New FAQ (April)

[Brother Immolator]

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.

While in general Id agree with you, I would not be so quick to bury the Assault terminators. For one you can strap on a CML in there and not use the shield. In that context you are doing an excellent job of using the vengefull strike and split fire rules.

Lets face it, storm shield terminators have bigger problems to content with than rules, price or efficiency vs tactical terminators. Actually they have only one problem and that problem is called Deathwing Knights. The only things the Knights dont do better is to take a heavy weapon and score, but they outshadow them completely. The CML and scorring is the only saving grace the Terms have, but even with that in mind, its a big fat no for me.

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!"

Not exactly. Think of the medieval times and combine it with 40k mentality. If an army was fielding a standard it was considered to be a holy symbol and always inspired the troops to greater feats of valour. Heck in my countrys history there has been much blood shed over a standard/flag. Even in more recent history. Now given the fact that marines are carrying limited ammo , (I would guess two maybe three magazines each, each bolter can fire around 20/30 shots if I remember it right per mag) and operate in mondus operandi of each shot is a guarentied kill (precice shots in the midle of fighting, afforded by superior ability and genetics). Now continue to make the distinctions between fluff and game (as I have done above) and you will understand that the pole will be used to inspire the troops only on serius engagements, after all its a relic. So in order to protect the relic and because the marine knows that the mission MUST be important, else chapter command would not risk the deployment of such a symbol lightly, the marines plant themselves and switch to full auto. Nobody must come near the sacred standardm all must die.

At least thats my rationale.

[Bryan Blaire]

 

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 :P), tournaments don't tend to say roll off and figure out which mission you're playing! :P

That's cool. So tournaments really aren't RAW anyway, they have their own pre-stated methods of play. Guess that would qualify as RATOW? Rules As Tournament Organizer(s) Want(s)? Can you tell I don't play in tourneys much? :D

[elphilo]

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!

That's cool. So tournaments really aren't RAW anyway, they have their own pre-stated methods of play. Guess that would qualify as RATOW? Rules As Tournament Organizer(s) Want(s)? Can you tell I don't play in tourneys much?

Yeah I didn't start getting into them until very recently, so I completely understand. At first the "standardised" tourney missions didn't throw me for a loop. But now that you bring up RATOW, I'm perplexed as to why it didn't throw me for that loop :P :D

[Bryan Blaire]

Given some TOs potential creativity, I could see some of those being as fun, if not more, than an Eternal War based one.

 

Honestly, I think I'm cool with everything but the DW Sgt forced load out and the PFG ruling. I think it would be fine to give the vehicle a 4++ but nothing further and the Sgt thing just seems odd, but not completely devastating. I still want a PS/SS load out for a DW Sgt though.

[Master Avoghai]

 

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.

I actually have a total different reading...

 

Since you have no sgt in the command squad, why bother making such precision?

So, to me, if this precision is made in both DWCS and DW squads it's because it doesn't concern the sgt load up but rather the CML issue.

[Gumo9]

Have to say guys that I'm dissapointed with some of the reactions of people here about the FAQ.

 

The issue with the terminator sergeant having a power sword simply brings it in line with the current codex:space marines terminator sergeant which has very similar upgrade options/restrictions.

 

Simply ignoring the ruling or interpreting it to suit your own needs is not playing the game. Why bother with rules at all in that case.

 

This argument reminds me of the deathwing assault argument a while ago where people were twisting the rules to advantage themsevles. Not very sportsman like behaviour.

 

G

[Master Avoghai]

Gumo9

 

This is not a problem of reading the rules the way we like it's a problem of :

 

-1 We all have sgt with TH/SS or even LC. I've juste finished one 2 weeks ago. Sgt with various load out was a specific DA feature.

-2 You're talking about bringing in line but what sgt are you talking about? Do you forget that Vanilla Assault Termi sgt may have TH  OR LC? So? GW should also FAQ the Assalut termi entry to force the sgt to take a SB/PS load out

-3 And if it was GW first intend, why didn't they do like other options at 1st attempt ? Do we argue that we can give an Assault Cannon or a Chainfist to a termi sgt? No because the wording is clear. It states that only Terminator could do so, not Terminator sgt. Why hadn't they worded it the same way as the other entry option then? 

[Chaplain Lucifer]

Have to say guys that I'm dissapointed with some of the reactions of people here about the FAQ.

 

The issue with the terminator sergeant having a power sword simply brings it in line with the current codex:space marines terminator sergeant which has very similar upgrade options/restrictions.

 

Simply ignoring the ruling or interpreting it to suit your own needs is not playing the game. Why bother with rules at all in that case.

 

This argument reminds me of the deathwing assault argument a while ago where people were twisting the rules to advantage themsevles. Not very sportsman like behaviour.

 

G

Playing devils advocate here, people are just ignoring a rule that takes away their fun and makes them also waste their hard earned money. So why chastise so greatly some people here? If their gaming group can accommodate the fact that they want to play RAI instead of RAW, why not? I personally won't do it, but wouldn't lose sleep over it if a friend wanted to do it.

[march10k]

 

Have to say guys that I'm dissapointed with some of the reactions of people here about the FAQ.

 

The issue with the terminator sergeant having a power sword simply brings it in line with the current codex:space marines terminator sergeant which has very similar upgrade options/restrictions.

 

Simply ignoring the ruling or interpreting it to suit your own needs is not playing the game. Why bother with rules at all in that case.

 

This argument reminds me of the deathwing assault argument a while ago where people were twisting the rules to advantage themsevles. Not very sportsman like behaviour.

 

G

Playing devils advocate here, people are just ignoring a rule that takes away their fun and makes them also waste their hard earned money. So why chastise so greatly some people here? If their gaming group can accommodate the fact that they want to play RAI instead of RAW, why not? I personally won't do it, but wouldn't lose sleep over it if a friend wanted to do it.

Ah, but is it RAI or RAD?  Until the GW rules lawyers either affirm that they intended to take TH/SS sergeants away from us, or correct the correction, RAI is...murky.  It's possible that they issued an errata to affirm that TH/SS/CML is legal, but when an FAQ "can you put a CML on a TH/SS termie?  Yes!" would have been the simplest way to do so, that seems unlikely.  I think "oops, they made a mistake, I'm ignoring it" is wishful thinking, at best.  That said, nothing wrong with house rules!  Frinstance, if you bring rubric marines/terminators under my roof, they have 2 wounds, no 4++, and no AP3 bolters ;-)

[BigGumbo]

@BryanBlaire

 

Personally, I don't see the Eternal War mission scenarios as being part of the rules of the game in any case, so they aren't really relevant to the RAW/RAI discussion. They provide ready made, quick-start style frameworks for playing the game but there's no obligation to use them.

 

The benefit is that they are pretty balanced so there should be no need for prior agreement with your opponent as to which scenario you're playing; whereas with a custom scenario it would be good manners to check that your opponent is comfortable with the setup.

[Bryan Blaire]

One thing to remember that GW says about FAQs vs. Erratas: FAQs are "official interpretation", while Erratas are hard rules changes. In other words, if you are using FAQs to determine rules interactions, you are actually playing RAI. Yes, it's an official interpretation, but it is still "rules as interpreted."

 

In case anyone is unfamiliar with these statements:

What Are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?

It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.

 

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.

 

... Snip ...

 

FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

@BryanBlaire

Personally, I don't see the Eternal War mission scenarios as being part of the rules of the game in any case, so they aren't really relevant to the RAW/RAI discussion. They provide ready made, quick-start style frameworks for playing the game but there's no obligation to use them.

The benefit is that they are pretty balanced so there should be no need for prior agreement with your opponent as to which scenario you're playing; whereas with a custom scenario it would be good manners to check that your opponent is comfortable with the setup.

I'm not so sure that they aren't relevant to a rules discussion. After all, the mission special rules section in the BGB specifically references the Eternal War missions. In other words, the special rules you read for Reserves there actually only apply if you are using the Eternal War missions. Other officially published GW missions, such as the Altar of War series, use other official Reserves rules, some of which do not have the only 50% of units in Reserves restriction (and those official rules also mean that the FAQ interpretation of DWA is absolutely meaningless for those missions).

 

As you said, the Eternal War missions are pretty balanced. Therefore, if you are playing a mission based on an Eternal War mission, but aren't using all the rules for that mission from the rule book, or you, your opponent, both of you, or an outside person, such as a TO, has decided that you won't be using all the rules for those already balanced missions, then you are actually playing a custom, potentially unbalanced scenario. Unlike this, the Altar of War series are actually official GW products that they give you explicit instructions on how to choose to use them and official rules on how to play them, as well as specific official rules on how to use your Altar of War scenario list vs. your opponent's Altar of War scenario list (it's a list, just like the Eternal War mission list). The Altar of War series contain official missions, with all official rules:

“The six missions included in this book are designed to provide players with games that will really challenge their tactical ability. We’ve gone to some pains to make sure that each mission is as balanced as possible, and that they provide both sides with a new set of tactical problems to overcome.”

 

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 Altar of War: Dark Angels.” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2013. iBooks.

None of these Altar of War packs are expansions, such as Spearhead, Cities of Death, or Forgeworld are labeled.

 

I understand that people aren't familiar with these scenarios, but that doesn't make them any less official, nor does it make them custom content. This differs from altered Eternal War scenarios, such as those apparently played in tournaments or any house scenarios that fans may make up. I do very much believe that people should discuss the games they want to play before playing, but in a discussion on rules, the Altar of War packs are very much RAW.

[BigGumbo]

 

@BryanBlaire

Personally, I don't see the Eternal War mission scenarios as being part of the rules of the game in any case, so they aren't really relevant to the RAW/RAI discussion. They provide ready made, quick-start style frameworks for playing the game but there's no obligation to use them.

The benefit is that they are pretty balanced so there should be no need for prior agreement with your opponent as to which scenario you're playing; whereas with a custom scenario it would be good manners to check that your opponent is comfortable with the setup.

I'm not so sure that they aren't relevant to a rules discussion. After all, the mission special rules section in the BGB specifically references the Eternal War missions. In other words, the special rules you read for Reserves there actually only apply if you are using the Eternal War missions. Other officially published GW missions, such as the Altar of War series, use other official Reserves rules, some of which do not have the only 50% of units in Reserves restriction (and those official rules also mean that the FAQ interpretation of DWA is absolutely meaningless for those missions).

 

As you said, the Eternal War missions are pretty balanced. Therefore, if you are playing a mission based on an Eternal War mission, but aren't using all the rules for that mission from the rule book, or you, your opponent, both of you, or an outside person, such as a TO, has decided that you won't be using all the rules for those already balanced missions, then you are actually playing a custom, potentially unbalanced scenario. Unlike this, the Altar of War series are actually official GW products that they give you explicit instructions on how to choose to use them and official rules on how to play them, as well as specific official rules on how to use your Altar of War scenario list vs. your opponent's Altar of War scenario list (it's a list, just like the Eternal War mission list). The Altar of War series contain official missions, with all official rules:

I'm drawing a distinction between the rules that define the game Warhammer 40k, in which I include the rules found in the various Codexes which govern the building of an army, and those which just affect a particular game of Warhammer 40K - i.e. mission scenarios and their associated special rules. To me, RAW/RAI/RAD/whatever matters much more for the former than the latter, since they govern the mechanics of the game itself. If you change or dispense with too many of them, then you aren't really playing 40k anymore; whereas you can have any one-off scenario you like, with whatever special rules you like, and still be playing 40k.

[Dam13n]

Just a couple of points:

 

1 - the 5man RWCS isn't a terrible idea. You buy 2 boxes wihich gives you the CS plus 1 bike to use for the character they're supposed to be the retinue of.

 

2 - the intent with the DW Sergeant must surely be that they can access the Terminator Weapons section of the armoury, just like CSM Terminator Champions, but GW's FAQ gerbil isn't exactly good at his job. It's not like this is the first terribly written FAQ answer that's come out this year.

 

plus I looked at the Terminator unit entry and thought -

10 Terminators, 1SB/PS, 2SB/PF, 2PC/PF, 5TH/SS

- Allows you to shoot 2 plasma cannon shots on arrival with TL at 2 seperate targets, one of which also recieves 6 storm bolter shots to the face with TL, and that shooting gets to hide behind 5TH/SS (Deep Strike Tactic)

- You could also add in an allied vanilla libby with Gate (and null zone) to shunt them around the board getting TL every time they "deep strike"

 

Edited - failed to note lack of combat squads rule - sigh

 

Laterz...

[WatchCaptainAzrael]

The issue with the terminator sergeant having a power sword simply brings it in line with the current codex:space marines terminator sergeant which has very similar upgrade options/restrictions.

We're not Codex: Space Marines. Our TDA forces are one of our main shinies, that is not burdened by distinction between tactical and assault in its formation. That's like saying Blood Angels Assault Squad Sarges should have carbon-copy loadouts from C:SM.

[notmattlythgoe]

Just a couple of points:

 

1 - the 5man RWCS isn't a terrible idea. You buy 2 boxes wihich gives you the CS plus 1 bike to use for the character they're supposed to be the retinue of.

 

2 - the intent with the DW Sergeant must surely be that they can access the Terminator Weapons section of the armoury, just like CSM Terminator Champions, but GW's FAQ gerbil isn't exactly good at his job. It's not like this is the first terribly written FAQ answer that's come out this year.

 

plus I looked at the Terminator unit entry and thought -

10 Terminators, 1SB/PS, 2SB/PF, 2PC/PF, 5TH/SS

- Allows you to shoot 2 plasma cannon shots on arrival with TL at 2 seperate targets, one of which also recieves 6 storm bolter shots to the face with TL, and that shooting gets to hide behind 5TH/SS (Deep Strike Tactic)

- Alternatively you take a LR and combat squad them giving you 2 units (ideally scoring thanks to Belial)

-- 5TH/SS (with no character to be challenged - Assault units benefit from not having a character more often than not, IMHO) in the LR and a shooty unit with 2 heavy weapons to blast the enemy, plus a character to challenge - and therefore soak up a combat character - if the enemy make it across the board to you.

-- Ideally you could add in an allied vanilla libby with Gate (and null zone) to shunt the shooty unit around the board getting TL every time they "deep strike"

 

Laterz...

We can't combat squad our termies.

[cielaq]

Too bad DW can't use combat squad...

[BigGumbo]

Off the top of my head, I thought Vengeful Strike applied specifically when arriving from reserves so it wouldn't be multiply applicable to uses of Gate. May be misremembering, though...

[notmattlythgoe]

Off the top of my head, I thought Vengeful Strike applied specifically when arriving from reserves so it wouldn't be multiply applicable to uses of Gate. May be misremembering, though...

If it did work it would be even sweeter with Belial also attached and 2 HFs in the squad.

[Upstartes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but access to the Dark Angels armory still wouldn't allow you to take a TH/SS sergeant, because you can't buy a storm shield from the armory. Is there something that lets you buy a storm shield from the armory that I'm just missing?

 

I guess you could have a TH/Conversion Field sergeant.

[Dam13n]

IIRC it says on a turn you arrive from deep strike.

 

Gate specifically states that your unit is removed from the table then arrives via deep strike at a point up to 24" from where they left.

 

Hence - you've arrived via deep strike, so vengeful strike applies.

 

Upstartes - I believe you're right on that one, why GW neglected to include it is beyond me.

[Brother dean]

Vengeful Strike Pg 44: "arrives via Deep Strike"

Gate of Infinity from the BGB: "immediately arrives using the rules for Deep Strike"

 

Neither specify "from Reserves"

 

Maybe needs an FAQ but seems clear to me, The odds of rolling Gate as your power would work against this tactic being a regular thing.  I should also point out that plasma cannons make mincemeat of grouped termies. :cries:

[katarn]

You don't have to roll for gate you can just pick in C:sm

[BigGumbo]

Vengeful Strike Pg 44: "arrives via Deep Strike"

Gate of Infinity from the BGB: "immediately arrives using the rules for Deep Strike"

 

Neither specify "from Reserves"

 

Maybe needs an FAQ but seems clear to me, The odds of rolling Gate as your power would work against this tactic being a regular thing.  I should also point out that plasma cannons make mincemeat of grouped termies. :cries:

Cool, thanks for correcting me!

[Master Avoghai]

.

 

Upstartes - I believe you're right on that one, why GW neglected to include it is beyond me.

Just because the access to SS is provided in the GM entry.

 

Obviously GW wanted to limit the access of SS to GM only (+ imagine the cost of a sgt who would pick the SS/TH from the armoury 80pts ! O_o )

[Diavlo]

Guys let's try and ask GWFAQ team for hotfix with that Deathwing terminators.

 

My proposition:

Instead of:

 

“• Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist

with:

To

“• Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist/powersword

with:

 

gamefaqs AT gwplc.com