6th edition FAQ's now posted online - August 7, nothing to see (*false alarm*)

Hi, new member here just adding my thoughts to this discussion.

Firstly, I agree that although 6th ed as a whole does seem much more dynamic and exciting than 5th, the FAQs are where it has really fallen down. They really missed out on so many good opportunities there, more stuff with Skyfire being the obvious one. What happened to those flakk missiles? Not to mention so many new special rules not being implemented even when there are units which quite clearly should have benefited.

The FAQs as a whole seem very rushed with any non-Necron or Imperium armies being roughly dragged into the new rules. For example, not only do the Eldar Harlies get updated while ours are forgotten but they edited out the wrong sentences so RAW the Harlies have both their old VoT as well as their new version. I would not be surprised if Ward was behind this as it seems very much to be the case of finding the simplest way of making everything fit the new edition rather than thinking of balance, gameplay and the style of each army. If Phil Kelly had done the Deldar FAQ, I could quite easily see the Razorwing gaining Vector Dancer and/or Strafing Run, webway portals allowing assaults (Phil and Jes repeatedly said Deldar break the rules in the design vids) and Klaives becoming AP 2 (in an article in White Dwarf a while back, Phil described what each unit was best against, matching Incubi with Termies).

Of course, with the FAQs being so rushed, as well as many things being badly hit, there are some things to be taken advantage of. Note the updated Ravager Aerial Assault. It states how a Ravager can fire all weapons at full BS while moving at cruising speed. This was obviously meant to be just a rephrasing of the old rules in the new edition. However, they seem to have forgotten to mention how shooting at flyers is an exception and Codex rules trump main rulebook rules. So, while RAI is obviously not meant to be the case, RAW means Ravagers can shoot at flyers at full BS. Yes, this is very dirty, cheesy, etc. and I wouldn't implement this in friendly games but if someone comes at me spamming flyers, I would be sorely tempted to use this. Just a thought.

Such a shame, marring what could have been an absolutely amazing release. When I saw the FAQs going online on the day of release I thought what a great job GW had done. Should have known it was too good to be true. Hopefully they'll address the FAQs fairly soon since, as people have already stated, the rulebook itself is really quite good.

You're right, it is dirty and cheap, and I would abuse the hell out of it...

DE break all the rules, right?

Ruke wrote:

You're right, it is dirty and cheap, and I would abuse the hell out of it...

DE break all the rules, right?

I do remember Phil and Jes saying that during their video discussions about the Codex.
Its just a matter of adapting.
If its there, use it.

You know what? Yeah, it is wrong and that is exactly why, as Dark Eldar, we should use it! Thanks for bringing me to my senses. Take advantage of everything at your disposal and be merciless in our persecution of the lesser races! Maybe Phil managed to slip something under the nose of Ward after all to aid us in our raids on realspace.

Starstrider wrote:

You know what? Yeah, it is wrong and that is exactly why, as Dark Eldar, we should use it! Thanks for bringing me to my senses. Take advantage of everything at your disposal and be merciless in our persecution of the lesser races! Maybe Phil managed to slip something under the nose of Ward after all to aid us in our raids on realspace.

Thats the spirit!
Revel in your deviousness.
We are the "Dark" Eldar after all.
No one ever said we had to fight on the monkeighs terms

No surprise here really, re-vamped FAQ's for 6th were said to be coming in August almost as soon as the much-maligned, original 6th ed. FAQ's hit the webway.

However, Quilava1 on Dakka has posted a confirmation of sorts following the Chicago GD this weekend. No further word on new models for us, but this:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/466010.page

quilava1 wrote:

Today I attended Games Day Chicago and had a chance to chat with Phil Kelly himself. I mentioned to him my sadness at the lack of a power fist, as our anti-termie combat weapons are limited to the demiklaives. He started to ask me why I just didn't use a huskblade, but stopped himself mid-sentance. A few minutes later, he told me that a new FAQ was on the way. Finally GW has listened to our pleas and brought the feared terminator down a rung in the ladder of brokenness. Almost asked him about Chaos Marines, but decided not to. Would have loved to see his reaction though.

This is great news about the new FAQ. Very much looking forward to that.

Huskblade being restored would make me incredibly happy.

Hopefully the actual original Codex authors will write the new FAQs where possible rather than Matt Ward so we may get some of our character back. Back in 5th ed, Deldar where the army that broke the rules. But then Ward got to them and decided he didn't like that as that would make them a threat to his Necrons and Grey Knights. If Phil Kelly writes the new FAQ in accordance to how he wanted Deldar to perform before Matt and 6th ed got to them, I can see Klaives and Huskblades getting AP 2. Maybe also agonisers. Razorwing getting Vector Dancer and/or Strafing Run and maybe even webway portals overriding the "no assault from reserves" rule. As I said before, these things and more Phil mentioned in a Deldar tactica article in White Dwarf so I wouldn't be surprised if he gave us back what Matt took away.

Also, new FAQs also presents the possibility for more Skyfire across the entire game. Fingers crossed.

We knew this was happening but nice to get a bit more confirmation. Thanks.

Starstrider wrote:

Back in 5th ed, Deldar where the army that broke the rules. But then Ward got to them and decided he didn't like that as that would make them a threat to his Necrons and Grey Knights.

Er...

The Burning Eye wrote:

I was really intrigued to note though that Mat Ward when talking about their work on the Necrons said he viewed the Dark Eldar codex and the development of the background and balance as their goal to aim for when working on those elements of the necron codex.

I don't think that it's the fact that Ward tried/is trying to nerf DE back to the stone age. I think it's more along the lines of he doesn't really understand the army or how it's supposed to flow. Ward writes a lot of hammer-dexes, while Kelley writes a lot of the finesse-dexes... While Kelley has proven that he can write hammer-dexes (Orks), I havn't seen any proof that Ward can write finesse... It's a foreign style to him. I would wager that when he plays, he doesn't refused flank, or for that matter, move a whole lot... I don't know this for a fact, but it's what he writes seems to suggest to me.

Arkynomicon wrote:

Huskblade being restored would make me incredibly happy.

At 35 points, that thing bloody well ought to be AP2!

Now if only archons could get demi-klaives mwahaha!

wraithguard, t6 3+ save, fearless, wound on 2+ ID on 6 35 pts.
for 35, as Adhemar said, i damn right be ap2 or else, DE players will not only shoot Matt Ward, but cut out his living guts, and use them to grease our scabbards. They are going to murded that man, by cutting him apart with the pages of the FAQ he wrote...at least i would

Now if they could only fit in the option for the succubus to take a reaver jetbike! That would bring tears to my eyes.

Damn those cranky old bike riding farseers!

Well, model a count as Autarch on bike.

quilava1 wrote " . . . He started to ask me why I just didn't use a huskblade, but stopped himself mid-sentance. . ."


Just about fell out of my chair when I read that one, god I hope they fix them, while I have adapted the best I can (for instance, having my warriors come through the portal and the wyches in the Raiders instead of vice versa) it sure would be nice to get back on par.

The only thing I would say is don't get too excited, it could just be that he'd forgotten huskblades had been FAQ'd to be AP3. Unlikely I know but what can I say, I don't like to be disappointed.

Marquis Vaulkhere wrote:

Seems to me CC is a dead horse

No, it really isn't, just don't throw your units into silly combats and whatever you do,

DON'T. FIGHT. FAIR.

Spanish FAQ's ver. 1.0a now up online (change the GW site preferences to 'Spain' to see), and they include a Rulebook FAQ. English ones can't be too far behind.

Will update first post when they drop.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=2

*so excited, cant decide weather Nux drank poison or was that just tea*

I have the rule book FAQ in French (which I can translate), no DE FAQ yet, will post translations ASAP. Seems to just be language corrections, nothing to see here. Must have been an old FAQ just for the french version

I can't actually read Spanish, but I just compared the two documents side-by-side and didn't notice any significant difference in terms of the entries themselves or the key words.

I just compared all the page references and from the spanish I do understand it seems like the same FAQ, Exact same entries as the english verision (i think one is missing about the Void Raven but in the english FAQ that was just telling you to reference the BRB so nothing special)

It does indeed appear to just be more of a language FAQ. Gobs when 1.1 drops can we have a new thread please as this one is rather large and unwieldy now, assuming 1.1 has some decent changes.