New DE FAQ just released

New FAQ...a little disappointing, but it's out there...

New Dark Elf FAQ

meh

If I knew how the DE operate Id give my take on it.

Its w/e, no real impact- just little things and a few clarifications.

"On page 34 of the Dark Elf codex, the following sentence should be added: 'No worries however, for your army will always pwn any High Elven army. That's how it's gonna be.' "

I mean... damn!

thanks to the main rulebook and DE errata, war hydras can now move through terrain and the beastmasters get 3 attacks each, still for the ridiculous price of 175 pts. who the fuck did GW hire to do their erratas?

A lot of shit in the FAQ is superfluous bullshit.

ex.
Q. Cauldron crew want to go take up a bolt thrower, cool?

A. "Well, to avoid all sort of complications, we recommend that Khainite crew stick to Cauldrons of Blood only and that bolt thrower crew stick to Bolt throwers only. No intermingling. It's a religious thing. Honest."

... Just say no, how hard is that? If I recommend the Coke instead of the Pepsi, does that mean you HAVE to take the Coke?


and besides the beast masters, I didn't see anything about the hydra

I finished reading the thing, and it has to be the worst errata I have ever seen. I sent this email to GW:

Hi,

I have a few objections to the latest DE errata.

Page 2 reads "Q. Do attacks from Lifetaker count as magical attacks? A. No, they don't."

This ruling goes against the way all other magic weapons (both melee and ranged) work. Simply put, magic weapons inflict magic attacks. I see no reason why Lifetaker merits an exception.

Page 4 reads "Q. As part of its rules, an Assassin may be
placed in a unit of Scouts and thus be
deployed out of sight in or behind terrain. If
he is revealed at the start of the owning
player's first turn, can the displaced rank-andfile
model be placed closer than 10" from the
enemy and/or so that he has line of sight to the
enemy, thus potentially granting the unit the
ability to charge on the first turn?

A. A creative use of an Assassin, but a legal
one nevertheless… sneaky!"

This is indeed a creative way to exploit the fact that shades, being skirmishers, do not have a back rank to which the displaced model can be removed. It is incredibly abusive and, in my opinion at least, against the spirit of the game. Earlier in your FAQ you commented on how trying to use a dagger of hotek, hand weapon and beastmaster scourge to gain +2 attacks was absurd and clearly not the way you like "our games to be played." Using an assassin to teleport a shade into line of sight and charge range of an enemy unit for a 1st turn charge is equally absurd. One of the purposes of an FAQ and Errata should be to prevent people from exploiting rules in such a way, not encourage them."

Yeah... I was sufficiently angered by GW's lousy work that I actually sent them an email. Let's just say that if someone tried to pull off a 1st turn teleporting shade charge on me, I'd shake their hand and walk away. Same with telling me a magic repeater crossbow does not inflict magical attacks.

Chris, the hydra's movement through terrain was addressed in the main rulebook faq.

ah ty

Is there still no word on whether or not Cold Ones gain hatred as well as their riders or was that address in a previous FAQ?

found it under "Mounts' Psychology" on pg. 79 of the rulebook:

Immunity to Psychology or Panic, Hatred, Frenzy, Stubborn, Unbreakable. If either the rider or the steed is subject to any of these rules, the whole combined model is. This means that all the parts of the model (a monstrous mount, or the crew and steeds pulling a chariot) are affected by these rules.

Interesting - good find Chris

Diosamblet wrote:Yeah... I was sufficiently angered by GW's lousy work that I actually sent them an email. Let's just say that if someone tried to pull off a 1st turn teleporting shade charge on me, I'd shake their hand and walk away. Same with telling me a magic repeater crossbow does not inflict magical attacks.

The whole magic bow not shooting magic arrows was actually addressed already in the Wood Elf FAQ, printed in the middle of last year, at which point in time GW said that only the bow is magical...the arrows are still mundane, unless you can use magical arrows, too (only the Wood Elves have magical arrows as far as I know).

All of the FAQs show a marked lack of consistency/unity of thought -- I particularly like the "...too extreme application of Rules as Written against all common sense..." comment, which is only a few questions before the abuse of the Shades w/assassin scouting rule.

As an aside, they did clarify the Magic Resistance question -- if you have a spell that affects all units on the board you are technically not targeting any of them, so if one has Magic Resistance...the dispelling army does not get to use it to dispell the spell because that unit was not specifically targeted! Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb! I know why they did it (the Khorne-dog units with MR3 blocking everyone's spell that affects all models on the board, made that unit way too good in tournaments), but that's just the idiocy of making a unit MR3. It's still dumb!

The gaming group I'm involved in up here is compiling it's own FAQ that it'll use for all it's tournaments (like Direwolf does) and will be submitting it to GW for consideration to replace much of the drivel they've been spewing out. When we complete it for WHFB, I'll post here and you can let me know what you think...

ah well, good to know there's a precedent for the Lifetaker then, as stupid as it may be.

GW loves trumping one codex with the next.

Particularly if you read the two main rulebook FAQs (both of which are supposedly valid)...Part 2 (released recently) contradicts some parts of Part 1 (released about a year ago). Somebody over there is asleep at the wheel when it comes to proof-reading. And the Brits are supposed to be so much more precise with the English language than us back-water Colonials!

All i care about this new errata is on how much nastier the Casket of Souls is gonna be since it doesnt target any unit specifically

gotta check the tomb kings faq, I think you still get MR and whatnot

The new Rule Book FAQ over-rides the old TK FAQ
Another rule contradiction by GW, but still..... No more MR on the casket!

The Eldar Guy wrote:gotta check the tomb kings faq, I think you still get MR and whatnot

The tomb King FAQ says that they get the MR, but the Skaven FAQ also says that you cant target skaven weapon teams cause they are considered the same size as the skaven arround them, even though they are on a cavalry base, this obviously changed with 7th edition, but the FAQ still the same !

Q.. Does the Cavalry Base special rule mean that
weapons teams can be targeted by shooting even when
within 5" of a unit because they are on a larger base?
A. No. It says on page 26 “…they cannot be singled out
as targets by enemy shooters because they are the same
size as the other Skaven around them.”

I thought it went: Armybook FAQ> Armybook > rulebook FAQ > rulebook ?

least that's how it is in 40k

Actually, the order of precedence with Errata/FAQs is Army Errata->Rulebook Errata->Army Book FAQ->Rulebook FAQ

With specific rules in the Army Book taking precendence over rules in the Rulebook.