?

[Upstartes]

 

The way I read it, the different wording indicates that they wanted the sgt to be able to replace his weapons. The only models that have a storm bolter and powerfist are the ones that aren't a sergeant. So "any model" here is practically the same as "any Deathwing Terminator". The reason you would want it to say "any model" would be that you also wanted the sergeant to be able to take LCs or TH/SS. So, in my mind, this is even more evidence that there's a typo of sorts going on here, and that they really intended it to be "any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist or powersword..."

Ah think again Mr. Upstartes, "any model" clause only refers to dwcs, which doesnt have a sargent therefore, everyone comes with a storm bolter power fist. The normal dw has four that come with powerfists and one (the sargent) who doesnt. I think the intent is perfectly clear, no exchanges if your a sergent.

 

What baffles me slipghtly is that as of last night these changes were not refelected in the iBook version of the codex.

 

No, in the FAQ, the entry for the normal Deathwing Terminator squad is reads "Any model may..." This is the same subject syntax that the normal Deathwing Terminator squad had prior to the FAQ, and is what allowed the sergeant to take the TH/SS prior to the FAQ. If they wanted to be crystal clear in their intent (rather than just clear in the sense of RAW), they could have modified it to read "Any Deathwing Terminator may..." They did not do this however. So it still stands that post-FAQ, there is no actual reason for the "Any model may..." to remain, since the only models meeting the criteria are those that are "Deathwing Terminators." GW has been pretty consistent in their use of the wording "Any model may...", and what they use it for is to signify that any model in the unit, regardless of whether or not they have different names and statlines, may take the option. Thus, while the RAW is clear, the RAI is not. 

 

Which only matters in forum arguments like this and maybe among good friends. Obviously, until something changes, sergeants can't take TH/SS or LC in official events.

[IndigoJack]

The best load out is obviously full shooty. I prefer a mix, but then vengeful strike loses efficiency (as I said earlier). Mixing is not as good as full shooting, that's my complaint. I feel like GW wants people who play DW with assault weapons to be at a disadvantage (vengeful strike and split fire being useless). The fact that not using special rules does not come with an equal trade off is the problem. I have to take vengeful strike and split fire, whether or not I'll use them.

 

There is nothing in either the FAQ or codex to suggest doing anything other than full shooty terminators. I would love to have one or two th/ss terminator units lead the charge, and feel like those assualt units contribute as equally as their shooty brothers do, not cost more and provide less.

 

I've learned through my many years of 40k that units need a purpose. Mixing them just dilutes that purpose. It's a strategy that has won me many more games than it has lost me.

[Upstartes]

I like having one guy with a TH/SS that I position to tank AP 2 shooting wounds while the termies are standing around after the deep strike. It's not foolproof, since your opponent can move around to get a better bead on the rest of the squad, but it does at least force him to do that. I've had success with this tactic, so I'll probably stick with it. However, I don't like to have more than one per 5 guys, because Vengeful Strike is too good to water down any further.

[CovertToaster]

I'm not worried by anything in this FAQ. I was initially, in fact I was mightily upset about the DWA ruling, and then I realised that if I DWA'd my whole force on turn two then I would lose the game by having no models on the board at the end of turn one so it was pretty clear that wasn't what they intended.

 

I like the versitility of DW squads and prefer not to run them in dedicated assault or tactical roles but I also prefer to foot slog so I can always keep the DWA option open as a tactic against gunlines. Therefore land raiders have never been an option for me, PS/SB sarges don't particularly worry me, and TH/SS+CML means I would have my heavy weapon on the front line which will never happen. So for me it's pretty much business as usual; except I still want to play pure DW but can't, oh well.

 

The only thing I'm doing is adjusting my current force slightly and using the boys in green to secure the LZ. So I'm adding a pair of whirlwinds and two scout units in camo cloaks then I have a good denial force that can take cover in or behind terrain if I want to DWA the rest with no worries about my army being destroyed piecemeal. Then in every other game I have enough TH/SS terms to make sure everyone can walk across the board and take fewer casualties in the opening round.

 

So I'm happy overall and my earlier angst about the codex has all but evaporated especially since I discovered that Wolf Guard terms with TH/SS are 63 points apeice, not a good day to be a puppy!