Clarifications/minor Changes request

[Brother Immolator]

Yep it sounds good. Honestly phrase it as you see fit. I only dropped a couple of suggestions, that had arisen durring my gaming time. No need to include them if you feel inclined to do so.

[elphilo]

I like the first one. As to the Black Knights make it this, Ravenwing Black Knights and Ravenwing Command Squads. Since they are two different units.

[Master Avoghai]

Yep it sounds good. Honestly phrase it as you see fit. I only dropped a couple of suggestions, that had arisen durring my gaming time. No need to include them if you feel inclined to do so.

Well I prefer ask your opinion. first because it's not my native language, then because if we reproach GW poor wording, then we could not adress them a list of questions poorly phrased... ;-)

 

+++EDIT+++

 

Questions added + modification for the missiles and the blade added like a question.

 

btw, I've added a question concerning the rift cannon and blast weapon in particular. In the flyer section, they say that ground troops only hit flyers on a 6 and that blast weapon may not shoot at flyers. The problem is : does this limitation come from the snap shot rules (hence a reminder) or is this an addition that applies also to flyer in AA mode?

 

Don't seem to find a clear answer on that point...

[plasmaspam]

Elphilo - respect man; if you (or anyone else) prioritises clarification over (what I would argue as) reasonable balancing, I'm not here to tell you you're wrong (even if I think it... )

Immolator - "useless" - your words dude, not mine. People other than myself in this thread seem keen on petitioning for positive changes to the Nerf Neph, but twice you've "reminded" people you're against the idea - with all due respect i'm not going to drop the idea, I think it's a top priority. But you're right - this is Avoghai's baby, and i'll support him in the endeavour (even if it is whilst sitting in the corner sulking )

[elphilo]

btw, I've added a question concerning the rift cannon and blast weapon in particular. In the flyer section, they say that ground troops only hit flyers on a 6 and that blast weapon may not shoot at flyers. The problem is : does this limitation come from the snap shot rules (hence a reminder) or is this an addition that applies also to flyer in AA mode?

 

Don't seem to find a clear answer on that point...

I think Page 81 of the BRB is pretty clear:

Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weaponh ast he Slryfire special rule,as described on page 42).Template, Blast and large Blast weapons cannot hit flyers in Zoommode.

Emphasis mine. So it means even if you have skyfire, you cannot hit a zooming flyer with a template/blast type of weapon.

[Agerjag]

Changes look mostly solid to me, some things seem like wishlisting though. A point I wanted to bring up in response to some earlier posts about the hellbrute change is that I was under the impression that the only reason the points on it dropped is because some codex had it different then others. Like the english codex was different from other languages codex.  They have made a ton of erratas over time and while i certainly wish that they would just drop the price on things (esp our flyers) but they usually save that for the next codex as we have seen with bikes of late. 

[pueriexdeus]

While this Clarification/minor Change request is interesting to see how people feel on specific items, I would not hold my breath waiting on GW to address them. It took years for them the bring the SS & CML on line during V4.

[Bryan Blaire]

I've pointed out previously that a bolt pistol (any pistol actually) is counted as a Melee weapon during close combat. It should be in the main rule book under pistols in CC, but I can find the reference later or see of I can search it here. It makes it vey clear cut: with an SS, a Chainsword and a bolt pistol in CC, you have two Melee weapons and an SS. SS keeps you from claiming the bonus for two Melee weapons, not just when you choose to use it, but at all. If you had a 2LC with an SS, he wouldn't get the +1A ever, same for BP/ChnSwrd/SS.

[Polythemus]

Here are my thoughts on this. The intent of this thread has two purposes, one is that we try to make the dark angels codex the best codex it can be, while adhering to the balance structure we all wish for within the structure of the game. Second is to get rule clarifications to changes which may or may not have been intentional based on recent faqs.

 

Now on the idea of "wishlisting". In my household the motto i was always taught was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." which just means that people who are vocal in their pursuit of a goal are going to be a lot more successful than those who are silent. I see a couple of things happening here. The first is that the recent faq has made the black knights more powerful. People buy units that are powerful (example see necron nightsythes, helldrakes). Did people own tons of night scythes before 6 ed? No they did not, 6th ed was an "faq" that made them superpowerful. Did people own tons of helldrakes before that faq? No, and I suspect their was a bump in purchases after that faq as well.

Inspite of its outward appearence of idiocy, GW is quite a saavy company from a marketing perspective. It wants to sell flyers, because they are expensive and powerful. Black knight knights are also expensive and powerful and the new faq makes them more so. I fully expect this recent faq to boost sales of black knights (are we seeing the pattern here?) Now this brings us to the nephillim.

 

The nephillim is currently outfitted in a way that makes its utilization require at least two nephillims to achieve "air superiority". That is because its rules make this so. It has a special rule to increase the number of immobilizations to enemy flyers but only a one shot weapon that can reliably achieve this, yet the points cost of this unit relative to its role make this unit untenable to all members of the 40k community. Placing it within the context of its peers within the 40k universe it is incredibly poor as a flyer. As a member of the dark angels customer base, i can assure you that improving the rules for the nephilllim, will improve its outlook for me personally and for the community gernerally. Sugguestions for its improvement then are excellent opportunity to let games workshop know this (though im willing to bet they already do) because it lets them know that a large group cares is interested in their product and its improvement to the tune of £ and € and $ and ¥ (that last ones for you March!)

 

With the advent of allies within 40k there are many new an excellent ways to get different units from various armies ontop the tabletop. I therefore sugguest that it is in the interest of the dark angels players and the general 40k customer base, to request a modification to these rules as there is considerable revenue to made by improving the rules for the nephilim.

 

Short of changing the points cost or weapon rules/strength i think you could improve the nephillim by allowing it to be taken in a squadron of up to three, where each additional nephillim is 100pts. That would get me interested. And it makes you buy more nephillims so GW wont lose out on anything and it fits the model identical to the current RWCS FAQ.

 

While i think that getting improvement in rule pricing would be nice for the relics, i think that they are probablly less likely to be changed since its not within the financial interest of the GW to change them. Then again "the squeaky wheel gets the grease..."

[Brother Smoke]

You have my sword, or email, whatevs

[Master Avoghai]

I think Page 81 of the BRB is pretty clear:

 

Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model or weaponh ast he Slryfire special rule,as described on page 42).Template, Blast and large Blast weapons cannot hit flyers in Zoommode.

Emphasis mine. So it means even if you have skyfire, you cannot hit a zooming flyer with a template/blast type of weapon.

Or the other way to read it is that the rules reminds that since blast weapons cannot do snap shots they cannot shot at a flyer.

But since a flyer shooting another flyer don't make a snap shot the limitation for blast weapon not apply.

 

Again it SEEMS clear but I still have a doubt because GW could have added a wording like blast weapon NEVER can shot at a flyer, even if they have the sky fire rule. :/

[elphilo]

I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The rule specifically states: Template, Blast and large Blast weapons cannot hit flyers in Zoommode. 
 
There's nothing about snap shooting in that sentence. There's nothing about one flyer shooting another flyer. It just makes Zooming flyers immune to Template, Blast and large Blasts.

[BigGumbo]

I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. The rule specifically states: Template, Blast and large Blast weapons cannot hit flyers in Zoommode. 

 

There's nothing about snap shooting in that sentence. There's nothing about one flyer shooting another flyer. It just makes Zooming flyers immune to Template, Blast and large Blasts.

Exactly right, no ambiguity at all.

 

FWIW, the Storm Shield entry is similarly unequivocal: a model equipped with a Storm Shield can never claim the bonus attack for having two melee weapons in CC.

[[TA]Typher]

 

quote=Master Avoghai Rules clarifications :

[*]Does a techmarine on bike have access to a Ravenwing command squadron?

 

I originally thought the rule was clear on this, but after reading this and checking the book I found that you are correct. It's ambiguous. If you use the RAW I would say yes. The Techmarine is a HQ choice. The rule on taking the Ravenwing command squad says nothing about the need to take a allocation slot, just that it has to be a HQ unit, which it is. As long as he's on a bike you're golden. Sadly, after reading how the techmarines are viewed within the unforgiven this seems like something counter to the fluff, but the RAW seem clear.

 

[*]Does the servitors retinue unlock command squads?

 

After reading what happened in the April FAQ RAI don't seem to follow rational thought, so I'd side with the RAW, which would let you take the command squad. Again, the wording for the requirement is "for each HQ Chioce", it says nothing about force allocation. Going by the RAW you could. Of course it doesn't make sense in terms of fluff, but that's GW's fault not ours.

 

[*]More generally, is a unit that doesnt take an HQ FOC slot, count for any kind of command squad unlocking?

 

The RAW says nothing about this that I can find. The RAI would dictate that you wouldn't but RAI vs RAW = RAW wins.

 

[*]May I equip the same character with 2 different relics ? (The "one" wording is ambiguous).

 

Pg. 67 states that "one of each of the following Relics may be chosen"

Pg. 91 states that "One of each Relic may be taken per army"

 

Seems pretty clear. You can take one of each relic. So if you had enough ICs you could take them all as far as I can see. Am I missing something here?

 

[*]Same question with melee weapons.

 

I don't understand this question. Are you asking if they can take multiple melee weapons? or multiple similar weapons?

 

[*]May I exchange the storm bolter/power sword of the terminator sergent by a pair of LC or a thunder hammer/storm shield for the appropriate cost?

 

....ugh. yes, you SHOULD, but the RAW > RAI. So unless they change it, no. What bothers me the most about this is that is came out of nowhere. I have never heard about anyone complaining or confused by the Sgt's loadout before. This was a HUGE F U to all the people (like me) that bought the DW box after the codex came out and legally crafted the unit as the very clear RAW stated. I'd understand if it was a gray area, but it wasn't.

 

On a side note, why can't a Sgt. mix/max? Taking a Power axe and Storm Shield for example. This is far from OP. I'd understand if the DW was crushing people in tournaments, but we all know this just isn't the case.

 

[*]What is the use of the Power Field Generator affecting the passengers since they cannot be targeted? Do you mean that it affects vehicle and the passengers but not a friendly unit within 3"?

 

Again you are asking for the RAI. The RAW was clear. It doesn't not effect the vehicle while it is inside.

 

This was a horrible ruling, as other armies can have the same effect. People seem to forget that not only is the PFG a 30 point item, but at the VERY least you have to spend another 50 points to buy a character to hold it (cheapest IC is a Techmarine), making it actually a 80 point item! I'd understand not letting it extend 3" from the hull, but saying that it doesn't work on the vehicle? For 80 points it better do something amazing! Wash my car, rub my back or do my laundry.... something!

 

[*]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?

 

Good question. Dunno.

 

[*]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?

 

I don't think so. It seems pretty clear that they can't. I don't understand why not as this would only add to the flavor of kitbashing and in the end make GW more money, without making the model OP, but whatever.

 

[*]Ravenwing command squad and black knights : may characters (hunt master, apothecary and /or champion) received the squadron grenade(s) launcher(s)?

 

It says "one Ravenwing Black Knight" can upgrade. The Apoth and the Champ has their own stat line so No... they can not.

 

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?

 

 

Great question! It would make a spendy model, but it's a great question. The fluff/ Common Sense would dictate that you could, but the RAW on the Storm Shield says "a model equiped with a storm shield can NEVER claim the +1 attack for being armed with 2 melee weapons". It says nothing about being equiped, but not using it. It just says equiped. The RAW would dictate no. Again, I'd like to use common sense and just go with the RAI, but the recent FAQ was so left field that it would be wise to stick strictly with the RAW.

 

Nephilim : When you say "delete Missile lock" 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...

 

I don't know why they made the DA so subpar. I was originally excited to buy one, but after watching a few Batreps and doing some research they just are not worth the points or money. I find it odd the GW didn't make them a 'must have'. As it stands I can't see myself buying one, just to have it sit on my shelf. I like your idea though.

 

[*]The Blade of Caliban. The unwieldy rule combined with a weak inv save and a low number of model in the command squad prevents champion to use and result in non fielding this great model. What about replacing unwieldy by specialist weapon?

 

Again great idea! I would prefer if the sword was more like a honour blade from the C:SM, giving a better invul save in a duel. If you made it a specialist weapon would be ok too and is probably a better idea them mine :)

[Brother Landrain]

Typher" post="3358254" timestamp="1367018546"]

 

quote=Master Avoghai Rules clarifications :

• Ravenwing command squad and black knights : may characters (hunt master, apothecary and /or champion) received the squadron grenade(s) launcher(s)?
• It says "one Ravenwing Black Knight" can upgrade. The Apoth and the Champ has their own stat line so No... they can not.

   

  The Problem is...

   

  A Black Knight can upgrade to using the RWGL.

  Then A Black Knight (already upgraded to a RWGL, still a Black Knight) can then be upgraded to an Apothecary or a Champion.

   

  BOTH upgrades are 100% legal.

  It doesn't say anything about only Black Knights without RWGL's.

  It is the same order of operations issue as the CML with a TH/SS.

   

  If you added the CML first, and then replaced all weapons with TH/SS or TLC, you lose the CML, which was the argument some were making.

[[TA]Typher]

 

<p>

Typher" post="3358254" timestamp="1367018546"]

&nbsp;

quote=Master Avoghai Rules clarifications :

• Ravenwing command squad and black knights : may characters (hunt master, apothecary and /or champion) received the squadron grenade(s) launcher(s)?
• It says "one Ravenwing Black Knight" can upgrade. The Apoth and the Champ has their own stat line so No... they can not.

   

  The Problem is...

   

  A Black Knight can upgrade to using the RWGL.

  Then A Black Knight (already upgraded to a RWGL, still a Black Knight) can then be upgraded to an Apothecary or a Champion.

   

  BOTH upgrades are 100% legal.

  It doesn't say anything about only Black Knights without RWGL's.

  It is the same order of operations issue as the CML with a TH/SS.

   

  If you added the CML first, and then replaced all weapons with TH/SS or TLC, you lose the CML, which was the argument some were making.

 

If your argument was correct then a command squad Apoth's could have a weapons only available to normal troops. it's the same argument. I see what you are saying, but I think an argument could be made both ways. I mean, who is to say which order you do those things? It's not clear and after the poor loadout options for the DW Apoth's and the lame redux of the DW Sgt's loadout I doubt The a new FAQ would side with you. The overwhelming trend on the last FAQ was completely negative. DWA argument was a order of operations thing too... and see how that turned out.

 

As for the CML argument.. they FAQ'd that when they screwed the Sgts over. There is no more gray area there.

[Master Avoghai]

[TA] Typher : no offense there but I think you miss th point of this thread. All arguments you brought have been seen again and again and do not have found an answer for different reasons.

 

 

As for the CML argument.. they FAQ'd that when they screwed the Sgts over. There is no more gray area there

 

And that's the point! There WAS a grey area that GW resolved. Same grey area exist for BK so we ask them to resolve it.

[[TA]Typher]

[TA] Typher : no offense there but I think you miss th point of this thread. All arguments you brought have been seen again and again and do not have found an answer for different reasons.

 

 

As for the CML argument.. they FAQ'd that when they screwed the Sgts over. There is no more gray area there

And that's the point! There WAS a grey area that GW resolved. Same grey area exist for BK so we ask them to resolve it.

I understand the point, sorry, but I'm a little cynical after the horrible april faq. Asking for two clarifications and getting additional rule changes that were not in question makes me wary of asking any further questions.

 

I do think that some of the ones you asked don't exactly need clarification. They seem pretty clear. Whether we like the answer or not is a different question.

[Apahllo]

So I like this kind of initiative but I feel 2 points made in OP are unnecessary.

 

The storms shield is addition equipment, it doesn't replace a weapon in the company vets or master entries so you can elect to use your pistol and cc weapon.

 

The rift cannon is a blast weapon and can't target fliers. But I do feel they deserve to modified and improved.

[Master Avoghai]

 

[TA] Typher : no offense there but I think you miss th point of this thread. All arguments you brought have been seen again and again and do not have found an answer for different reasons.

 

As for the CML argument.. they FAQ'd that when they screwed the Sgts over. There is no more gray area there

And that's the point! There WAS a grey area that GW resolved. Same grey area exist for BK so we ask them to resolve it.

I understand the point, sorry, but I'm a little cynical after the horrible april faq. Asking for two clarifications and getting additional rule changes that were not in question makes me wary of asking any further questions.

 

I do think that some of the ones you asked don't exactly need clarification. They seem pretty clear. Whether we like the answer or not is a different question.

 

 

Well there are still interpretatios

 

Ithink it's all a problem of intention:

 

GW's intention seems to have reworded the terminator entry not to forbid sgt to get other weapons but to allow to take LC with CML

GW's intention doesnt' seem to intend allowing tech to unlock command squads but the wording allow to take RWCS

etc etc

 

To give credit to GW, the wording of their books became a LOT better than what it used to be. But as they become sharper, the ones who try to abuse from the rule do to. And also by becomig sharper, they sometimes forbid things they intend to allow.

 

Don't forget that GW used to refuse to publish FAQ and force people to play by RAW (Jervis time *sigh*), I prefer having a chance to ask a question than passing my hobby arguing from RAW.

So I like this kind of initiative but I feel 2 points made in OP are unnecessary.

 

The storms shield is addition equipment, it doesn't replace a weapon in the company vets or master entries so you can elect to use your pistol and cc weapon.

 

The rift cannon is a blast weapon and can't target fliers. But I do feel they deserve to modified and improved.

 

 

That's why I think we have to ask the questions :

 

The SS : most of us think the exact contrary. The wording says that you cannot claim the +1A bonus if the model BEARSa SS (not USES), so...

 

The rift cannon : it comes just after explaining that you resolve shot against flyer like snap shots, and snap shots don't work with blast weapons. so is it an additionnal rule for flyer weapon or simply a reminder about snap shots?

[elphilo]

Got a new FAQ!

 

Does the Rad Charge make it so the Ravenwing Black Knights can immediately cause instant death wounds to T4 (now T3) with their plasma talons?

 

First off, that sentence is phrased horribly and I apologize for that :P

 

Second I know most of us say they do, but this is probably one of those issues that REALLY needs to be clarified. 

[Master Avoghai]

You've already seen people claiming that they don't?

[elphilo]

You've already seen people claiming that they don't?

See this thread. Its more of a thing you can tell your opponent that this was the intention. I know its applied on the hit, but some opponents might not agree with it.

[Master Sheol]

Rad grenades DONT need a FAQ... They apply their effect if they HIT so when the plasma talons roll to wound the -1T is already in place... It's all clear about them... If someone isnt able to read a clear rule maybe he should consider a easier game... like tic-tac-toe...

Claiming FAQs for things that are already clear in our codex simply posticipate the solutions wrong and underpowered things we have in our codex...

[elphilo]

Rad grenades DONT need a FAQ... They apply their effect if they HIT so when the plasma talons roll to wound the -1T is already in place... It's all clear about them... If someone isnt able to read a clear rule maybe he should consider a easier game... like tic-tac-toe...

Claiming FAQs for things that are already clear in our codex simply posticipate the solutions wrong and underpowered things we have in our codex...

I disagree. FAQs are frequently asked questions. I've seen this question pop up enough times, to me at least, to warrant an FAQ. Rules can be interpreted differently and the whole point of an official FAQ is to clear up these different interpretations. Now I'm not saying I think they don't, I do think they work that way, but hell, the first post asks if one can use a large blast weapon against another flyer when the BRB specifically says a Zooming flyer can't be hit by it. Why should that question deserve an answer while this one doesn't?

 

 

Master Avoghai, please don't take offense to my last statement. I think it's awesome you're taking the time an effort to create this for the community. I was just using it as an example of something I personally don't think needs an FAQ. So I mean no disrespect :)