Fall FAQs are out

[Dr_Ruminahui]

The fall FAQs have been released, but done't have much that will affect us (https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/)

 

1.  Chaos knights FAQ: Chaos knight FAQ clarifies that Knight characters can summon daemons.

 

2.  Deathguard FAQ:

             a) adds hateful assault,

             b ) gives new language to nurglings set-up ability, and

             c) clarifies that indirect fire can target an out-of-LOS unit under the affect of cloud of flies.

 

3. Thousand Suns FAQ:

             a) adds hateful assault,

             b ) demolisher cannon now is a straight D6 shots, and

             c) tsangors can't take both a brayhorn and the Index "Chaos instrument" as they are intended to be the same thing.

 

4.  Chaos space marines FAQ: 

             a) adds hateful assault,

             b ) change to demolisher cannon,

             c) says adding fabius bile to CSM detachment doesn't prevent it from being a CSM detachment, and

             d) clarifies that dark apostle has to be on table to use prayers.

 

5. General rule book FAQ:

             a) clarifies how multiple effects of adding dice and "choosing highest/lowest" work,

             b ) clarifies how rerolls work for rolls that use more than one die (such as charges),

             c) clarifies difference between optional and mandatory rerolls,

             d) calrifies you can have more than 2 ranks fighting in melee,

             e) clarifies that you can use stratagems from one type of detachment (say, CSM) on units in another type of detachment (say, Deathguard) provided it has the right keywords and nothing else prevents it; 

             f) for weapons that inflict regular and mortal wounds, you inflict the mortal wounds immediately after the regular wounds;

             g) models in a unit that can heroically intervene like characters each have to move towards the closest enemy,

             h) units that don't take up a force org slot don't allow for another dedicated transport; and

             i)  models in the index can only take weapons from their options in the index (so, no bike lord's with thunderhammers).

 

So, not a lot in there that is meaningful for us, other than what was in the space marine FAQ (hateful assault and the demolisher cannon change).

 

At least on the face of it, most of these seem like common sense changes or clarifications.

 

The one head scratcher was the one about fabius bile - doesn't fabius bile have the chaos space marine keyword, which makes the rule change/clarification kind of pointless?  I would have thought the issue was fabius bile removing access to your legion keyword, but the language in the FAQ doesn't affect that.  Not that I'm likely to take fabius bile, but this is one where I need to reread his rules to figure out what the FAQ wants to do.

 

From a personal perspective, I'm glad they've ruled on the "post-index wargear to index models" issue, even if its in a way that's bad for us - that's one argument that I don't have to have anymore.

[Aothaine]

 

             i)  models in the index can only take weapons from their options in the index (so, no bike lord's with thunderhammers).

 

Waste of points to put a thunder hammer on him anyway imho. He is a super mobile reroll aura. At least that is how I plan on using him. 

[I Am Forsaken]

I think the problem with Fabius was that he doesn't have the <LEGION> keyword (or similar eg Emperor's Children), which according to the "Chaos Space Marine units" piece on page 162 of the codex makes him not a CSM unit.  That entry specifically states a CSM detachment can only include CSM units.

[Cheex]

 

 

             i)  models in the index can only take weapons from their options in the index (so, no bike lord's with thunderhammers).

 

Waste of points to put a thunder hammer on him anyway imho. He is a super mobile reroll aura. At least that is how I plan on using him. 

 

 

It is sad news for Juggernaut Lords, though.

[jgascoine011]

Did the Cloud of Flies stratagem really need that FAQ?

Where people actually confused by that?

God some people are dumb :(

[Kierdale]

I’d never thought of Chaos Knight characters summoning daemons. Certainly could inspire some interesting conversions.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I’d never thought of Chaos Knight characters summoning daemons. Certainly could inspire some interesting conversions.

I remember it being floated when the codex first dropped, but since Chaos Knights (and Knights in general) want to be moving towards the enemy, you don't tend to have opportunities to stand still and summon.

[Aothaine]

 

 

It is sad news for Juggernaut Lords, though.

 

I suppose. I would rather run the Chaos Lord with Thunder Hammer mini they just released this year though. It is a beast of a model, fits in a tasty transport, and smacks the living daylights out of loyalists.

[Khornestar]

 

 

 

             i)  models in the index can only take weapons from their options in the index (so, no bike lord's with thunderhammers).

 

Waste of points to put a thunder hammer on him anyway imho. He is a super mobile reroll aura. At least that is how I plan on using him. 

 

 

It is sad news for Juggernaut Lords, though.

 

 

Yeah, really sad change for me. :( Oh well, hopefully C:WE (should they ever create it) will bring them back.

[Leonite]

I am actually a little pissed about the Thunder Hammer thing but... well, I can use it as a Mace or Axe instead.

[Custodian Athiair]

Anyone  else spotted the near doubling of points for Obliterators?

 

Or did I miss a previous FAQ?

 

65 in the codex, increased to 115!

[Annatar Giftbringer]

You missed a previous FAQ. Their points increased when their profiles were changed and the new models came out as part of the Shadowspear box

[Custodian Athiair]

You missed a previous FAQ. Their points increased when their profiles were changed and the new models came out as part of the Shadowspear box

 

Many thanks, my mistakes

[Special Officer Doofy]

Thanks Dr. R for posting this and giving out the highlights!

[Trevak Dal]

 

 

 

 

 

i) models in the index can only take weapons from their options in the index (so, no bike lord's with thunderhammers).

Waste of points to put a thunder hammer on him anyway imho. He is a super mobile reroll aura. At least that is how I plan on using him.

It is sad news for Juggernaut Lords, though.

On the one hand, "crap" on the other hand "well I don't have to model that then"

[Gederas]

i) models in the index can only take weapons from their options in the index (so, no bike lord's with thunderhammers).

Waste of points to put a thunder hammer on him anyway imho. He is a super mobile reroll aura. At least that is how I plan on using him.

It is sad news for Juggernaut Lords, though.

On the one hand, "crap" on the other hand "well I don't have to model that then"

Yeah, I never intended on my Biker Lord/Juggernaut Lord having anything more than a Power Fist at the most.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I figured the AOBF would be better anyway.

[BlueBiscuit Raider]

The Cloud of Flies ruling confuses me by it's sheer existance: were that many people seriously arguing the contrary?

[Abaddon303]

I do find the thunderhammer index issue frustrating. For starters I don't really understand why chaos don't have a bike lord in the codex when they kept bike captains in the loyalist codex. And a lord on juggernaut is just super cool.

But the Thunderhammer really fixed an issue with the CSM codex. I feel like GW intend chaos to be more melee focused than loyalists. That's fine but we need a weapon that can consistently do more than a single wound without taking a relic and that has now been closed off to two of our more iconic characters.

I really hate the approach GW is starting to take with the index. I get making the codex more accessible with only purchasable options but the index allows creativity. And yes there's always narrative but it's not so easy to convince your opponent to play that way.

Oh well, at least they're not getting rid of the index options completely...

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I don't see GW "starting to take" any stance with the index - it's current approach has always been its approach.  The index is and has always been intended as a way to allow players to field options that were legal but no longer are under the current codex.  That's it.

 

Now, its understandable that players who field the index options want to optimize them with newer wargear - especially if they feel (as many do) that their codex is under powered.  However, as understandable as that is, wanting to do so was wishful thinking - even if the rules allowed it (which I feel that they didn't) such was clearly opposed to GW's rationale for maintaining the legality of index units.  Its no surprise that the FAQ quickly closed what GW likely saw as a loop hole.

 

And I get it that you like how the index units encourage creativity - which doesn't seem to be GW's current business model.  But that doesn't change the rationale behind the indexes and the fact that even pre-FAQ the rules argument in favour of giving old units new wargear was a big stretch.

 

So I get where you are coming from - as with Slave to Darkness, I would love to convert up a lord on a steed of slaanesh with a thunder hammer - I've already bought an old metal steed and have visions of giving the rider a long handled, polo-mallet like, hammer - but I don't think its accurate to cast the FAQ ruling as a change in GW's thinking.