NEW (First Draft FAQs!

CurstAlchemist wrote:

We have had those discussions, not only in here but in other threads and some in the chat box. Jink and Eldar taxi service in particular. We aren't ignoring those have just moved the discussion to other rulings in this thread but if you have input please put it down, just because we aren't currently discussing it doesn't mean we shouldn't swing back onto those topics of greater importance to us.

And with thats suggestion, what is the feeling about flyers?

The new immobilized thing is pretty cool, as is being able to drop bombs into combat. Combined with the new Death from the Skies supp, our fliers seem a bit better than before.

flakmonkey wrote:

CurstAlchemist wrote:

We have had those discussions, not only in here but in other threads and some in the chat box. Jink and Eldar taxi service in particular. We aren't ignoring those have just moved the discussion to other rulings in this thread but if you have input please put it down, just because we aren't currently discussing it doesn't mean we shouldn't swing back onto those topics of greater importance to us.

And with thats suggestion, what is the feeling about flyers?

The nee immobilized thing is pretty cool, as is being abe to drop bombs into combat. Combined with the new Death from the Skies supp, our fliers seem a bit better than before.

I don't think Death From the Skies is going to make much of a difference, simply because it doesn't look like many people ar going to get it. It'll just end up like Cities of Death, Escelation or the previous version of DftS, largely forgotten.

That said, Shatterfield Missiles suddenly seem a lot more useful.

Imateria wrote:

flakmonkey wrote:

CurstAlchemist wrote:

We have had those discussions, not only in here but in other threads and some in the chat box. Jink and Eldar taxi service in particular. We aren't ignoring those have just moved the discussion to other rulings in this thread but if you have input please put it down, just because we aren't currently discussing it doesn't mean we shouldn't swing back onto those topics of greater importance to us.

And with thats suggestion, what is the feeling about flyers?

The nee immobilized thing is pretty cool, as is being abe to drop bombs into combat. Combined with the new Death from the Skies supp, our fliers seem a bit better than before.

I don't think Death From the Skies is going to make much of a difference, simply because it doesn't look like many people ar going to get it. It'll just end up like Cities of Death, Escelation or the previous version of DftS, largely forgotten.

That said, Shatterfield Missiles suddenly seem a lot more useful.

If it introduces new flyers, I think it will definitely see purchase.

Ok, I've kept waiting for someone else to mention this across multiple threads, and it simply hasn't happened, so I will point it out. It's been said that many of these changes are "good" for the Dark Eldar. And from a base rulebook perspective, that may be the case.

However, almost all of the "good" changes were already the way 75% of the free world played it. If you look at the rules that people like Calyptra (in another thread) pointed out, almost all of those are already part of the ITC house rules. And even within those house rules, DE have been bottom of the power totem by a longshot. So all these FAQs have done so far is further cement that position.

As for the ITC similarities, there are so many similarities, in fact, that I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that GW is working with ITC leadership on rules testing and feedback for the FAQs. Just a week or two ago, the ITC/Frontline Gaming released a video in which they talked about a mysterious "collaberation" between themselves and GW, so it would make sense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jimsolo wrote:

If it introduces new flyers, I think it will definitely see purchase.

From what I've seen, if I had 1 critique of the "Death from the Skies" book, it's that it didn't change flyers ENOUGH. When I looked over all the leaked flyers' datasheets, they're all just the same datasheets that are in the codices, with agility and pursuit added to it. They had an opportunity here to completely recreate and rebalance an entire new phase of the game, altering and creating special rules for every flyer in every army that exists. And they squandered it. If they gave all the flyers different/updated special rules and such, it'd probably be the best selling book in recent history, outside the base rulebook. But Nah, let's just waste some glossy paper to add 2 numbers to each datasheet.

They could have fit all the changes to flyers' datasheets on a single page summary that simply told us what the agility and pursuit stats were.

Flickerfield is a highly advanced optical force shield... so advanced that it doesn't protect passengers from No Escape.
Am i the only one irritated by this stupidity?

Edit: Apparently i'm the stupid one here.
Now i read again and understand the No Escape rule only kicks in AFTER the Venom failed it's Flickerfield save, correct?

I never would have thought of rolling FF for the passengers again after failing FF roll for the Venom which this Faq seems to be intended to prevent. Rightly so.

@betraytheworld It feels like the ball was dropped on the book. I wont pretend to know whats going on at GW, but this feels rushed.

Hell I am worried about buying the book and then not having anyone willing to use the new rules.

First draft FAQs for Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus are up.

More importantly, what do we call this? "FAQmageddon" and "FAQpocalypse" both seem awkward to me.

FAQnarok?

Calyptra wrote:

First draft FAQs for Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus are up.

More importantly, what do we call this? "FAQmageddon" and "FAQpocalypse" both seem awkward to me.

FAQnarok?

FAQQ lol

Warhammer 40k FAQuest.

@Calyptra I think I like FAQnarok the best.

da FAQnarok is upon us just comes off so well.

FAQ'n hell...

Death from the sky's is no optional so it will see plenty of us it seems

Massaen wrote:

Death from the sky's is no optional so it will see plenty of us it seems

What do you mean it is not optional?

It replaces the rules in the rule book. So it's not optional. Not using it would be like playing with the last edition Rules

So Death from the Sky is not a supplement but part of the core rulebook now that you have to buy?

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure it starts with "If you wish to dogfight..."

If both players dont want to, the phase is dead.

I dont think people are saying that the new stats wont be part of the game, but rather nobody will take squadrons and everyone will agree not to dogfight.

Its not that the rules are not part of the game, but rather people wont take the action required to effectively use those rules.

WhysoSully wrote:

I dont think people are saying that the new stats wont be part of the game, but rather nobody will take squadrons and everyone will agree not to dogfight.

There is no reason for DE not to do dogfight.
Our flyers are cheap, fast and agile, we can hit them with lance weapons and (thanks FAQ) with rockets.
We have no other AA, the dogfight is our only chance to attack a flyer without a whole army under us with AA.

Even if we lose a HP, both flyers are going into ongoing reserve and can´t enter the table in this round.

why shouldn´t you use that to deny him his flyer, which maybe even be used a transport?

And for the stats, we can now turn another 90 degree (on the table) easily with agility 5, thats a big reason to use the new book.

Only against Eldar i would choose not to dogfight ^^

CurstAlchemist wrote:

So Death from the Sky is not a supplement but part of the core rulebook now that you have to buy?

Codex are supplements - same as death from the sky.

Marrath wrote:

Flickerfield is a highly advanced optical force shield... so advanced that it doesn't protect passengers from No Escape.
Am i the only one irritated by this stupidity?

Edit: Apparently i'm the stupid one here.
Now i read again and understand the No Escape rule only kicks in AFTER the Venom failed it's Flickerfield save, correct?

I never would have thought of rolling FF for the passengers again after failing FF roll for the Venom which this Faq seems to be intended to prevent. Rightly so.

Flickerfield never applied to passengers. No Escape kicks in on any hit from a template weapon.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Flickerfield never applied to passengers. No Escape kicks in on any hit from a template weapon.

Rulewise, that's correct.

It does make the fluff rather weird though. So, the Venom flickers in and out of reality but the passengers don't?

I think DE have managed to invent a "shield" that's more lethal to the crew than any of the weapons it would protect them from.

Oh I totally agree that it's strange and illogical but as far as the rules are concerned there isn't, and never has been, any basis for passengers getting the save - much as we might wish otherwise!

To be honest, I wasn't aware that anyone was even doing this.

yeah, but it looks like their venom underneath them is phasing out , while they are standing in the air ^^

Okay, just so that i have this correct, if i roll the 5 or 6 on the venom's FF save the passengers are also safe right?

Marrath wrote:

Okay, just so that i have this correct, if i roll the 5 or 6 on the venom's FF save the passengers are also safe right?

No. They have still been hit with a template weapon and take D6 hits with the S and AP of that weapon and no flickerfield (or cover) save.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Oh I totally agree that it's strange and illogical but as far as the rules are concerned there isn't, and never has been, any basis for passengers getting the save - much as we might wish otherwise!

To be honest, I wasn't aware that anyone was even doing this.

I wasn't either.

Then again, I also wasn't aware that someone would consider running an Unbound army composed of nothing but buildings.

Marrath wrote:

Okay, just so that i have this correct, if i roll the 5 or 6 on the venom's FF save the passengers are also safe right?

Nope. The passengers are hit regardless of whether the Venom passes its Flickerfield save.