New FAQ up

On GamesWorkshop main site (I know).

Answers the soul trap question (nerf) and shadow field question (nerf) as well as the interaction between walkers and hammer of wrath (nerf).

I don't really see anything positive here.

Sorry for double post, on phone.

Also solves the IC infiltrate debate (you can't).

One positive, at least they actually answered some questions people asked, almost like they care.

Linky

Oh well, at least the IC infiltrate issue has finally been dealt with!

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Rules-Errata;jsessionid=DDFF69137D6475B474EA108F93FEBC12?_requestid=1129700

I'm on my phone so I don't know if that will work. If not, googling "games workshop errata" should bring it up. It has its own page now.

And a nerf to Jink (goes against even rulebook fluff )

I'm actually genuinely pleased they seemed to have listened to the questions that we have wanted to be addressed.

I'm less than thrilled with the responses and some of them seem to make their previous wording sound even more deliberately obtuse... but still its a small baby step forward perhaps!

The two DE questions are taken pretty much word for word from the FAQ questions that we sent them so it's nice to know they are reading it. Not sure what happened to the other questions we asked though!

Nice to see they ignored the hell out of all the questions we sent them.

Well, I know FAQ is not something to argue with, but I'm just curious with GW's logic:

FnP: '...On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been
saved.
The shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds.
He didn't suffer, he didn't feel it!

Also was Archon that strong melee IC to nerf him even more with this Soul Trap nerf? This one was according to wording tbh, but we could at least claim it was not, and no1 would say it was unfair! Especially considering this requirement of being in challenge is being a bit weird. Well at least they should rather change wording to 'gain 1Str for each wound lost by challengee' than almost removing Husk Blade from the game, imo.

Logically the Shadowfield must have been penetrated in order to have taken the wound in the first place, regardless of whether the Archon subsequently ignored it, so I don't have a problem with it in theory but it does go against what is written in the rules.

Yes, logically it is right, but I do believe WH40k is not about logic, it is about wording. Logically Soul Trap should give all soul's strength of the killed challengee rather then it's part, no matter how you killed him.

I agree that the Shadowfield nerf makes sense logically (though it directly contradicts the rules they wrote).

However, in terms of gameplay, it was entirely unnecessary. The Shadowfield has increased in cost by 33%, and the Archon had already been beaten bloody with the nerf-bat (cheap weapon removed, all sources of AP2 removed, Agoniser cost increased etc.).

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Archon was already a walking blaster, why would you push him forward into this doubtful role? They should probably remove all weapons from archon, leaving only to choose CCW or Djin Blade which should be than reworked to "Roll D6 after resolving attacks on a roll of less then 6 remove Archon and his unit from the game with no saves of any kind allowed."

The infiltrators and IC thing is annoying. The fact that you can't join an IC even if you outflank the infiltrators or even deploy them in your deploy zone normally is annoying really. Having the option to outflank an IC was useful in some edge cases.

The shadowfield thing is logical but goes against the wording IMO...especially given the wording of the new Necron Reanimation Protocol (which is almost identical to FNP but with cleaner wording).

Now, I only hope they continue to produce FAQs and that they do away with the Black Library page or at least keep them in sync. Having 2 sources that are out of sync is going to be a hassle.

So we still have S1 Orbs of Despair. Okaaay.

@Azdrubael wrote:

So we still have S1 Orbs of Despair. Okaaay.

Had it been a Marine supplement, I'm sure they would have been faqed to have Fleshbane the day after it was released.

It's about time somebody toned down those CC Archons!  Those things were just breaking the game and ruining everyone's enjoyment of it.  Why, it was so bad that most DE players began running  "armies" composed only of a single CC Archon and nothing else!   They were just THAT good!

So....should we resubmit our community FAQ that was written up?

Maybe if we all submit it once a day for the next month or so they will eventually answer the questions....that we frequently ask
I would call it the Shawshank approach

@sweetbacon wrote:

It's about time somebody toned down those CC Archons!  Those things were just breaking the game and ruining everyone's enjoyment of it.  Why, it was so bad that most DE players began running  "armies" composed only of a single CC Archon and nothing else!   They were just THAT good!

@Ispa wrote:

So....should we resubmit our community FAQ that was written up?

Maybe if we all submit it once a day for the next month or so they will eventually answer the questions....that we frequently ask
I would call it the Shawshank approach

Have every member of TheDarkCity send it by Recorded Delivery post. That might get their attention.

@Count Adhemar wrote:

Linky

Oh well, at least the IC infiltrate issue has finally been dealt with!

Sigh.

I was excited at first to see a new faq bunoafter reading the changes. i realise that g-dubs is a bunch of face trolling jerks.

* punts Orb of Despair over back fence*

Well, I guess I'll just have to not run an Archon anymore except with a Blaster.

Oh...wait...

The Orb thing is derptastic though.

I do suggest a re-submit of the community faq qith the answered questions removed though, those are still questions worth addressing for the most part.

Does anyone one else find the wording of the skimmer/jink FAQ to be ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations? The way it reads to me is, if you ARE NOT heavy or ARE immobilized, you have jink. So immobilized skimmers benefit from a movement based save. I find it quite frustrating that even after receiving a "clarification" to the rule, there is still room for argument.  On any other forum post I've read on the subject, everyone seems to agree that immobilized skimmers CANNOT jink (which I will add, is the logical solution) but to me it doesn't seem to be worded that way. Am I missing something?

Seems to me that they may have FAQ'd that one up a bit. I'll be here all week

Yeah, the skimmer/jink sentence structure is out so it actually reads that if you are Immobilised you DO have the Jink rule. Wonder how many people will try that one on?