Tyranid and Blood Angels FAQ up!!

[synack]

YES THE FAQ IS UP! Still busy reading it

Tyranid FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240364a_FAQ_Tyranids_2010.pdf)

Blood Angels (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240365a_FAQ_BloodAngels_2010.pdf)

[Lord Azaghul]

I do believe the doom is...doomed.

[Aldramelech]

I do believe the doom is...doomed.

And we can all be thankful for that.........

[Havik110]

Doom is doomed but they still didnt say anything about cover saves for tyrants and guards again...people abuse this rule and im tired of it...just because you hide a guard behind a gaunt doesnt mean your giant @$$ tyrant gets a cover save. also since they are no longer have the retinue rule, you should be able to pick that ******* out...

[synack]

I don't mind the DoM not effecting embarked units thing, everyone saw that coming. But giving cover saves is retarted, it's not a shooting attack.

But whats pissed me off, is saying that Shadow in the Warp not effecting embarked units (but phsycic hoods do).

Also the mycetic spore nerf has pissed me off too. One would except them to work exactly the same as drop pod, minus the drop pod assault. But no, now units that take it as a upgrade HAVE to start the game in the spore and you can't drop them empty. Also, IC's (like the prime) can't join squads that take the spore as a dedicated transport (like warriors).

There was no need to nerf spores. None.

[synack]

Doom is doomed but they still didnt say anything about cover saves for tyrants and guards again...people abuse this rule and im tired of it...just because you hide a guard behind a gaunt doesnt mean your giant @$$ tyrant gets a cover save. also since they are no longer have the retinue rule, you should be able to pick that ******* out...

Get out.

[mathhammer]

I don't mind the DoM not effecting embarked units thing, everyone saw that coming. But giving cover saves is retarted, it's not a shooting attack.

But whats pissed me off, is saying that Shadow in the Warp not effecting embarked units (but phsycic hoods do).


And as of right now give me a reason why hoods or runes of warding would effect embarked psykers?

Checked 3 codexs and 3 FAQsso far and I see nothing that allows it.

[synack]

And as of right now give me a reason why hoods or runes of warding would effect embarked psykers?

Checked 3 codexs and 3 FAQsso far and I see nothing that allows it.

Does the FAQ not allow it? Cause the same argument that can be allied to the DoMs power and Shadow in the Warp aura's also applies to hoods. If you can measure to see if a unit is in range, embarked or not, they should be effected.

Of couse Tyranid FAQ clears that in terms of Nid powers.

[Havik110]

Get out.
so if im a marine, and I see a MONSTROUS CREATURE towering above his guard, I shouldnt be able to pick him out even if less than half of him is covered?

just because you play an army doesn't mean you can't see when a rule is stupid. Guants providing tyrants a cover save is as dumb as freaking vehicle squadrons shooting through themselves.

[Yabanjin]

Hang on...

This FAQ actually answers some frequently asked questions. How did that happen?

[Erasmus of Baal]

Magna-Grapple movement can cause Tank Shock.

You are all dead. Drop Pods are now things to be used against you.

[RocketRollRebel]

Thaaaank you! This just made my day. I was getting so sick of the Doom and BA Vindy arguments.

[Col.Gravis]

Magna-Grapple movement can cause Tank Shock.

You are all dead. Drop Pods are now things to be used against you.

Correct m,e if I'm wrong but you can't shoot at your own units if thats what your thinking?

[Havik110]

Correct m,e if I'm wrong but you can't shoot at your own units if thats what your thinking?correct...but a raider or a vyper which are not normally considered tanks and cannot tank shock without the proper eq can now be used to tank shock...

[Renegade]

Got to say that I think the cover save against SL ruling is a bit harsh, same with some of the ruling on pods, but I am behind most of the rest. That you GW, I think this must be the first time in ages they have done a decent job on answering all questions.

I am supprised at some of the BA rulings, good bye drop pod armies if there are a few dreads with grapples.

[Lord Azaghul]

Alessio Cavatore leaves GW and the faq’s actually answer real questions! What does that say!

[Javin]

Man, now what do we have to argue about?

[Herald of Nurgle]

Man, now what do we have to argue about?
Dark Eldar, my man!

[Gotthammer]

Doom is doomed but they still didnt say anything about cover saves for tyrants and guards again...people abuse this rule and im tired of it...just because you hide a guard behind a gaunt doesnt mean your giant @$$ tyrant gets a cover save. also since they are no longer have the retinue rule, you should be able to pick that ******* out...

"Q: If a Hive Tyrant or the Swarmlord joins a unit of
Tyrant Guard, is it treated as an Independent Character
for the purposes of resolving shooting attacks (i.e.
independent characters who are monstrous creatures
can be targeted separately from the unit) and assaults
(i.e. independent characters always count as separate
units in an assault)?

A: No."

So the Tyrant becomes a part of the unit, as it cannot be singeld out, so if the unit gets cover so does the Tyrant. However if you can see the Tyrant you can shoot at the whole unit rather than just the Tyrant.

[Melissia]

lol, Tynskel is gonna be pissed that he's been wrong all along in every concievable way.

[Renegade]

lol, Tynskel is gonna be pissed that he's been wrong all along in every concievable way.

QFT! Bean to for that matter. No doubt they will try to argue that because they are FAQ they are unofficial.

[Melissia]

Of course they will, seeing as they can't argue the facts they'll just try and dismiss them.

[DarkLink]

I'm rather impressed here. I mean, the font on the 'nidz faq is a little hard to read, but other than that it looks like they did a pretty thorough job of answering questions clearly and concisely.

[gannam]

Hold on, being right or wrong about RAW, and having GW rule the other way are not connected in any way, shape, or form.

It is pretty obvious to me that GW found nid's ability to beat mech somewhat too counter productive to them selling $50.00 plastic boxes that require you to buy $50.00 little men to put inside them.

Nothing will change this, but all you nid haters out there saying Tee, hee, hee today are going to find yourselves crying again, now that nid players are going to be forced now to revert back to the nidzilla armies before the codex was released.

Again, all part of GW's master plan forcing me to have to buy $60.00 MC kits.

[Melissia]

I laughed rather hard at the retarded appellation of "Nid hater"

[Splug]

The precedent for cover saves being allowed against the DoM is somewhat set by the Eldar FAQ's explanation of Mind War.

There is no precedent for Shadow in the Warp not working against embarked psychers, or the spores not allowing you to walk on. Those are extremely odd choices, which conflict with commonly accepted marine strategies. I guess the question is, should we be rethinking how those effects work, or just isolate the odd ruling to the Tyranids?

Overall, a very good FAQ though. They actually addressed the major questions the books created, instead of answering arbitrary stuff and leaving it at that.

[Renegade]

It not that big a deal for the DoM, its going to hurt if you put it in with your cc units (I know this from experience).

Some BA are crying about not getting it all there own way to, but at lease they reognise the common sense in the decissions.

Tyranids are not SM Splug, Spores are not Drop Pods. Apples and oranges.

[BuFFo]

QFT! Bean to for that matter. No doubt they will try to argue that because they are FAQ they are unofficial.

I stopped listening to Tynskel and Bean months ago. I am amazed people still continue to engage them in argue-conversations.

[david5th]

I stopped listening to Tynskel and Bean months ago. I am amazed people still continue to engage them in argue-conversations.

Isn't that an argusation?

[BuFFo]

Isn't that an argusation?

Unexpected response on you end

=

A little bit of poop due to laughing, on my end.

[the jeske]

There is no precedent for Shadow in the Warp not working against embarked psychers, or the spores not allowing you to walk on.
if dooms pasive aura cant work on transported guys then SitW passiv aura cant do it too. plain and simple.

As a nid player I am happy with the new FAQ , the nids were a too dominant army in both the casual and tournament sceen. The changes wont affect nids as a whole too much , they are still tournament viable [maybe we wont see so many nid armies in top 16 anymore , but that is good] and playing against nids will be less of a one sided match . The changes dont make our good units bad , while they give a nice chance to see more of the less used units or builds in casual games.... This is what I should be writing , if this was 4th ed .

[Melissia]

As opposed to seeing lots of IG, BA, and SW in the top sixteen?

[gannam]

if dooms pasive aura cant work on transported guys then SitW passiv aura cant do it too. plain and simple.

As a nid player I am happy with the new FAQ , the nids were a too dominant army in both the casual and tournament sceen. The changes wont affect nids as a whole too much , they are still tournament viable [maybe we wont see so many nid armies in top 16 anymore , but that is good] and playing against nids will be less of a one sided match . The changes dont make our good units bad , while they give a nice chance to see more of the less used units or builds in casual games.... This is what I should be writing , if this was 4th ed .

By your very statement, it was a complete nerf. This put nids back into the pack of worthless armies that can't win tournaments. It will now be BA, IG, and SW only.

[the jeske]

doesnt matter realy. the BA FAQ "nerfs" two units one is tycho that was never used outside of ultra casual or fluff lists and the libby dreads [which can be replaced] .
FAQs should streamline the too good things [on top of fixing stuff that no one knows how it works because of stupid wording] and give a chance to the less used units. What GW did was nerf everything that was good , while giving absolutly nothing for it to nid players .

I do understand why doom was ruled like it was[not because of RAW , but because casual players dont like having their units killed when they think they are save] , but the shadow in the warp ruling is a natural consequance of it . Now if the ruling for nids ment that it works the same for all armies [so all static auras dont work on units in transports for example] it would maybe not be fair for nid players , but it would make sense rules wise for the game as a whole . But GW will never do that ,so it just a classic nerf for an already bad army [still better then what the WH/DH pdf felt like in the first few days] .

Ah and I am a nid player.



By your very statement, it was a complete nerf.
yeah was trying to get that whole self accusation thing we eastern guys do when judge by law . It doesnt sound so good in english .

[Melissia]

No, I'm fairly certain Doom was ruled because of both RAW and RAI.

[gannam]

Let's not get it twisted. I agree with the rulings for the DOOM. I think it was too overpowered. I have killed entire armies with it. "necron player sold his army after facing me"

I also don't care that much about lash whips, even though it is a nerf to a hive tyrant assualting into cover, but only in very situational instances.

Where they severly hurt us though was the Shadow of the warp nerf. Every space marine player will keep his librarian's in boxes now against us, and we will not have any defense, but his powers will still work while in the box, and against other armies in boxes. Totally makes no sense.

And dropping empty pods has been a staple of how I play my army. it allows me to have more anti vehicle units without running 9 hive guard.

I think this means that nid players are going to "have" to run more tyranofexes, hive guard, and biovores. All very expensive models.

[the jeske]

passive auras always affected transported models , doom was not targeting and range to units in transports is checked to the transport hulls. This is how RAW works. Now what happens later to unit forced to flee from a non destroyed transport , was the question , because there were no anwsers to that . If their rulings were based on rules[RAW] they would have given us something more then "no". they went the easy way , nerfing more then just doom . But as said before the nerf of a single unit is not a problem her. the problem is that almost every single entry in the FAQ makes nid units weaker.
There is no "Ah so maybe now a pyrvore build " or "lets start spaming warriors after the buff"in the FAQ and this is why for nid players[hey everyone else should be happy , fewer armies played means easier meta game and fewer builds to learn to play against] it sucks.


I have killed entire armies with it
really ? with a single model that can be instant killed by str 8 , in a mostly meq enviroment with Ld around 8-9 . the doom was a kamikzae unit . it droped like chaos termicid hurt a few units in range and died next turn.

[XHound87]

really ? with a single model that can be instant killed by str 8 , in a mostly meq enviroment with Ld around 8-9 . the doom was a kamikzae unit . it droped like chaos termicid hurt a few units in range and died next turn.

I'm actually not surprised he did mess up whole armies. Remember that your local meta could be different than his. Heck, against certain armies they may not stand a chance against that single 90 pt. model (necrons immediately come to mind, which was noted by gannam). I have also destroyed whole armies, even mech, though I'll attribute some of it to luck, with pretty much just Doom. Capitalizing on you opponents mistakes still works wonderfully.

Yeah, he was nerfed a bit, but he's still plenty killy, especially at the meagre cost of 90 pts!.

As far as the rest of it, I'm glad GW actually clarified things, rather than raising more questions. I'm happy cuz now this silences the idiots who told me I didn't get abilities on some of my SCs because "Doom of Malantai isn't a Zoanthrope so it doesn't get Warp Field" and the like. Not that it stopped me before, but now there's going to be a little less stupid around, and that's what counts.

[the jeske]

He was refering to the necron player whom he apparently stomped hard.
is there any army that can be legaly played in 5th ed that doesnt stomp necron hard , aside for a mirror match against another necron list?

[Melissia]

Yes. Quite a few actually.

Necrons are underrated-- yes, they're also underpowered, but not as much as people think when played right.

[gannam]

is there any army that can be legaly played in 5th ed that doesnt stomp necron hard , aside for a mirror match against another necron list?

to be fair to the necron player, there was an objective in the middle of the table, I dropped the doom and it ate 3 squads of infantry in one turn, boom, phase out. 2 untouched monoliths on the table.

[XHound87]

Yes. Quite a few actually.

Necrons are underrated-- yes, they're also underpowered, but not as much as people think when played right.

I agree whole heartedly.

@Jeske: Necrons, while being the butt of many jokes in 40k, still win games but they're so limited in the current meta-game I've seen most 'cron players just move onto a different army or even stop playing all together because it's no longer fun for them.

All I gotta say is playing against Necrons is very refreshing.... Actually, playing against someone who isn't using SM of some kind (Grey Knights the *only* exception) or guard with X hat on, it's quite enjoyable generally.

[the jeske]

can you list any melissa?

no army that has special lose scenario build in to it , can be a good one .



still win games
when was the last time they were in a top 8 of a normal sized GT tournament?

I dont enjoy playing against necron . He plays to draw and I play to phase out . unless the rolls go bonkers the necron will lose . it is impossible to not kill them with 4 turns minimum.

[Angelofblades]

I agree with Jeske, all the rules for 5th ed are inimical to the Necron codex.

The revamped vehicle damage table, means that guass weapons were nerfed.
TLOS, you can run, but you can't hide, means that necrons will be shot out early on.
Remember kids, it's better not to get shot at, than to have to roll a cover save at all.
Wound allocation, allows opponents to kill models they can't see or reach.
Combat resolution, Ld10 only means that you won't run away from taking 25% casualties in the shooting phase, so that you can be charged, and swept in combat, taking away any chance of a WBB.
With vehicles being more durable, it meant that the meta went from foot slogging to mechanized, which meant that every other army got faster, while Necrons if anything, got slower.

[lobster-overlord]

I'm very pleased with the BA FAQ, with exception of the Furioso Libby no longer taking equipment. This means all those Frag Cannon Libbies are no longer valid, and that an Order of Operations precedent has been set for taking upgrades. It is last option, but does not state "may instead" or "only".

John M>

[BuFFo]

Sure, when you have two people just farting around, Necrons are decent.

It is when you have two players of roughly equal skill is when you have problems.

Since 5th edition, I have not lost to a Necron list yet, whether for fun or in the 'Ard Boyz when I caused the 'dreaded and deadly' triple Monolith army phase out on turn 3.

It is simply impossible for me to lose to a Necron player because I actually know what I am doing. Bold statement? Not really. This is Necrons we are talking about, the WORST army in 40k currently.

Competitively, Necrons are a complete joke. As a fun army to foll around with, Necrons are fine.

[Havik110]

"Q: If a Hive Tyrant or the Swarmlord joins a unit of
Tyrant Guard, is it treated as an Independent Character
for the purposes of resolving shooting attacks (i.e.
independent characters who are monstrous creatures
can be targeted separately from the unit) and assaults
(i.e. independent characters always count as separate
units in an assault)?

A: No."

So the Tyrant becomes a part of the unit, as it cannot be singeld out, so if the unit gets cover so does the Tyrant. However if you can see the Tyrant you can shoot at the whole unit rather than just the Tyrant.

yes but they should have left it like last edition when it became a retinue. With out it being a retinue where the hive tyrant would be considered an upgraded guard, the tyrant is still a monstrous creature. This is the only time in 40k where a monstrous creature can join a unit and they do it very poorly.

In order to give a monstrous creature a coversave at least 50% of it must be covered. a guard does not cover 50%, but because if you stick a tyrant in a unit of guard and then stick gaunts in front of the guard, the tyrant gets a coversave while not being covered by 50%.

If they suck gargoyles in the way, it s a different animal, but guantS!!! thats a serious abuse of rules...I can shoot the guants or...HOLY CRAP THE GIANT standing behind them, that i can see about 75% of...

[Splug]

yes but they should have left it like last edition when it became a retinue. With out it being a retinue where the hive tyrant would be considered an upgraded guard, the tyrant is still a monstrous creature. This is the only time in 40k where a monstrous creature can join a unit and they do it very poorly.

In order to give a monstrous creature a coversave at least 50% of it must be covered. a guard does not cover 50%, but because if you stick a tyrant in a unit of guard and then stick gaunts in front of the guard, the tyrant gets a coversave while not being covered by 50%.

If they suck gargoyles in the way, it s a different animal, but guantS!!! thats a serious abuse of rules...I can shoot the guants or...HOLY CRAP THE GIANT standing behind them, that i can see about 75% of...The rules are an abstraction, and as long as they're applied consistently, I don't care which way this one goes. If I'm told my thunderfire cannon is fair game despite the techmarine being in cover by a guy who's demanding his tyrant gets a save from area terrain / gaunts / whatever, I'll call foul. If they give my artillery piece a cover save for the unit being in cover, I'm fine with their tyrant receiving the same. Applying logic/realism to 40k results in questions like: why don't we have rangefinders when 8th ed. fantasy is allowing pre-measurement.

[Vepr]

Well the Doom ruling is no surprise. I don't think the prime needed to be excluded from spores but it is not the end of the world. The rulling on SitW vs vehicles sucks especially against SW but we will live. Not sure why they felt the need for the lash whip ruling but not the end of the world I suppose. Mawlocs still suck a fat one. They failed to rule on whether or not hive commander works when the Tyrant is off the table. Not sure why they decided we needed most of a page on spore mines. In the end my biggest question is why in the hell did that take them over 6 months to get out? Anyways Nids are an average mid pack army and the FAQ was not going to change that either way.

[Shavnir]

GW changes rules unilaterally to favor mech because vehicles are expensive in $$.

Should we be surprised by this anymore?

[Melissia]

Not for all armies. For example, it's cheaper for me to do Mech Sisters than it is for me to do Horde Sisters. Fun times. 'Nids don't really HAVE a mech army (their pods aren't exactly mech) either, and Ork hordes can be much more expensive than converting/scratchbuilding looted vehicles for Ork mech.

[Kloud]

QFT! Bean to for that matter. No doubt they will try to argue that because they are FAQ they are unofficial.

I have not posted on BoLS in a long time, but as soon as I saw the Bug FAQ was out, a had to read it, and then figure out my password for this forum just so I can do this.


HEY BEAN!!!!!! :p PBFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

[Shavnir]

Not for all armies. For example, it's cheaper for me to do Mech Sisters than it is for me to do Horde Sisters. Fun times. 'Nids don't really HAVE a mech army (their pods aren't exactly mech) either, and Ork hordes can be much more expensive than converting/scratchbuilding looted vehicles for Ork mech.

Yea but given the trukk and battlewagon are (game issues aside) some of the best ork model's GW's put out to date who wouldn't want them? My point still stands that they unilaterally ruled in favor of mech.

Also double lol @ shadow in the warp not working but psychic hoods working against psykers in vehicles.


I have not posted on BoLS in a long time, but as soon as I saw the Bug FAQ was out, a had to read it, and then figure out my password for this forum just so I can do this.


HEY BEAN!!!!!! :p PBFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

Since I know Bean pretty well let me summarize what he'd probably say

"All this proves is you're on the same level as GW in terms of the inability to read their own rules. This changes nothing as to who was right, it only shows how wrong GW can be and still be blind to it".

Personally I agree. If GW wanted the rule to not hit embarked units they wrote it wrong. Simple as that.

[DarkLink]

Since I know Bean pretty well let me summarize what he'd probably say

"All this proves is you're on the same level as GW in terms of the inability to read their own rules. This changes nothing as to who was right, it only shows how wrong GW can be and still be blind to it".

So you're both so obviously and utterly correct in every way that not only are all other players wrong, but the company that writes the rules, and is able to make judgement calls as they see fit in order to maintain gameplay balance as best they can is obviously completely wrong if they disagree with you as well?



Personally I agree. If GW wanted the rule to not hit embarked units they wrote it wrong. Simple as that.

Well, now they corrected their mistake.

[Bean]

QFT! Bean to for that matter. No doubt they will try to argue that because they are FAQ they are unofficial.

Why? The rules said one thing. This FAQ has changed them, so now they say something else. The FAQs are "unofficial"--according to GW--but, frankly, they still carry exactly the same weight as every other rule in the BRB or codices. GW's little disclaimer tag doesn't really reduce their significance.

I was right before. Now that the rules have changed, I have changed my position accordingly, and I am still right. What's there to argue?

[Melissia]

Why? The rules said one thing. This FAQ has changed them
No, they just clarified so that people would stop arguing that the rules said what they didn't say.

[Bean]

lol, Tynskel is gonna be pissed that he's been wrong all along in every concievable way.

This is obviously asinine. An FAQ constitutes a change to the rules. The fact that the rules have been changed so that Spirit Leech doesn't affect embarked units says nothing about whether it affected embarked units before. It resolves the issue, but offers no support for either prior position.

Nothing in the text of the FAQ states, suggests, or implies whether they consider the answer to be an extension of the rules as they were previously written, and, even if it did, GW has, in the past, made it quite clear that they really don't have a solid grasp of their own written rules.

To continue asserting that Spirit Leech affects embarked vehicles would be stupid, but, frankly, no more so that this FAQ has anything to say about what the rules were before it was released.

[Melissia]

An FAQ constitutes a change to the rules.No it doesn't. A FAQ is a clarification of the rules. There is more than one interpretation of some rules, and the FAQ clarifies which interpretation is RAW according to GW. Now, ERRATA are pure changes to the rules.

To assert that your interpretation is somehow better than everyone else's is laughable.

[Bean]

No it doesn't. A FAQ is a clarification of the rules. There is more than one interpretation of some rules, and the FAQ clarifies which interpretation is RAW according to GW. Now, ERRATA are pure changes to the rules.

To assert that your interpretation is somehow better than everyone else's is laughable.

GW routinely changes their rules with their FAQs. The assertion that they do not is obviously wrong.

Frankly, though, dealing with your ludicrous denial is just not worth any more of my time. Have a nice day, Melissia. I won't be responding to your garbage anymore.

[Melissia]

GW routinely changes their rules with their FAQs.
No they don't. The only time this really happens is when FAQing an old codex for a new edition, which is when it is necessary to change things in order to suit the new edition. But even then they oftentimes just leave the rules as is even though they make no sense in the current edition.

[Splug]

No it doesn't. A FAQ is a clarification of the rules. There is more than one interpretation of some rules, and the FAQ clarifies which interpretation is RAW according to GW. Now, ERRATA are pure changes to the rules.And in this case, they even took the time to make a painfully clear distinction between which parts of the document were which. Though then again, they also have a habit of using errata to mean "typo correction" and FAQ's to mean "rulings," despite the terms being slightly misused in that context. The fact that they backpedaled on the counter-attack/furious charge combination makes it clear that they're willing to update their own interpretations of the rules.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. Claiming you are, aren't, were, or will be right on the Internet is kind of meaningless. In short, I think I've managed to simultaneously take both and neither sides, creating some sort of Heisenberg uncertainty state. Thus, I conclude by stating that I enjoy boneless chicken wings.

[Aldramelech]

No it doesn't. A FAQ is a clarification of the rules. There is more than one interpretation of some rules, and the FAQ clarifies which interpretation is RAW according to GW. Now, ERRATA are pure changes to the rules.

To assert that your interpretation is somehow better than everyone else's is laughable.

100% Agreement. And well put.

Jesus is this guy ever wrong????????

[BuFFo]

.... frankly, they still carry exactly the same weight as every other rule in the BRB or codices.

This is your opinion about your perception of the game. This does not equal reality according to others.


GW's little disclaimer tag doesn't really reduce their significance.

In your little gaming world, sure. I have yet to see anyone even pull out a FAQ during a game against me in years, even in tournaments. This is no exaggeration.

I don't pretend to force my views on everyone else though. You seem to love to do this.


I was right before. Now that the rules have changed, I have changed my position accordingly, and I am still right. What's there to argue?

That you're wrong.

Official rules that all players must normally abide by only change via Errata, not FAQs.

[Melissia]

Here comes BuFFo, probably predictably saying something like "FAQs != official".

Officially, you don't have to play by any rules, just have fun with it. So you don't have to use Errata if you don't want to. It's in the BRB.

[daboarder]

LOOK! btichin bout the DOOM aside can we all please agree that the SitW ruling and the warrior prime ruling was so retarded that we now comense nerd rage until they change them, PLEASE my army is getting HOSED for no god damned reason.

[Melissia]

No.

[BuFFo]

LOOK! btichin bout the DOOM aside can we all please agree that the SitW ruling and the warrior prime ruling was so retarded that we now comense nerd rage until they change them, PLEASE my army is getting HOSED for no god damned reason.

The nid players in my area are playing their army with SitW and Spore Pods working as before.

You can do the same, you know.


Here comes BuFFo, probably predictably saying something like "FAQs != official".

Officially, you don't have to play by any rules, just have fun with it. So you don't have to use Errata if you don't want to. It's in the BRB.

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

Erratas are changes we must abide by. Erratas fix typing/ editing errors, for the most part.

You are right, if you want to play with marine bolters firing missiles then go ahead! I am not arguing that at all.

FAQs are just soft clarifications from within the 'studio', and the answers are neither right nor wrong. You can adopt these house rules if you wish, but they are not mandatory like Erratas are.

I love giving this lesson to players! Makes me feel like a schoolmarm! :p