Clarifications/minor Changes request

[Brother Immolator]

I think the document first should focus on clarifications and in a distant second to any tweaks, incurring on the danger that it turns into a wish list and you have a bigger list of changes than clarifications.

IMHO if its a community effort I think it would be best to agree on what is the item that needs changing the most (or that feels more underpowered/underperforming/disappointing) and agree on the change and as for the rest just  clarifications.  I feel it will capture more of GW's attention if you have a "Hey, I really need to know how this works" attitude than a "I think this would work best like this" attitude.

 

Yeah I agree with what the man said, instead of proposing fixes for the flyers (example), that most likely have send them a gazilion emails about, focus on the things that need clarification.

 

I would also kindly (though that seems a bit of a lost cause nowdays in the forum) suggest that we dont post our opinions about said questions/clarifications unless we are absolutely sure as to the outcome.

 

That been said my questions regarding clarification are as follows:

 

--Can Belials Tactical Precision effectively be used with a librarians gating power (no scatter/missap), and if yes do I get to use vengefull strike each time I use it in conjuction with my terminators?

 

--Is there a step by step purchuce of equipment in the Dark Angels codex, or it all happens simultaneusly?

Example: Can I have an apothecary with an upgraded weapon he normaly doesnt have access to,  because I bought it at his veteran incarnation (which has access) first and then switched to an apothecary?

 

EDIT:

 

--Is a unit that doesnt take an HQ FOC slot but counts as HQ, considered viable for any kind of command squad unlocking?

 

--When a model is equiped with a stormshield it can not claim a bonus attack for been equiped with two close combat weapons. When

my model has two close combat weapons and a stormshield, is it viable for it, to claim the extra attack from the two close combat weapons AND the invurnerable save from the shield or it must choose which one it uses? Example: Company veterans according to the newest FAQ can have a chainsword, bolt pistol and a shield. Is it possible in the melee to use three attacks and the save or do I have to choose which one? And inn the case of charging, can I claim the inv save to brush off overwatch fire and then proceed to use my three attacks?

[Master Avoghai]

I think that DW sgt issue should be addressed by FAQ clarification or typo feedback rather than tweak proposal.

 

The rationnal behind that is again getting the maximum chance to get a positive answer. You always get more answer by saying "sorry, when you reworded the termi entry it was to allow CML with LCs right? I still can give LCs to my sgt no?"

 

Rather than saying : "hey guys I cannot play my sgt combos with your reflexionless rewording, fix it up!"

 

(Me? Caricatural? Nooooooo :p )

 

+++EDIT+++[

 

Very good points brother immolator, I'll add them to the list

[Brother Immolator]

Reworded the last part a bit, thanks Avoghai!

[Brother Landrain]

The wording on the order of upgrade operations is also important on the RWCS.

 

As I discovered that the Grenade Launcher is only available on a Black Knight, Same as the Standard.

Meaning that in the 3 man squad you ended up with GL on the Standard bearer if you took Champion and Apothecary.

 

With 5 man squad, not so much of an issue, but still a question.

[Brother Immolator]

The wording on the order of upgrade operations is also important on the RWCS.

As I discovered that the Grenade Launcher is only available on a Black Knight, Same as the Standard.

Meaning that in the 3 man squad you ended up with GL on the Standard bearer if you took Champion and Apothecary.

With 5 man squad, not so much of an issue, but still a question.

Hence why I only use the apothecary as an example and why I asked this on the premise of the entire codex

I found another one, I will add it to my other post too, just to keep em all tied up:

--When a model is equiped with a stormshield it can not claim a bonus attack for been equiped with two close combat weapons.

When my model has two close combat weapons and a stormshield, is it viable for it, to claim the extra attack from the two close combat weapons AND the invurnerable save from the shield or it must choose which one it uses?

Example: Company veterans according to the newest FAQ can have a chainsword, bolt pistol and a shield. Is it possible in the melee to use three attacks and the save or do I have to choose which one? And in the case of charging, can I claim the inv save to brush off overwatch fire and then proceed to use my three attacks?

[Brother Landrain]

The wording on the order of upgrade operations is also important on the RWCS.

As I discovered that the Grenade Launcher is only available on a Black Knight, Same as the Standard.

Meaning that in the 3 man squad you ended up with GL on the Standard bearer if you took Champion and Apothecary.

With 5 man squad, not so much of an issue, but still a question.

Hence why I only use the apothecary as an example and why I asked this on the premise of the entire codex

I found another one, I will add it to my other post too, just to keep em all tied up:

--When a model is equiped with a stormshield it can not claim a bonus attack for been equiped with two close combat weapons.

When my model has two close combat weapons and a stormshield, is it viable for it, to claim the extra attack from the two close combat weapons AND the invurnerable save from the shield or it must choose which one it uses?

Example: Company veterans according to the newest FAQ can have a chainsword, bolt pistol and a shield. Is it possible in the melee to use three attacks and the save or do I have to choose which one? And in the case of charging, can I claim the inv save to brush off overwatch fire and then proceed to use my three attacks?

Was pretty sure the wording states that if you possess a SS, you never get a bonus CCW attack, regardless if you use the save or not.

[Brother Immolator]

The wording on the order of upgrade operations is also important on the RWCS.

As I discovered that the Grenade Launcher is only available on a Black Knight, Same as the Standard.

Meaning that in the 3 man squad you ended up with GL on the Standard bearer if you took Champion and Apothecary.

With 5 man squad, not so much of an issue, but still a question.

Hence why I only use the apothecary as an example and why I asked this on the premise of the entire codex

I found another one, I will add it to my other post too, just to keep em all tied up:

--When a model is equiped with a stormshield it can not claim a bonus attack for been equiped with two close combat weapons.

When my model has two close combat weapons and a stormshield, is it viable for it, to claim the extra attack from the two close combat weapons AND the invurnerable save from the shield or it must choose which one it uses?

Example: Company veterans according to the newest FAQ can have a chainsword, bolt pistol and a shield. Is it possible in the melee to use three attacks and the save or do I have to choose which one? And in the case of charging, can I claim the inv save to brush off overwatch fire and then proceed to use my three attacks?

Was pretty sure the wording states that if you possess a SS, you never get a bonus CCW attack, regardless if you use the save or not.

RAI maybe, but I am conserned on the RAW. And RAW it reads: If the model is equiped with a storm shield and a close combat weapon. Not if its equiped with a bolt pistol, chainsword and a stromshield.

EDIT: Actual wording: The model cannot claim +1 attack for been armed with two melee weapons in an assault.

[Master Sheol]

IMHO first we should have fixed the faq...

- DW sgt can have again TH+SS or TLC or a good alternative could give them access to Terminator weapons to swap SB For a combiweapon (and/or being able to swap PS For a PA or PM)...

- PFG should be able to protect at least the transport of the model that has it...

 

Secondary things

- BS missiles could be S7 or armourbane

- DT rift cannon could be S5 AP4or5

- LSV plasma battery could be TL

- BoC could be Specialistic weapon instead Unweildy

 

I think that flakk missiles For DW CML is a bit Too much and if the could have them being the CML H2 they should cost 15/20 points For the upgrade.

[elphilo]

Was pretty sure the wording states that if you possess a SS, you never get a bonus CCW attack, regardless if you use the save or not.

Correct! Page 64 of the Codex Storm Shield Entry:

A model with a storm shield has a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the + 1 bonus Attack for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

Avoghai, Elphilo et al - I see the point, keep things minimal to try an get a result. Would you be happy submitting these then?

- Blackswords - add "Armourbane"

- DW Sgts - allow TH/SS or LC's

- DW CML - allow Flakk @ 10pts

I think we should actually just drop the Missiles in this conversation all together. GW is probably not going to consider changing them at this point in time. And, as was said earlier, if we add too many things they might see this as a wishlisting idea.

On a side note, I would never want them to add flakk to the CML, it would be just too expensive!

[Brother Immolator]

I would like to repeat that pointing out corrections or tweeks, in how the codex works as to oposed to asking questions will probably result sending this endeavour to the trash bin.

Chances are that gazilions of said suggestions are send to them daily to the point of risking instant recycling.

 

No offence, but honestly that how I would treat such a mail on 1000000th time.

[Brother Immolator]

 

Was pretty sure the wording states that if you possess a SS, you never get a bonus CCW attack, regardless if you use the save or not.

 Correct! Page 64 of the Codex Storm Shield Entry:

A model with a storm shield has a 3+ invulnerable save. In addition, a model equipped with a storm shield can never claim the + 1 bonus Attack for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.

 

 

Yeah but I am asking something else though, not if a stormshield and a chainsword are to be used to claim an extra attack. But whether I can use a chainsword, bolt pistol and the shield for different purposes, namely get my bonus attack from the CC weapons (mind you the bolt pistol is not a melee weapon technicaly) and the shield to get the inv at the same time.

[Master Sheol]

Well to get a inv Save ad keep the bonus Attack of 2 hth weapons there is already the combatshield...

the only thing you can do with a SS is to use a 2handed weapon and still get the 3++ Save...

you can find this clarification in vanilla FAQ about relic weapons (that are two handed weapons)

 

on the other side would be nice a clarification about a model with two hth weapons and a SS if the model can discard use of the SS inc save to get a bonus attack.

 

so a co.vet with SS and two hth weapons can use 2 attacks and 3++ OR 3 attacks without inv save...

[elphilo]

To me it looks pretty clear cut. If you have a Storm Shield, no matter what else you have, you can never claim an additional attack.

 

Now if you wanted to ask "If I have a SS, a Bolt Pistol and a Chainsword. Could I choose to forgo my invulnerable save and gain a bonus attack? If yes, in subsequent combat rounds, could I choose to forgo my extra attack and gain the SS invulnerable save?"

 

Though I see what you're saying, since the BP isn't really a CCW. But I don't think its going to be a favorable ruling :P

[plasmaspam]

Elphilo - Avoghai's OP included the proposal of a suggestion/request to change some Nephilim attributes to make it a viable AA unit, which is why folks are discussing it.  Why bother with this initiative if its just a RAW vs RAI that will yield little gain.  As we're seeing from the ongoing discussion,most queries like "can I get 2 attacks and a SS save" are already answered if read properly.

 

Why not ask for changes to the Nephilim?  They tweaked every existing flyer out there with DftS, and changed Helbrute points within about a week of release - there is precedent for them to make a change.

 

Further, consensus is that as it stands the Neph is useless as AA, with growing fears that DA are yet again just the guinea pig for next gen C:SM.

 

If we don't ask we won't get. As folk love to state, GW are not interested in balance or competition, they want to sell product. Let them know that would sell more if they made minor reasonable changes.

 

If the consensus is for a simple RAW v RAI FAQ then so be it but I see little value in just that.

[elphilo]

While I agree with your posts, I only said not to ask for too much because, as others have said it, it might be considered wishlisting. And I'm sure the developers get 100+ emails a day from people that are just wishlists. If we cut down on the "this is what I think will make this more viable" and bulk up on rules clarification, this FAQ email will be taken more seriously.

 

That's the only reason I said we should probably move on from it. If you want to talk about the viability of the Nelephim Jet fighter, there's at least 3 different threads floating around here on that topic. I'm also in the camp of saying it isn't a viable AA unit. Hell I was the one arguing for them to change it via an FAQ in one of those threads (bringing up the same points as you have, Hellbrute FAQ/Skies of Death revamp of flyers). So I support your ideas, I just don't think it's appropriate for this thread because it has evolved from suggestion/request to change into a rules clarification. That's all :)

[Master Avoghai]

Lots of good points again...

 

I would like to repeat that pointing out corrections or tweeks, in how the codex works as to oposed to asking questions will probably result sending this endeavour to the trash bin.

Chances are that gazilions of said suggestions are send to them daily to the point of risking instant recycling.

Maybe we can find a way to formulate the suggestions of the missiles and BoC like questions.

Random ex : when you say "ignore xxx" concerning the missiles special rule, shouldn't be there a special rule replacing it (like armour bane) ? Because s6 missiles on a vehicle killers sounds like if something is missing... :p

 

On the SS issue let me propose a question and tell me if it fits.

 

If I equip a model with a storm shield and 2 CCW (like vets or company master), may I choose to discard the 3++ save in order to benefit from the +1A bonus? If so, when should I announce it (when I declare the charge, when I put my model in contact, when I resolve my model's A...?) and am I allowed to change the following player's turn?

[plasmaspam]

Elphilo -I'm not here to debate the merits of the Neph, as you say that's been covered in depth with a clear consensus. 

 

We are all here to discuss - as the title of the topic says - minor changes. If this initiative is not going to petition for one minor change to the most disappointing unit in the whole codex, then why bother?

 

Put it another way - if GW offered a one-time gift of either RAW clarification or adding Armourbane to Blackswords, which would you take? Your answer should thus be the primary objective of this initiative.

 

We either go for what we really need, or just hedge for what we think we might get.

[elphilo]

Elphilo -I'm not here to debate the merits of the Neph, as you say that's been covered in depth with a clear consensus. 

 

We are all here to discuss - as the title of the topic says - minor changes. If this initiative is not going to petition for one minor change to the most disappointing unit in the whole codex, then why bother?

 

Put it another way - if GW offered a one-time gift of either RAW clarification or adding Armourbane to Blackswords, which would you take? Your answer should thus be the primary objective of this initiative.

 

We either go for what we really need, or just hedge for what we think we might get.

We're on two different pages then. Because I don't think adding armorbane to the Blacksword Missiles is a minor change. It would be a HUGE change in balance and actually make the Nephilim one of, if not, the best anti flyers in the game. Its why I consider it wishlisting, and as others have said, wishlisting should not be added to this FAQ. Now if I'm in the minority about that change not being as big a deal, then I will drop it and move on :)

 

As to your RAW clarification vs Armorbane to Blacksword Missiles, then I would 100% be behind RAW clarification. Before you make things more viable, you have to be crystal clear on the intentions of your other units. Because before this FAQ, there were many heated discussions about how Deathwing Assault work. And now that has been clarified its time to get clarified the other head scratchers. I would love to know 100% if my Chaplain could have Foe Smiter and Mace of Redemption before trying to get Armorbane to the Blacksword Missiles. But this is just personal preference now :)

[Master Sheol]

I do remember a costructive thread in year 2000 about 3rd Edition codex that ended in a revision that made it really enjoyable.

If we keep the proposals in costructive terms without asking Too much i hope we can have a good faq For this codex Too.

[Brother Immolator]

To me it looks pretty clear cut. If you have a Storm Shield, no matter what else you have, you can never claim an additional attack.

Now if you wanted to ask "If I have a SS, a Bolt Pistol and a Chainsword. Could I choose to forgo my invulnerable save and gain a bonus attack? If yes, in subsequent combat rounds, could I choose to forgo my extra attack and gain the SS invulnerable save?"

Though I see what you're saying, since the BP isn't really a CCW. But I don't think its going to be a favorable ruling

I dont want a favourable rulling, I just want a rulling. :P

I have never used the thing. I dont put SS in non terminator models. Too many points.

To me its a RAI VS RAW thing and can be interpented quite 'liberaly' as is with the techmarine and apoth issues. So its good to have a solid answer than quesswork me thinks :)

[Brother Immolator]

Elphilo - Avoghai's OP included the proposal of a suggestion/request to change some Nephilim attributes to make it a viable AA unit, which is why folks are discussing it.  Why bother with this initiative if its just a RAW vs RAI that will yield little gain.  As we're seeing from the ongoing discussion,most queries like "can I get 2 attacks and a SS save" are already answered if read properly.

 

First of all let me thank you for pointing  out in a diplomatic way that my suggestion is useless. Next time you might say it openly.

And to answer your question it is as usefull as an answer to: -Can a servitor unlock a command squad or Can I make my Deathwing apothecary carry a heavy flamer. Which BOTH are answered in the codex if you have open eyes, yet it didnt stop anyone from creating about 20 threads in a span of two months. So what I and you say are not worth anything if even a counter arguement, however far fetched is unless we have an official rulling.

 

So in the context of having many people asking the same again and again, despite 'the answer been there', we will gain something by simply putting off people from wondering.

On the otherhand making suggestions to completely invalidate/change something in the core of the codex only quarentees that your mail will be read as annoying nerd rage and will be tossed in the recycle bin.

 

TLDR: Let the OP (who is also making the initiave) decide what to include in it. All we do is making suggestions.

And by the RAW vs RAI is far from little gain. 90% of the questions in this game arise from said conflict.

For your consideration....

 

EDIT: On a side note: I was one of the first who suggested we dont make any discussion as to how or why our suggestions are to be included so we wont fill this thread with useless debate (which we do right now thanks to some people).

So once again why dont we leave the OP decide what will be included?

[elphilo]

To me it looks pretty clear cut. If you have a Storm Shield, no matter what else you have, you can never claim an additional attack.

Now if you wanted to ask "If I have a SS, a Bolt Pistol and a Chainsword. Could I choose to forgo my invulnerable save and gain a bonus attack? If yes, in subsequent combat rounds, could I choose to forgo my extra attack and gain the SS invulnerable save?"

Though I see what you're saying, since the BP isn't really a CCW. But I don't think its going to be a favorable ruling

I dont want a favourable rulling, I just want a rulling.

I have never used the thing. I dont put SS in non terminator models. Too many points.

To me its a RAI VS RAW thing and can be interpented quite 'liberaly' as is with the techmarine and apoth issues. So its good to have a solid answer than quesswork me thinks

Ahh, now I see where you're going with this

I still think my question I phrased should be submitted as well, since now I'm really thinking if that could be done or not

Elphilo - Avoghai's OP included the proposal of a suggestion/request to change some Nephilim attributes to make it a viable AA unit, which is why folks are discussing it. Why bother with this initiative if its just a RAW vs RAI that will yield little gain. As we're seeing from the ongoing discussion,most queries like "can I get 2 attacks and a SS save" are already answered if read properly.

First of all let me thank you for pointing out in a diplomatic way that my suggestion is useless. Next time you might say it openly.

And to answer your question it is as usefull as an answer to: -Can a servitor unlock a command squad or Can I make my Deathwing apothecary carry a heavy flamer. Which BOTH are answered in the codex if you have open eyes, yet it didnt stop anyone from creating about 20 threads in a span of two months. So what I and you say are not worth anything if even a counter arguement, however far fetched is unless we have an official rulling.

So in the context of having many people asking the same again and again, despite 'the answer been there', we will gain something by simply putting off people from wondering.

On the otherhand making suggestions to completely invalidate/change something in the core of the codex only quarentees that your mail will be read as annoying nerd rage and will be tossed in the recycle bin.

TLDR: Let the OP (who is also making the initiave) decide what to include in it. All we do is making suggestions.

And by the RAW vs RAI is far from little gain. 90% of the questions in this game arise from said conflict.

For your consideration....

EDIT: On a side note: I was one of the first who suggested we dont make any discussion as to how or why our suggestions are to be included so we wont fill this thread with useless debate (which we do right now thanks to some people).

So once again why dont we leave the OP decide what will be included?

Meow, kitty has claws

[Brother Immolator]

Meow, kitty has claws

Not familiar with term bro.

[elphilo]

Meow, kitty has claws :D

Not familiar with term bro.

eh, its not that funny to begin with so lets just move on lol

[Master Avoghai]

Well guys lots of hot debate... even on simple clarification question :D

Concerning the SS, I think that the wording is pretty clear concerning the fact that you don't gain any A for 2CCW...

BUT it's like the sgt upgrade or a techmarine command squad : there's still a little question concerning what if I choose not to use the SS?

So yes, the wording do imply that I cannot get +1A when I use it, but if I lose my 3++ maybe I can get it as per RAI... That's why I've formulated the question like this :

If I equip a model with a storm shield and 2 CCW (like vets or company master), may I choose to discard the 3++ save in order to benefit from the +1A bonus? If so, when should I announce it (when I declare the charge, when I put my model in contact, when I resolve my model's A...?) and am I allowed to change the following player's turn?

Is this wording well or do you feel I should change it?

As I discovered that the Grenade Launcher is only available on a Black Knight, Same as the Standard.
Meaning that in the 3 man squad you ended up with GL on the Standard bearer if you took Champion and Apothecary

Would you mind if I formulate it like that :

RW Black Knights : may characters (champion, hunt master, apothecary...) bear the RW Grenade Launcher?

On a general side : no need to feel nervous guys. We all want the same thing : a good codex to play with. Don't forget that it's a forum and all is written. We don't have tone, face expressions and so on to modulate our wording. aside to that english is not our native language for some of us (like me btw), hence don't take answer too personnal.