Charlo Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 By Sniper Dreads do you mean double heavy weapon dreads? I've always wanted to like them but they just feel useless - or at least, the 6 chamber missile launcher not even being a Cyclone is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LutherMax Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Did I miss something or has there not been a BA Draft FAQ as yet? Just SM, IK, SW, Sisters and some others..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedemptionNL Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 No BA FAQ yet, but there is a Errata for BA/GK/SW Dreadnoughts, which is what everyone is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Did I miss something or has there not been a BA Draft FAQ as yet? Just SM, IK, SW, Sisters and some others..? There was a draft FAQ for Dreadnoughts starting that BA, GK and SW Dreadnoughts had 2 ATK base. To this, an "official house rule" called Roused to War was added saying that with your opponent's permission, you could add two ATKs to their profile. Suffice to say, this didn't go down too well and yesterday, the Dreadnought FAQ was updated with an errate to read that all Dreadnoughts of any type from the aforementioned Codicies would add 2 ATKs to their profile. So our Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnought and Librarian Dreadnoughts now have 4 ATK base, while the Death Company Dreadnought now has 5 ATK base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont-Be-Haten Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 By Sniper Dreads do you mean double heavy weapon dreads? I've always wanted to like them but they just feel useless - or at least, the 6 chamber missile launcher not even being a Cyclone is ridiculous. Yeah, They still get their attacks even with guns right? Just 4 attacks @ Strength 6 Ap2 because of smash? Or is it not that? I can't recall because the editions have started running together on rules. Otherwise, maybe not. Edit: I just looked at the Walker's Assault page of the BRB on page 91 and it doesn't make mention of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedemptionNL Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Walkers don't have Smash, so 4 S6 AP- attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM1981 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I get that it is unlikely, but I don't think that an invulnerable save would fix the issue. Mostly those are 5+ and so only negate 1/3 HP. The walker still faces all the problems vehicles have: stunned/shaken, removal of weapons, immobilization And then there is the fairness and verisimilitude issue. Why is one bipedal machine with a pilot (dreadnought) a walker and another (Wraithknight/-lord, various Tau machines) an MC? It makes no sense. Making all of them walkers because that is what they are would make a lot more sense, more sense even than making dreadnoughts MCs. We've talked about a house rule of 5++ for dreads within our community, and we agree that its kind of over powered. Most vehicles (barring Imperial Knights) don't get Invulnerable Saves standard unless they are made of paper, and even then most of those naturally get jink saves or are allowed an upgrade (such as flicker fields) but always having a 5+ invulnerable is really powerful on an AV13/12/10 model or even an Av 12/12/10 and even though its only a 30% chance to block the glance//pen that isn't including whiffs and not rolling high enough against the armor value. I do concur that the discrepancy between MC and Walkers is huge. Personally I think only Daemons, Orks, and Tyranids should be allowed to have MC, but I'm okay with the Wraith Lord as it doesn't have an actual pilot but does have soul. Where as the Tau vehicles are Japanese Anime inspired Gundams, let's be honest. They have Pilots, they have all the candy, and should also have Armor Values not Toughness values. With the inclusion of T values on the new containers does make it interesting though. With some of these changes I find it refreshing that they are taking our feedback so quickly and making decisions based off of it. I think we can make a solid case for Sniper Dreads again in our lists as well. In any case I'm fairly excited to see how our FAQ stands up. What I'm most impressed with is their willingness to listen and then act on the feedback given. This is very positive for us, as it means we (as a chapter / customer base / consumer group) can influence the decisions we dont like. I'm not advocating spamming them, or mass whining, but if anything comes out that feels wrong, we can affect that by speaking to them. GW specifically referenced the volume of questions about BA dread attacks as a reason for the change from a house rule to an official errata, so as long as the community stays alert and stays vocal (in a constructive way), I see no reason why the scout issues etc can't be fixed. We will not get a new super codex / errata, but we may get a few of our Christmas wishes early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 Yep - walkers not getting AP2 base is another crazy discrepancy between them and MC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 I have a question, the wording of the FAQs says that it covers appropriate data sheets found in Codex: Blood Angels. Do you reckon the reson they specifically called out datasheets is that they treat Codex: Blood Angels as a faction and not a book, i.e. datasheets like Cassor are included? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Have to say, this change is greatly appreciated :) However, I need to ask if Cassor the Damned, a Faction: Blood Angels Dreadnought from Shield of Baal: Deathstorm, is also included with this update?Many thanks. Hey Jolemai, We think Cassor is probably covered by this rule, but the rules guys might choose to clarify that come the Blood Angels FAQ draft, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Oh, ok thanks Jolemai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont-Be-Haten Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Yep - walkers not getting AP2 base is another crazy discrepancy between them and MC! It is really frustrating. Especially something that probably weighs around the same, if not more, kilos or lbs as the chitin of tyranids or thick skinned daemons etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Oh, ok thanks Jolemai. Pure coincidence as I just lifted that from Facebook when you replied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Hah this erratum also finally says that Murderfang and Bjorn are dreadnoughts as a rule, not just in the fluff text. But not Cassor (and possibly others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucumon Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Hah this erratum also finally says that Murderfang and Bjorn are dreadnoughts as a rule, not just in the fluff text. But not Cassor (and possibly others. How is this significant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 With the inclusion of T values on the new containers does make it interesting though. Containers are not immune to poison! The thing is, artillery and non-emplaced weapons have had a T value since the dawn of 6th edition (and before?), the containes dont change much. I think a change to a T value for everything, then add the "vehicle" unit type, which includes immunity to poison, vulnerability to haywire etc would be a good shout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 Hah this erratum also finally says that Murderfang and Bjorn are dreadnoughts as a rule, not just in the fluff text. But not Cassor (and possibly others. They just probably forgot about Cassor, he's not in the codex afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Hah this erratum also finally says that Murderfang and Bjorn are dreadnoughts as a rule, not just in the fluff text. But not Cassor (and possibly others. How is this significant? Cassor is not listed as a Dreadnought in his unit profile; he is simply "Cassor the Damned". It is significant because by RAW, he is not entitled to ride in a Drop Pod, Dreadnought Drop Pod or by Stormraven. I should point out that I very much doubt anyone, even Quixus, plays it this way. I am also of the opinion that GW doesn't think this and simply wrote in Murderfang/Bjorn because they are part of the Codex that this applies to (note that Cassor is not as he's a Datasheet available from a Supplement, despite being Faction: Blood Angels). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont-Be-Haten Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 With the inclusion of T values on the new containers does make it interesting though. Containers are not immune to poison! The thing is, artillery and non-emplaced weapons have had a T value since the dawn of 6th edition (and before?), the containes dont change much. I think a change to a T value for everything, then add the "vehicle" unit type, which includes immunity to poison, vulnerability to haywire etc would be a good shout. I'd be okay with this. Maybe the reinforced plating rule or something along the lines of the flesh Tearers' war gear. That makes sense. I don't think there is any real way to fix dreadnoughts (read walkers) right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 In which case no one can convince me that Land Raiders wouldn't be T10. Especially when that bloody Tau suit is T9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Hah this erratum also finally says that Murderfang and Bjorn are dreadnoughts as a rule, not just in the fluff text. But not Cassor (and possibly others. How is this significant? Jolemai already summed it up. It is just curious that the datasheets of all named dreadnoughts say Unit type: vehicle (walker, character) and Unit Composition: 1 (unique). The sheets don't mention the word dreadnought at all. And no, I'm not playing it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Did I miss something or has there not been a BA Draft FAQ as yet? Just SM, IK, SW, Sisters and some others..? There was a draft FAQ for Dreadnoughts starting that BA, GK and SW Dreadnoughts had 2 ATK base. To this, an "official house rule" called Roused to War was added saying that with your opponent's permission, you could add two ATKs to their profile. Suffice to say, this didn't go down too well and yesterday, the Dreadnought FAQ was updated with an errate to read that all Dreadnoughts of any type from the aforementioned Codicies would add 2 ATKs to their profile. So our Dreadnoughts, Furioso Dreadnought and Librarian Dreadnoughts now have 4 ATK base, while the Death Company Dreadnought now has 5 ATK base. can we link so i can write and commend them. Its a fantastic change that needs to be commended so they know theyre on to the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 Sure, Chapter Master: ENJOY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Brilliant. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 In which case no one can convince me that Land Raiders wouldn't be T10. Especially when that bloody Tau suit is T9. Land raiders would be exactly T10: Currently a S10 weapon needs a 4+ to damage the AV14 raider A S10 weapon would need the same 4+ to damage a T10 raider. It becomes a little trade off, as weapons become a little more effective at 'wounding', but the vehicle remains totally intact until it loses the last wound. It does ruin the "forging the narrative" a little, if vehicles cannot be weapon destroyed/immobilised anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.