New DA FAQ is comming

[Chaplain Lucifer]

That was the most urgent error that needed addressing, so, all in all, not a bad FAQ! :D

Sammael can now take a vacation.

[aura_enchanted]

That was the most urgent error that needed addressing, so, all in all, not a bad FAQ!

Sammael can now take a vacation.

you mean a retirement, lets be upfront here people probably wont take him ever again

[Hjarl]

Its an AWESOME errata :)

 

Ill still bring out Sammy from time to time. Its a great model :D

[Master Sheol]

3 librarians in my RW! :D

And i still love my converted Sammael on Sableclaw...

This was a needed errata...

My only complain is that pure DW is still crap...

I Will paint more bikes then...

[Harleqvin]

I find it weird that you can now put a DA Captain in TDA but you can't put a DA Captain on a bike (plus when you put HQ guys on a bike in DA codex they are not even Ravenwing bikes. Just Space marine bikes still. lqtm.).
Or did I read the new codex wrong?

[shabbadoo]

My only complain is that pure DW is still crap...

The only thing super important that it's missing is something to let DW deep strike in first turn or start on the board in LRs, just so that they don't autolose if running a pure DW force. Anything beyond that would be nice but not actually necessary.

Running a Deathwing Redemption Force Unbound allows you to do exactly that, so why would GW add something you can already do? They wouldn't. You lose NONE of the special rules of the Formation (which copy or mimic ALL of the Command Benefits of the Deathwing Strike Force Detachment, which would be lost in an Unbound list) by including Land Raiders, Dreadnought Squadrons, more of the Deathwing units limited in the Formation's choices, etc. from outside of the Formation. First Knight of Caliban (i.e. re-rolling the Warlord trait) is all we potentially lose in running a pure Deathwing force in this way. Deal-breaker? Hardly; especially considering that Belial, who many people will run, can't re-roll his Warlord Trait anyways, which means we lose literally NOTHING if we run Belial in such an army. Don't lay any blame on the options, because they do allow us to field whatever army we want to. The only way you can screw up is to very purposely set out to build and play an army list in such a way that is completely unsuitable to the tactics of the included units, or only include Formations/Detachments that will auto-lose you the game. Turn 1 Deepstrike is GONE!!! Adept and evolve your tactics, like a Dark Angel. The options are there.

Even a slight FAQ would have been nice (it is not like any of us sent them questions or anything), but very few questions really need to be addressed. I guess we'll have to wait until next December then?

[Master Avoghai]

Just to remember what has been said by the staff during the open day seminary.

 

FAQs was broached, specifically around when would we get a new batch as a lot are really old now. They let that one past even though technically it dealt with future operations, and again it felt like a wishy-washy answer. Are they going to go through a big batch of FAQs? – No. What they do do is look at more Erratas than FAQs (i.e. issues with mistakes rather than confusion) and seek to correct them where possible. This could result in changing out digital content where appropriate, or for physical copies of books may require pages being swapped out when a new run is ordered. The focus here was more around fixing mistakes rather than addressing points of confusion that an FAQ would cover. Therefore if your FAQ can be solved by a tightening of the rules, they’d prefer to do it that way.

So expect not clarifications in the future. Just typos corrections... And that's exactly what we have now.

[Harleqvin]

I know this may seem odd but I was reading the BRB and something silly has popped in my head and it is dealing with "turns" What does the DW formation say exactly about the turn it must deep strike in? I don't have the new codex yet... I know. I know.....
but what are the exact words for when it arrives?

[Chaplain Lucifer]

Says "your turn 2,3,4...". So if you are thinking of opponent's turn... forget it. :D

[jlmb_123]

I know this may seem odd but I was reading the BRB and something silly has popped in my head and it is dealing with "turns" What does the DW formation say exactly about the turn it must deep strike in? I don't have the new codex yet... I know. I know.....

but what are the exact words for when it arrives?

 

It's along the lines of "Must all be held in reserve or deployed normally. if they're held in reserve, the entire formation arrives via reserves automatically at the beginning of the DA players' second turn" (let's ignore the debate about flyers if you start the other models on the table). I think it refers to the formation, though, not models so the new character should be able to deploy with them. I did wonder about this when I read it, too. 

 

I've only just started my army and I think I may stick with Sammael to help some DW Knights do a bit of jogging around the table.

 

Edit: sorry, you said DW not RW. Silly me!

[Harleqvin]

Says "your turn 2,3,4...". So if you are thinking of opponent's turn... forget it.

I wasn't sure if it said "your" turn 2,3,4 or if it said only turn 2,3,4. That is because the BRB says when a mention of turn it means a player turn, and there is wording in the BRB that taking the first turn. It would have been funny if it had been just turn 2~~ as that would by wording of the BRB mean just the 2nd turn which could be a players first turn if they didn't go first technically, and not a players 2nd turn or 2nd game turn. You know? Technicalities and all that jazz. GW seems to do that stuff often enough. lol

So nevermind. back to everyone's regularly scheduled repenting. ;{D>

[eurieus]

Well at least it's done concerning the ravenwing !! i really think deathwing is working as intented for the design team, paired with ravenwing. Pure deathwing is gone outside of unbound, we have to go with it :) 

 

The question of the flyers in the RWSF has not been answerd, so i suppose it can only be taken if the whole force comes from reserve, and that's fine. But can you take two Strike forces ? I suppose not , it would be allying to yourself right ? 

[Master Avoghai]

Well at least it's done concerning the ravenwing !! i really think deathwing is working as intented for the design team, paired with ravenwing. Pure deathwing is gone outside of unbound, we have to go with it :)

To me it's more a problem of playing mechanized DW units rather than p'aying pure DW

 

The question of the flyers in the RWSF has not been answerd, so i suppose it can only be taken if the whole force comes from reserve, and that's fine. But can you take two Strike forces ? I suppose not , it would be allying to yourself right ?

1- you can play whatever quantity of detachments you want. The only restriction is the amlied detachment that must be from a different factio .

2 I personnaly play the "deploy as normal"as like the BRB says for each unit.

[jlmb_123]

I'm really 50/50 on whether you can take two strike forces. One thing that's struck me is that, for example, IG and SM may not be able to ally due to being of the Imperial faction but it's heavily encouraged. If "faction" means "Codex (& supplements thereof) It would also mean that you could only take one RWAS which as that's a detachment.

 

We're opening  a whole tin of wriggly invertebrates if we get into the RWSF & Flyer debate here (my fault, I'm afraid!). The debate's covered in this thread.

 

Apologies for trying to reign this in whilst also expanding it!

[Isiah]

Overall: colour me disappointed.

That was the most urgent error that needed addressing, so, all in all, not a bad FAQ!

Sammael can now take a vacation.

you mean a retirement, lets be upfront here people probably wont take him ever again

Why not ?

[Charlo]

Well hey, I guess I can easily ally in any and all bikers as RW forces now without having to buy/ convert a Sammael. Woot.

[eurieus]

 

I'm really 50/50 on whether you can take two strike forces. One thing that's struck me is that, for example, IG and SM may not be able to ally due to being of the Imperial faction but it's heavily encouraged. If "faction" means "Codex (& supplements thereof) It would also mean that you could only take one RWAS which as that's a detachment.

 

We're opening a whole tin of wriggly invertebrates if we get into the RWSF & Flyer debate here (my fault, I'm afraid!). The debate's covered in this thread.

 

Apologies for trying to reign this in whilst also expanding it!

So re-read the p120 of the rulebook.

 

It specificly says that you can play as many detachments as you wish.

 

You also misunderstood what I mean by ally detachment. I didn't mean "a detachment of a different army"

 

I meant the detachment with only one compulsory troop choice and only one choice of the other.

 

But again, re read the p120 and you'll get what I mean.

 

 

Like you said nothing says that i can't take a second RWSF, it only specify that i need to have the models :D So i guess i'm, gonna rethink my RW lists :p

[Othniel's Blade]

 

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf

This was posted on Dakka Dakka.

I hope there is more, but that is a nice start.

There probably is no more, but that definitely links to the Black Library site. It fixes the one thing they probably felt was wrong. Every one keeps saying/thinking that because they personally think there's some huge error to be corrected, obviously GW made a mistake. I think GW clearly believes the opposite, and this probably shows that.

 

If you want to compare the URLs (old one is the upper, new is the lower one):

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.1_Oct14.pdf
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf 

 

Perhaps I'm overreaching, but did anyone else notice from these links that the Oct '14 FAQ states "Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.1"; and the Dec '15 FAQ states "Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0"?

 

I'm grateful as anyone with bike-mounted HQs for that fix, but either GW is really getting careless to the point of ignorance, or has the editing team forgotten how to count?

[Brother dean]

 

 

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf

This was posted on Dakka Dakka.

I hope there is more, but that is a nice start.

There probably is no more, but that definitely links to the Black Library site. It fixes the one thing they probably felt was wrong. Every one keeps saying/thinking that because they personally think there's some huge error to be corrected, obviously GW made a mistake. I think GW clearly believes the opposite, and this probably shows that.

 

If you want to compare the URLs (old one is the upper, new is the lower one):

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.1_Oct14.pdf
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf 

 

Perhaps I'm overreaching, but did anyone else notice from these links that the Oct '14 FAQ states "Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.1"; and the Dec '15 FAQ states "Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0"?

 

I'm grateful as anyone with bike-mounted HQs for that fix, but either GW is really getting careless to the point of ignorance, or has the editing team forgotten how to count?

 

The old one is for the old book to make it work with 7th Edition...  The newer (1.0) is the first FAQ for this newer book.

[Bryan Blaire]

 

 

 

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf

This was posted on Dakka Dakka.

I hope there is more, but that is a nice start.

 

There probably is no more, but that definitely links to the Black Library site. It fixes the one thing they probably felt was wrong. Every one keeps saying/thinking that because they personally think there's some huge error to be corrected, obviously GW made a mistake. I think GW clearly believes the opposite, and this probably shows that.

If you want to compare the URLs (old one is the upper, new is the lower one):

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.1_Oct14.pdf
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.0_Dec15.pdf 

Perhaps I'm overreaching, but did anyone else notice from these links that the Oct '14 FAQ states "Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.1"; and the Dec '15 FAQ states "Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0"?

 

I'm grateful as anyone with bike-mounted HQs for that fix, but either GW is really getting careless to the point of ignorance, or has the editing team forgotten how to count?

The old one is for the old book to make it work with 7th Edition... The newer (1.0) is the first FAQ for this newer book.

That is my understanding as well. The original FAQ was to bring the 6th Ed book up to 7th Ed. This new book is the first FAQ for the 7th Ed Codex.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

OK, this is getting out of hand. The thread is about the FAQ, but I see a dead horse being beaten to death. Let's close that subject because brings nothing but grief and disagreement.

 

So, good news is we can now have Characters on bike leading RW armies. Bad news is that we still don't know how Land Raiders interact with the rules in a DWRF. Maybe in a future FAQ if people keep GW how they work.

[Isiah]

Harleqvin - there are some people you just can't convince <_<.

 

And that's fine because we're a broad church.

 

Cheers

I

[Harleqvin]

Harleqvin - there are some people you just can't convince .

And that's fine because we're a broad church.

Cheers

I

lol

True.

But I do look forward to playing the RW detachment with more points to use, or at least with more than one HQ.

[dtse]

so assuming that page is gonna be the actual errata...if i understand, any character on a bike can now be in your RWSF, but they don't get the ravenwing special rule...correct?  so like if you have your character attached to a squad of ravenwing black knights, and they jink, you're gonna have to roll separate for your character i guess?

[Isiah]

Yep.