BLACK BLΠFLY Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I keep hearing a new FAQ will release any day now. I am also hoping the next printing of Inferno will reflect this as well. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAlephNull Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Am I a lost cause for hoping that one day they will make Banestrike useful? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668796 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 *imminent, eminent means something else entirely. Although an imminent FAQ would also, indeed, be eminent. Banestrike bolts are already useful...just not on sniper vets. They're good on combi bolter armed models. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668814 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I keep hearing a new FAQ will release any day now. I am also hoping the next printing of Inferno will reflect this as well. Source? If it's people on this forum going "OH. MY. GAWD. HOW COULD THEY RELEASE INFERNO IN THIS UTTER STATE?!?!?!? FW ARE IDIOTS! THERE ARE SO. MANY. ERRORS." ...Then I don't think so. Also, no chance of them changing any content in Inferno imo - people would then probably demand replacements for their "defective" books etc. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668827 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronDrake28 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 As Charlo said, I haven't heard anything at all about an FAQ coming up, just that a good few parts of Inferno need it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668829 Share on other sites More sharing options...
depthcharge12 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 *imminent, eminent means something else entirely. Although an imminent FAQ would also, indeed, be eminent. Banestrike bolts are already useful...just not on sniper vets. They're good on combi bolter armed models. Should just make them a unit upgrade for terminators, Justaerin, Reavers and such. Or just make them AP3 on a 5+ to wound or 4+. They already suffer from shorter range. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668832 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I keep hearing a new FAQ will release any day now. I am also hoping the next printing of Inferno will reflect this as well. Source? If it's people on this forum going "OH. MY. GAWD. HOW COULD THEY RELEASE INFERNO IN THIS UTTER STATE?!?!?!? FW ARE IDIOTS! THERE ARE SO. MANY. ERRORS." You actually did a fare job describing how I feel about FW's editing team. I'm sure you'd feel a similar feeling if it were your Blood Angels who got the short end of the editing stick. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668842 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 All I can say is I think it's going to happen within the next 14 days tops. If I tell you my source then sorry but I'll has to kill you/ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668871 Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Wonder if it concerns Magnus. They could name it Edict of Nikaea Errata lol. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668873 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronDrake28 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Oh god no. In that case the FAQ would be ignored just like the Edict. XD Personally the only questions I want answered are regarding the Talons list. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4668885 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I keep hearing a new FAQ will release any day now. I am also hoping the next printing of Inferno will reflect this as well. Source? If it's people on this forum going "OH. MY. GAWD. HOW COULD THEY RELEASE INFERNO IN THIS UTTER STATE?!?!?!? FW ARE IDIOTS! THERE ARE SO. MANY. ERRORS." You actually did a fare job describing how I feel about FW's editing team. I'm sure you'd feel a similar feeling if it were your Blood Angels who got the short end of the editing stick. I've seen the complaints and honestly, they're usually minor issues or a couple of easy fixes by just talking to your opponent. Happy to be given some examples where it is more gamebreaking than this however :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669311 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baluc Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 It cost £80 and there is no way to purchase a frost axe. That is appaling, that you can't or won't admit that damages your credibility and screams bias. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669354 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I wouldn't accuse Charlo of bias. He's a very well-meaning dude who likes to be fair. I will say that it's not all editing errors, but just poorly written rules and alotted costs. But it is frustrating that our legion-specific weapons are just flat out not written right, and I noticed it almost right away. How could FW miss this? They cost the same as a power fist, but all of them are strictly worse with the sword being strictly worse than the claw. Then there's Varagyr. They pay out the nose for +1WS, a crappy HoW rule that actually forces you to reduce your chances of successfully charging, and the "ability" to take a power fist and frost weapon (gaining +1A). But again you'll never use a frost sword when the claw is strictly better, and you'll never use a frost axe because a power fist is strictly better in every way. And they don't even get +1W for their troubles. Except the Theign, because yay. Varagyr also don't benefit at all from half our legion rules, and none of our RoW bonuses. Other cheaper, 2w terminators *cough* Sekhmet, justaerin *cough* both have RoWs that actually tailor to them in addition to their already useful (or undercosted in the case of Sekhmet) dataslate. Don't get me wrong, I've been list-building non-stop trying to make cool combos (and I think I've succeeded occasionally), but I keep having to avoid my legion-specific units in favor of generic because they're just too expensive for what they do. And I don't want to upgrade to frost weaponry because they don't work. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669374 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sete Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Make Grey Slayers 5 man minimum aswell. If you are forced to take them in every row over regular tacticals they need flexibility:D It's a shame, I quite like 30k SW but it's a bit of a mess right now. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669397 Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Well, FW is a seller of product (which is, in this case rules) and I'm a customer that demands/expects quality in products I buy. Remember their aim is to sell models and books not make you happy.. And yes, FW errors and mistakes should be pointed out and all this fluffy talk about how FW is our friend and why people who criticize are wrong is kind of weird. I know that as long as people buy models such petty things as errata, faq or updated and reasonably working rules are of no concern to them (hello almost every IA books). FW sometimes makes ridiculous stuff with their rules, which is fine as long as they fix it - unfortunatelly they are known for not fixing things at all or after years. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669402 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leif Bearclaw Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Or just fix the wording of the army restrictions. Things like whether Pride of the Legion/Recon Company/Drop Assault Vanguard/Fury of the Ancients/Primarch's Chosen/Armoured Breakthorugh can be taken by SW, thanks to which 'compulsory troop' option takes precedence (and if only Grey Slayers count, regardless of RoW, that really sucks, forbidding Wolves from almost every generic RoW). Also the HQ thing. My FoC has one compulsory which must be a Praetor/Centurion, fine. But then I also must take 1 HQ per 1000 points. Do these count as 'compulsory' too, and are therefore restricted as well? If so then you can only take consuls at sub 3k games. What about allies? It states that a Detachment must take 1 HQ per 1000 point in the army. So does an allied detachment in a 3k game need 3 HQs, even though the SW contingent may only be 1000? This then gets further muddied when the same bullet point then talks about a Detachment of 1001-1999 points needing 2 HQs. Does this also mean that a 2k army needs three, despite only the first sentence suggesting 2001 should be the '+1 HQ' point? It really is a mess. If you've worked out house rule solutions to these, then fine, good for you. 'Just talking to your opponent'? That doesn't always work, and when it's a fundamental question of whether an army's legal or not, that's a big 'what if' to be stuck with. This is from personal experience, I have had these arguments with my mates since Inferno dropped, and we have not come to any consensus. And all this could have been avoided if FW had written these rules competently, and provided a couple of additional sentences to clarify the rules interactions. The there's stuff just plain missing, like what the Misericord weapon some Custodes carry actually does. So yeah, regardless of whether an FAQ is actually imminent, there definitely should be one very soon. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669404 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I wouldn't accuse Charlo of bias. He's a very well-meaning dude who likes to be fair. Thanks man, appreciate it. I always try to be objective on here - spreading the good, chill vibes It cost £80 and there is no way to purchase a frost axe. That is appaling, that you can't or won't admit that damages your credibility and screams bias. .....lol until someone like Baluc comes along at least naw it's cool, it's all just words on the net and they can be taken in any number of ways. But, how can you say I "won't admit" when I literally just said I'm happy to see any examples that break the game? I will say that it's not all editing errors, but just poorly written rules and alotted costs. But it is frustrating that our legion-specific weapons are just flat out not written right, and I noticed it almost right away. How could FW miss this? They cost the same as a power fist, but all of them are strictly worse with the sword being strictly worse than the claw. Then there's Varagyr. They pay out the nose for +1WS, a crappy HoW rule that actually forces you to reduce your chances of successfully charging, and the "ability" to take a power fist and frost weapon (gaining +1A). But again you'll never use a frost sword when the claw is strictly better, and you'll never use a frost axe because a power fist is strictly better in every way. And they don't even get +1W for their troubles. Except the Theign, because yay. Varagyr also don't benefit at all from half our legion rules, and none of our RoW bonuses. Other cheaper, 2w terminators *cough* Sekhmet, justaerin *cough* both have RoWs that actually tailor to them in addition to their already useful (or undercosted in the case of Sekhmet) dataslate. Don't get me wrong, I've been list-building non-stop trying to make cool combos (and I think I've succeeded occasionally), but I keep having to avoid my legion-specific units in favor of generic because they're just too expensive for what they do. And I don't want to upgrade to frost weaponry because they don't work. They do seem like strange balancing issues, and I think it's more of a failing on the Sehkmet being undercosted than the Varagyr being over (though, I suppose they could be too). That said, I'm always dubious of straight comparisons between legion specifics - it's very vacuum-y. The frost weapon things are perplexing however, they're all specialist weapons right? Hence why there is no point in taking a sword? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669422 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 *imminent, eminent means something else entirely. Although an imminent FAQ would also, indeed, be eminent. Banestrike bolts are already useful...just not on sniper vets. They're good on combi bolter armed models. Should just make them a unit upgrade for terminators, Justaerin, Reavers and such. Or just make them AP3 on a 5+ to wound or 4+. They already suffer from shorter range. They are a unit upgrade for (AL) Terminators already though? I thought SoH vets and terms can take them too? Been a while since I read the rule. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669432 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Even if you drop the comparisons, varagyr just don't perform well in a sw army. They flat out can't be taken in bloodied claw, they don't benefit from h&r in pale hunters, And they're way too expensive to commit multiple units to a single combat to benefit from fury of the pack. The fact that frost weapons don't work is another nail in their coffin. I haven't even gotten to warriors mettle rules interactions. Or leman Russ. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669487 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runefyre Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 And yes, all frost weapons are currently specialist weapons. Which makes the sword strictly worse than the claw, as they have the exact same profile, but the claw has shred. Frost weapons cost the same price as a power fist, but a frost axe is strictly worse than a power fast as both are unwieldy but the power fist is strx2 and he axe is only str+2. They work in 40k because power fists cost 5 points more than they do in HH army lists. So honestly I'm not sure what FW has to do to make them worthwhile. Another issue is Warrior's Mettle. Grey Slayers can't be joined by any character (except Geigor) and still use the special rule they lost Fury of the Legion to gain. So no FnP or Preferred Enemy or Fearless. Not even Russ himself has Warrior's Mettle. And Geigor himself is wierd. For the exact same price I can take a praetor with refractor field and paragon blade. So directly better than Geigor for the same price, but without Warrior's Mettle. So in order to have the ability to run with Grey Slayers, I have to take a less survivable dude with a rather terrible warlord trait. And Russ has quirks of his own. He has great rules, don't get me wrong. But there's things missing that common sense say should be there. Like giving Russ Acute Senses but with no way to actually outflank (except by permission of Red-blade, because that makes sense). So you're basically stuck with putting Russ in a party bus as he can't deep strike either. But if you take Varagyr as his retinue the price tag for the whole unit is astronomically high (especially for a bunch of still 1W terminators). On the other hand if you take regular legion terminators he then can't compete with other Primarch retinues blow for blow. I would really, really appreciate a prompt FAQ for all these conundrums. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669554 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baluc Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 @Charlo I was very thoroughly on day one when the rules we're first leaked. And you refused to admit there were very serious issue with the language they used but also mechanically with how the army functioned. But if you like I can put it all here in poont form for you. You won't like it, its a very long list and grows daily. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669567 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarkaira Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 What is in between of nerd rage and fanboyism? The FAQ is needed for this but my world won't end if it takes a while. Everything except the points balance of most Space Puppies (too high), Kilosons (too low) and Custards (way too low) can and most likely will be reasoned with if there is some common sense available where you live. I am not even sure if they'll ever start to FAQ balance issues through points chances so people just have to live with some bad points balance up until these are reconsidered possibly after years in upcoming red books. Chill on both sides as it just a game B) Although this is the worst book they have released I am just going vote with my wallet instead of going nuts and won't be buying any SW, 1KSons or Custards related models until they come up with the solution. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669614 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baluc Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 The only recourse I have when a company releases a substandard product is to not buy it. That's what I am choosing to do. I'll make do with the models I have if I really want something there are other markets I can go to. I doubt I will buy any of the wolf specific units, grey slayers should have been available day one considering their mandatory issue. Most of my hobby dollars will likely switch to AoS,Flames and new 40k if its good. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669631 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Withershadow Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I keep hearing a new FAQ will release any day now. I am also hoping the next printing of Inferno will reflect this as well. Source? If it's people on this forum going "OH. MY. GAWD. HOW COULD THEY RELEASE INFERNO IN THIS UTTER STATE?!?!?!? FW ARE IDIOTS! THERE ARE SO. MANY. ERRORS." You actually did a fare job describing how I feel about FW's editing team. I'm sure you'd feel a similar feeling if it were your Blood Angels who got the short end of the editing stick.Don't worry, Blood Angels will get their chance to be mangled in the next book release. :D Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669702 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baluc Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I've since typed out my problems with inferno. Its a lot so I'm going to break it up into chunks so it can actually be read and discussed. Some of these issues are fixed, so I doubt they get changed until these armies get their next appearance if ever, but some can certainly be faqed. I'll start with SW because I am most well versed there. LA:SW This is basically the minimum they could have done with the wolves core rules. RAW I'll give it a pass, it could have been written better (why make up a new rule when you could have just given them acute senses), and warrior's mettle mechanically should have been a LA:SW rule its scope is limited enough that it wouldn't have been incredibly powerful instead you end up with veterans who can't complete the same basic maneuvers as line troops*. Army selection: The first point is actually pretty clearly spelled out regardless of what my fellow wolves might prefer. We must include a Praetor or Centurion as compulsory HQ choices, "other HQ choices cannot be compulsory". That is clear as day. Special Character, Consuls, and The Wolf King(in Primarch's Chosen) would fall under "other HQ choices" It doesn't make any sense but that is what they wrote. You could argue that given the larger context of failure to communicate the meaning of their rules, that they "might" not mean special characters who themselves are Jarl's. All of this is a pointless distinction. The ruleset already includes a provision for HQ choices who are no leaders, and the legions are full of rules that require additional hq choices above compulsory. We have the support officer rule, I don't see what is "unfluffy" about a legion Champion leading a war party or the delegatus who is specifically a leader chosen for a specific task... apparently SW don't have specific tasks and they are just unleashed at company level* I suppose that the available RoW are so mediocre that they might guess that SW players may have just spammed, Speakers of the Dead w/ Great frost blade, and Aether rune or Artificer armour... but I mean at 150 points a pop there should have been little worry about that. It goes beyond the primary detachment though a SW allied detachment is mostly an exercise in frustration. 1 per 1000: Well here we go again back to 3rd edition. GW proper dumped this rule mainly because it unnecessarily limited how people build their armies, which is counter productive to selling models. The new approach of giving them the option to take 1 addition hq choice in their detachment much better represents a fluffy way to encourage the use of the thengs and Jarls of Russ. My hypotheses is that 50% they wanted to hit that nostalgia button for older players, and 50% they have no clue what to do with SWs Ignoring the need of such a rule, their example own example confuses how it works. 1 per 1000 points means between 0-999 you need 0 hqs, 1000-2000 you need 2, etc. Obviously the basic force org requires a compulsory hq choice. Their example means in a 250 point game of blood in the void I must take a Centurion or Praetor. And if my list is 2000 points I suddenly need 3 hqs? even though its only two thousands, not three thousands. Grey Slayers: All they had to do was say compulsory troops choices must be filled by Grey Slayer squads. All the extra language is just confusing and unnecessary. This is just the first, two pages of SW rules. I'll be using the "*" to highlight situations where the mechanics are not only bad, but also break immersion in the universe. My next post will be about the legion units, and how these army restrictions shoehorn the army before ever looking at a RoW. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/331463-new-faq-eminent/#findComment-4669828 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.