Topic: New 6th ed FAQs released for chaos (marines & deamons) !

[Lullysing, Appreciator of the glory of chaos.]

Hello everyone.

New FAQs  have been released for all armies.
(linkie : Warhammer 40,000 Frequently Asked Questions: Page 2 | Gaming | Warhammer 40,000)

I for one really like the one for chaos marine that finally resolves the year-long debates of what a dreadnaught can and cannot  do while freaking out!

Amongs the clarifications :

Please look at the FAQ, and discover which ones affect your army the most for yourselves.

I for one welcome the clarifications, and let the discussion be opened on these new FAQ changes.

Moderator Comment

Please don't spell out the changes, as this breaks the forum rules on copyright. Everyone can read them for themselves in the FAQ - Iris.

[Autarch Koval'andril]

Well, this means Dreadnoughts just got a little bit more viable, although I'm still leaving my Chaos Marines in the cupboard gathering dust for the time being as we still need a new Codex rather than the quick-fix of a FAQ.

[Lullysing, Appreciator of the glory of chaos.]

Personally I think this is still a great time to be playing Chaos marine. While the codex might be "old", it's current simplicity gives us a great edge .  I plan on playing as much as possible with my mech undivided lists, if only to be able to get a good grip on the rules changes and the effects it's gonna have on tactics ( for example, how the new mech rules changes how you deploy and use stuff.  Flat-out-pop-smoke-first-turn to setup for a second turn rhino-shooty-rush anyone?) .  And don't forget that the new allies rules opens up getting nice things like the amazing soul grinder.

After all, i really don't think there's gonna be that much changes to the basic chaos marines themselves, mostly point values, equipment selection and FOC_slot/cult_as_troops changes are the variations I'm mostly expecting ( Altho the possibility of losing true grit on the basic trooper does gives me a little pause). So then, why not just refresh yourself and your tactics, and then see what kinds of new boosts we'll get with the new codex ?  By the time the new codex hits, i expect i'll have the 6th ed tweaks down and then it's gonna be cake to integrate whatever new toys we'll get into the "crusade" (chaos-dragon-flyer thingie? Dreadclaw droppods at last? heavy stubber&autoguns cultists ?).

I'm also looking forward to trying out dakkapreds on the new rules amongs other things

[Sevenzilla]

I really like how now you can add the mark of Nurgle to characters and they don't get instant killed by a strength 8 power fist, missile, or whatever! I'm definitely going to try using a Nurgle terminator lord more often now...maybe even Typhus.

[Vizier]

What intrigues me most is what is missing from the FAQ and that is a statement that a winged Daemon Prince is a Flying Monstrous Creature.  The chaos daemons FAQ spells it out and the Nid FAQ spells it out for Hive Tyrants.

My belief is that winged Daemon Princes won't be in the soon to arrive new CSM Codex.  So GW didn't bother mentioning it in the FAQ.  Actually with Chaos Daemon allies, there is no need for daemons in the CSM Codex, so I'm thinking there will be no daemons at all in the 6th Ed. CSM Codex.

[Zilverscale]

Hmm could be true...or could be an oversight of GW...not the first.

As to the FAQ + BDB.

Ahriman suddenly looks very appealing with Force Stave (seeing as all it's special abilities have nothing to do with CC)
True he is not good vs MEQ/TEQ but GEQ and worse will not like him at all, and neither will most vehicles

[Killersquid]

I like this allying stuff for Chaos Space Marines. Alleviates the issue of 'generic daemons' while still allowing the book to focus purely on the mortal followers of chaos.

[MarkAutarch]

So is a winged daemon prince a flying monstrous creature or not?

Also, it doesnt specifically state that mark of Tz makes a character into mastery 2, is this assumed?  what's going on? can my aspiring sorceror for my thousand sons take 2 of the new powers?  can my daemon prince take 2 of the new powers? Do I have to purchas two powers in order to replace them?

If not, why doesnt GW realize that the thousand sons are so much more interesting than the one-sided, mindless khorne followers?
I will be very sad if they completely neglect the number of fans using GK codexes for "counts as" thousand sons.

-Mark

[Irisado]

So is a winged daemon prince a flying monstrous creature or not?

This is clearly answered by the FAQ.  See the second column on the second page.  It's very clear what effect the wings have, even though it's probably not the answer that most Chaos players were hoping for.

[Sevenzilla]

I for one really like the one for chaos marine that finally resolves the year-long debates of what a dreadnaught can and cannot  do while freaking out!

I don't see how anything has been clarified. To me the FAQ entry on the dreadnought is pretty much the same as what is already written for blood rage...what was the year-long debate? I always thought the debate was whether or not the dreadnought shoots something it can see if it rolls a 1 or if it pivots to the nearest thing even if it's out of its 180 degree arc (I believe the first one is correct).

[Lullysing, Appreciator of the glory of chaos.]

I for one really like the one for chaos marine that finally resolves the year-long debates of what a dreadnaught can and cannot  do while freaking out!

I don't see how anything has been clarified. To me the FAQ entry on the dreadnought is pretty much the same as what is already written for blood rage...what was the year-long debate? I always thought the debate was whether or not the dreadnought shoots something it can see if it rolls a 1 or if it pivots to the nearest thing even if it's out of its 180 degree arc (I believe the first one is correct).

Basicallyshootyrage lineof sight is from the guns, so no,itwillnotturnaroundto waste things behind him... he will shoot at the closest visible (front-ish) target. The whole issue with dreads is that people kept arguing where the LoS was from ( guns vs 360) and gw wouldn't FAQ the debate once and for all.... until now i guess ;p

[Sevenzilla]

Oh, I think you're referring to the rule on the third page of the FAQ that isn't written in pink. I believe that rule has been out for a while...I remember seeing it in the last FAQ they made. The new rule from the recent FAQ on page two, written in pink, only talked about blood rage (when you roll a 6), so I was a bit confused, haha.

[Nazragul]

So is a winged daemon prince a flying monstrous creature or not?

This is clearly answered by the FAQ.  See the second column on the second page.  It's very clear what effect the wings have, even though it's probably not the answer that most Chaos players were hoping for.

While I agree that it is clearly answered by the FAQ, what is truly baffling is that a different answer (the one CSM players DO want to see) is given in non-English FAQ's. 

This, plus the box in White Dwarf where a Daemon Prince vector strikes and then uses molten beam,  indicates heavily that the writers of the English FAQ made a mistake.  Not that it does us any good until they unify the rule across languages (unless you are gutsy enough to saunter into your local hobby shop with a german copy of the FAQ, I suppose).

The thing I like best about the new addition is being able to ally with daemons.  I am SO happy to have gotten rid of my "greater" and "lesser" daemons and that my minions of Tzeentch can now revel in their full shooty glory.  Pink Horrors with all that strength, toughness, and attacks was just too wierd. ^^

[Changeyname]

While I agree it's odd that other languages have a different answer I would have to assume the translation is to fault as the original would be in English, that's by the by though

However this:

This, plus the box in White Dwarf where a Daemon Prince vector strikes and then uses molten beam,  indicates heavily that the writers of the English FAQ made a mistake.

we can ignore with abandon as WD battle reports are renowned for being less than accurate
Illegal lists, rules played with weird interpretations or just flat out wrong (as is the case here), all these have happened multiple times in the past

You can't use WD as a source for rules unless it's an official update/FAQ/errata such as added new units (Flyers a few months ago, Sisters Codex a while before that etc)
A battle report is none of those things so to put it bluntly forget about it, they cocked up

[Zilverscale]

While I agree it's odd that other languages have a different answer I would have to assume the translation is to fault as the original would be in English, that's by the by though

not uncommon.
Some codi in other languages have som minor different rules explanations when compared to the English versions...so also true for FAQ's.

But be that as it may...just learn some German and print out the German FAQ and you are good to go

[Autarch Koval'andril]

Unfortunately, the stance from every single GW employee I have ever asked (including a couple of dudes in Belgium) is that officially, the English-language version of the rules trumps other-language versions, as the rules are originally written in English and then translated afterwards. So if, say, the German version says something different, then it's the fault of whoever did the German translation because the English one is the right one.

We had exactly the same argument before Warptime got FAQ'd, because the English rules said one thing and the rules in some other languages said something else.