New faq is out

[hunterkiler86]

i missed the acts of faith problem. i would always resolved each acts of faith one at a time. 

 

although does Celestine's AoF go off at 2+ or 4+ like a imagifer?

[Noeh]

i missed the acts of faith problem. i would always resolved each acts of faith one at a time. 

 

although does Celestine's AoF go off at 2+ or 4+ like a imagifer?

 

Neither. It just goes off.

[Jacinda]

0+

 

;)

[A.T.]

It has been noted that the 0 point chainsword is a valid melee weapon - so a bonus S3 attack to every superior except for the seraphim if you take no other options.

[Atrus]

Only 1 extra attack? I thought it was 1 extra each time you attacked with it? Eg, 2 base attacks, model uses chainsword for both base attacks so becomes 4?

[A.T.]

Only 1 extra attack? I thought it was 1 extra each time you attacked with it? Eg, 2 base attacks, model uses chainsword for both base attacks so becomes 4?

 

Each time the bearer fights they get one extra attack.

 

It is mentioned indirectly in the FAQ for the main rulebook (where they state that a model with two chainswords get two extra chainsword attacks).

[Atrus]

Well. Ive been playing them wrong...so much for my vets with 4 attacks :(

[taikishi]

Edit: Nevermind. Misread your post, it's midnight, and I'm tired x.x

 

You're correct (now). It's "if you have a chainsword you get 1 extra attack." But if you arm the model with two chainswords, then you can four attacks on a superior provided you make both extra attacks with the chainsword.

 

If I understand the rule correctly, though, if you have a power axe and a chainsword you can make two attacks with the power axe, then your bonus attack with the chainsword.

Edited July 4, 2017 by taikishi

[Rod.H]

Question, did this FAQ fix the illegal superior loadout thing, aka no melee, ranged & bolt pistol as represented on the model?

[grimsanity]

Question, did this FAQ fix the illegal superior loadout thing, aka no melee, ranged & bolt pistol as represented on the model?

Yes it did

[Blackarmor_redtruth]

I like how fast they did all of this. With the "10 codex before Xmas" coming it will be good to have a codex updated and hopefully free of errors and in good working order.

 

Ref: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/your-codex-is-coming-july-5gw-homepage-post-1/

[Gen.Steiner]

And the scuttlebutt is we'll be getting an Adeptus Ministorum 'dex in September! Eeeeeeeeeee

Also generally speaking, and on reflection, I think that all changes bar the Hand Flamer one are positive, and the Hand Flamer one is fair.

[ERJAK]

And the scuttlebutt is we'll be getting an Adeptus Ministorum 'dex in September! Eeeeeeeeeee

 

Also generally speaking, and on reflection, I think that all changes bar the Hand Flamer one are positive, and the Hand Flamer one is fair.

Relative to other hand flamers. The hand flamer as a whole isn't very good and should have been d6 anyway.

[Gen.Steiner]

I agree, absolutely; I think changing the S value and maintaining the same number of hits across the flamer family would have made sense - but then again as was pointed out elsewhere (possibly in this thread) the template for the hand flamer was originally very small.

[hunterkiler86]

so, i can take a bolt gun and power sword on my sister superiors again, correct?

[ERJAK]

so, i can take a bolt gun and power sword on my sister superiors again, correct?

You can take a powersword, combi-melta and a plasma pistol if you want.

[Blackarmor_redtruth]

Are the hand flamers pistols,or pistol like? ie can they be used in CC?

[radionausea]

They're a pistol. It says "pistol d6" (now d3), so yes it can be used while locked in close combat.

[taikishi]

And now I'm pining for the days of2E, when you could use your pistols to attack with in close combat; that would probably make hand flamers worth the points. 2d3 S3 attacks instead of 2 S3 attacks? Yes, please!

Edited July 7, 2017 by taikishi

[radionausea]

But, you do get to do that in the shooting phase while in close combat because it's a pistol. In addition to getting to attack in close combat with your fists or whatever sisters have.

So they're not that bad if you survive combat

Edited July 7, 2017 by radionausea

[Blackarmor_redtruth]

So I read this as, in CC, you can make your 2D3 attacks, which is pretty hawt.

[taikishi]

You can't. Not in 8th, anyway. In 8th, you can use your pistols in the shooting phase to attack models that are within 1" of you. In 2nd edition, however, you could use your hand flamer or plasma pistol or any other pistol you had to shoot your opponent during the Assault Phase using the normal Assault Phase rules, which were completely different than 3rd edition to now.

[Lemondish]

 

I didn't even notice that the Sister Superior wargear had been misprinted, I just assumed they had the options they've always had, I think.

 

Really, there was a LOT of errata throughout the indices. I certainly hope the codex releases get better proofing.

 

The downgrade to hand flamers is unfortunate, and I think someone second guessed a good decision into a bad one with this. The hand flamer was already differentiated from the regular flamer with different Strength and AP characteristics. In recent previous editions hand flamers each used the same template as regular flamers without it breaking the game, so I don't see why they felt the need to make the change.

 

1. It's GW; I somehow doubt they have capable proofreaders as evidenced by 14 pages of errata and FAQ two weeks into 8th edition's life span.

2. 2nd edition 40K Heavy Flamers, Flamers and Hand Flamers (and their equivalent weapons) all had different sized templates as well as different strength/save modifier profiles so this isn't new. Just a shame Heavy Flamers aren't a 10" range -- which I think is the length of the old heavy flamer template.

 

 

Never before has GW released this much content all at once. 14 pages of errata ignores the fact that the game has not seen an overhaul like this in several editions and brought with it updated rules for literally everything. I feel it's kind of unfair to present it as a failure because the errata was long - everything was long. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Lemondish

[taikishi]

I disagree; not when it's presented to us as the most polished, balanced and play tested edition ever.

[Warsmith Aznable]

 

 

I didn't even notice that the Sister Superior wargear had been misprinted, I just assumed they had the options they've always had, I think.

 

Really, there was a LOT of errata throughout the indices. I certainly hope the codex releases get better proofing.

 

The downgrade to hand flamers is unfortunate, and I think someone second guessed a good decision into a bad one with this. The hand flamer was already differentiated from the regular flamer with different Strength and AP characteristics. In recent previous editions hand flamers each used the same template as regular flamers without it breaking the game, so I don't see why they felt the need to make the change.

 

1. It's GW; I somehow doubt they have capable proofreaders as evidenced by 14 pages of errata and FAQ two weeks into 8th edition's life span.

2. 2nd edition 40K Heavy Flamers, Flamers and Hand Flamers (and their equivalent weapons) all had different sized templates as well as different strength/save modifier profiles so this isn't new. Just a shame Heavy Flamers aren't a 10" range -- which I think is the length of the old heavy flamer template.

 

 

Never before has GW released this much content all at once. 14 pages of errata ignores the fact that the game has not seen an overhaul like this in several editions and brought with it updated rules for literally everything. I feel it's kind of unfair to present it as a failure because the errata was long - everything was long. 

 

 

We're not GW's mom so we don't have to praise them for effort. We're people who paid out $$$ for a product, and we have a right to be annoyed with misprints, omissions, and mistakes.