# New Dark Eldar FAQ on the way?



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

More from Faeit212. Apparently Phil had a little slip of the tongue.



> * Dark Eldar with New FAQ on the Way *
> 
> 
> ​
> ...


Of course this means I'm putting my money on this meaning we'll see a bunch of new FAQs in the near future.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Right. So his first reply to 'we've only got Demi-klaives to fight Termies?' was 'Huskblades?' Yes genious, a weapon we can only take twice in the army really helps us out.


----------



## Karyudo-DS (Nov 7, 2009)

Orochi said:


> Yes genious, a weapon we can only take twice in the army really helps us out.


Well that would be the point of an FAQ change. :grin:


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Extremely doubtful. GW FAQs and Errata never give a unit more options or expand existing abilities. They are not for that. They are only to clarify confusing issues and bring outdated rules into line with a new edition. This is why we didn't see existing armies getting Flak missiles as an option.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I obviously don't have all the answers, but I don't think we should stick a fork in this just yet. All we got is a new FAQ is coming and there is going to be some to do with Huskblades.


----------



## Archaon18 (Feb 17, 2012)

Well, at least DE will hopefully be better of for it (Unlike Kharn/Typhus/Abbadon in the new edition).


----------



## The_Werewolf_Arngeirr (Apr 3, 2012)

Archaon18 said:


> Well, at least DE will hopefully be better of for it (Unlike Kharn/Typhus/Abbadon in the new edition).


pwell seeing as how the CSM codex is coming out soon, probably at the end of august / beginning of September i think those three will get something.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Arcane said:


> Extremely doubtful. GW FAQs and Errata never give a unit more options or expand existing abilities. They are not for that.


That's not entirely true; Flash Gitz got to ignore cover with their guns thanks to Info brought in a FAq, which is a new, expanded ability. Though you are right that it is unusual.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sephyr said:


> That's not entirely true; Flash Gitz got to ignore cover with their guns thanks to Info brought in a FAq, which is a new, expanded ability. Though you are right that it is unusual.


Unusual, but not Impossible. Let's be honest, GW regularly does something we think flies in the face of what they would normally do in a situation.


----------



## Pandora (Jun 19, 2012)

It sure would be nice to be able to assault from a Webway Portal again. On a 3+, a lot of the Reserves can come in and terrain is rarely large enough to hold them all.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

Arcane said:


> Extremely doubtful. GW FAQs and Errata never give a unit more options or expand existing abilities. They are not for that. They are only to clarify confusing issues and bring outdated rules into line with a new edition. This is why we didn't see existing armies getting Flak missiles as an option.


Actually, Appendix 2, page 415 says that Missile Launchers have Flak Missiles in addition to Frag and Krak. I view it that the Appendix overrides existing entries, otherwise my vehicles don't have a number for their Hull Points and my Squad Leaders are not Characters. (Both those also being listed in the Appendix.) The Appendix is like an FAQ, otherwise all those FAQs just released would cover their army's new Characters and vehicle Hull Points.



Pandora said:


> It should would be nice to be able to assault from a Webway Portal again. On a 3+, a lot of the Reserves can come in and terrain is rarely large enough to hold them all.


I miss squads of Wyches springing from a WWP and killing anything nearby. Of course as big as a Klaive is, it should cut or crush any amror. Guess we'll have to see.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Archon Dan said:


> Actually, Appendix 2, page 415 says that Missile Launchers have Flak Missiles in addition to Frag and Krak. I view it that the Appendix overrides existing entries, otherwise my vehicles don't have a number for their Hull Points and my Squad Leaders are not Characters. (Both those also being listed in the Appendix.) The Appendix is like an FAQ, otherwise all those FAQs just released would cover their army's new Characters and vehicle Hull Points.


And if you look earlier in the book (pg57) "...and *some* have the *option *to *upgrade* to flakk missiles."

Don't use parts of a book out of context like that. It's misleading.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

"Some have the option," implies a couple different things. Obviously that some units can "purchase" the upgrade. Secondly that some units cannot upgrade. Lastly that some units do not need to upgrade because they already have it. It's particularly ambiguous on page 57. But page 415 is expressly specific. You can't deny part of the Appendix without denying all of it. But perhaps we should continue this discussion in a new thread and not steal the Dark Eldar one.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Archon Dan said:


> "Some have the option," implies a couple different things. Obviously that some units can "purchase" the upgrade. Secondly that some units cannot upgrade. Lastly that some units do not need to upgrade because they already have it. It's particularly ambiguous on page 57. But page 415 is expressly specific. You can't deny part of the Appendix without denying all of it. But perhaps we should continue this discussion in a new thread and not steal the Dark Eldar one.


It's already been discussed.

Also check the actual FAQs. They say you need to check the reference section for _Unit Types_ and _Vehicle Hull Points_. They don't mention any changes to weapons themselves. This will be in the first paragraph of the "Amendments" section.

Basically, if it ain't in an FAQ, White Dwarf or your Codex you can't use it (barring Forgeworld variants/additions that is).

Back on topic, I'm hoping we see the FAQ(s) soon. There are a lot of holes left to fill in the books that would be nice to see covered until they get updated.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

broken link...


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Fallen said:


> broken link...


Sorry about that, it's fixed now.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

did you know huskblades are pow weapons


----------



## Sworn Radical (Mar 10, 2011)

seermaster said:


> did you know huskblades are pow weapons


So what ? That makes 'em AP3, not AP2. So they're still useless against TEQ.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sworn Radical said:


> So what ? That makes 'em AP3, not AP2. So they're still useless against TEQ.


Well except for the Instant Death part, that's a nice way of shutting down Feel No Pain on things, but I agree overall it's not too good at the moment. But that's what makes Kelly's comment interesting in my opinion. We may be seeing a shift in some of the weapon's stat lines in some of these armies to give them ways to deal with TEQs.

I just wonder what else we may get as well.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

my point was people had said earlyer that husk blades ignored teq armour


----------



## The_Werewolf_Arngeirr (Apr 3, 2012)

to be fair guys, Im sure that he just said that without thinking, as most of us would on "why dont you use agonizers" which was my first thought, then remembered they are power weapons so ap3 > < . but I truly hope some things get ammendments to be even better.

maybe scourge getting jet pack instead of jump infantry. so they can move, shoot, then fly away XD


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

seermaster said:


> my point was people had said earlyer that husk blades ignored teq armour


The rumor is suggesting that they might get that as an upgrade.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

ye i know but on the first page were someone mentioned phil said they should use husk blades and then stoped mid sentence 
then someone else said it was alot of help that you could only have 2 in an army 
so i was corecting them saying they are only ap3


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

seermaster said:


> ye i know but on the first page were someone mentioned phil said they should use husk blades and then stoped mid sentence
> then someone else said it was alot of help that you could only have 2 in an army
> so i was corecting them saying they are only ap3


There was no need to correct them. They were pointing out that only two things in the army have access to them, so they didn't see how making the Huskblade AP2 (or even AP1) would help the Dark Eldar against Terminators.

At least that's how I read it.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

well i read it diferent are well


----------



## Pandora (Jun 19, 2012)

Zion said:


> It's already been discussed.
> 
> Also check the actual FAQs. They say you need to check the reference section for _Unit Types_ and _Vehicle Hull Points_. They don't mention any changes to weapons themselves. This will be in the first paragraph of the "Amendments" section.
> 
> ...


That's a pretty meager "discussion." I'd have to agree with Archon Dan as his points carry a lot more weight. Nobody even brought up the appendex in that thread. And I don't even have access to a Missile Launcher with my army, but if all my enemy has is a S 7 missile against my Razorwing or Voidraven, I'm game. And if the Flak Missile is for later use, why put it in the rulebook? There are plenty of weapons not in it and conceivably, as with 5th, weapons will be introduced afterwards that are not in the book. Salvo?

But yes, there is a lot to still be covered by the FAQ.



The_Werewolf_Arngeirr said:


> to be fair guys, Im sure that he just said that without thinking, as most of us would on "why dont you use agonizers" which was my first thought, then remembered they are power weapons so ap3 > < . but I truly hope some things get ammendments to be even better.
> 
> maybe scourge getting jet pack instead of jump infantry. so they can move, shoot, then fly away XD


Scourges counting as Jet Packs would actually make me want to use them. They are meant to be shooty but the new charge rule puts their shooting range in charge distance. I guess they have to wipe out their target.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to get through 2+ armor saves, but fluffwise, Terminator Armor is suppossed to be nearly indestructible. By limiting what can cut or smash through it, they are making it closer to fluff. And you can always shoot with plenty of AP 2 or 1 weapons in most armies. Even then, if I have 3 Venom with Splinter Trueborn in then, I can fire up to 72 Splinter Cannon shots at one squad. Even Terminators will fail some saves under that volume of firepower.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Pandora said:


> That's a pretty meager "discussion." I'd have to agree with Archon Dan as his points carry a lot more weight. Nobody even brought up the appendex in that thread. And I don't even have access to a Missile Launcher with my army, but if all my enemy has is a S 7 missile against my Razorwing or Voidraven, I'm game. And if the Flak Missile is for later use, why put it in the rulebook? There are plenty of weapons not in it and conceivably, as with 5th, weapons will be introduced afterwards that are not in the book. Salvo?
> 
> But yes, there is a lot to still be covered by the FAQ.


6th Edition Rulebook specifically says that codex over rules rulebook. The only thing that over rules codex is the FAQ/Erratta. Nothing in any FAQ/Erratta or any Codex uses any of the new weapons. The only thing that was modified by the rulebook were _Unit Types_ and _Vehicle Hull Points_, but they only did it by way of FAQ/Errata. 

You know, just like every other time GW updates the edition of a game (like 8th Edition WFB).


----------



## SuperSquid (Feb 5, 2011)

I agree with what Pandora said on the termie's. DE already have a answer to Teq's. Its called venom spam and DarkLances. Just because they can't cut through terminators now with their Init 6 wyches without losing a single model in the unit doesn't give them the right to cry like 5 year olds. I'm sorry that now with 6th you actually have to use some strategy. Unlike in 5th where DL spam and 2 troops of wyches were all you needed to table any army out there. 

DE are raiders they are not meant to go toe-to-toe with terminators. Thats what the Darklances are for. Hence the AP2.

Instead of crying about it, these players should maybe look at using actual strategies.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

the answer to termies are those 3 shot AP2 guns that you take instead of Dark Lances...whatever those shenanigans are called...i just hate them - disintegrater cannon or whatnot


----------



## Pandora (Jun 19, 2012)

Fallen said:


> the answer to termies are those 3 shot AP2 guns that you take instead of Dark Lances...whatever those shenanigans are called...i just hate them - disintegrater cannon or whatnot


Yes, they are Disintegrator Cannons. Somehow, I think you knew that. And they're hardly a shenanigan at S 5. We trade our best anti-vehicle for anti-Teq. But I suppose we can switch all Raiders and Ravagers to Disintegrators and use Wyches with Haywire Grenades to get rid of vehicles.



Zion said:


> 6th Edition Rulebook specifically says that codex over rules rulebook. The only thing that over rules codex is the FAQ/Erratta. Nothing in any FAQ/Erratta or any Codex uses any of the new weapons. The only thing that was modified by the rulebook were _Unit Types_ and _Vehicle Hull Points_, but they only did it by way of FAQ/Errata.


Are you serious? So what about Power weapons and Force weapons? Or Grenades? Those all changed considerably. You can't say a new edition rulebook doesn't change weapons when it clearly does.



Zion said:


> You know, just like every other time GW updates the edition of a game (like 8th Edition WFB).


I've actually not been around for a 40K rule change and I don't play Fantasy. But are you actually using the arguement, "they've never done this before so they'll never do it, ever?" :headbutt:


----------



## Karyudo-DS (Nov 7, 2009)

SuperSquid said:


> Instead of crying about it, these players should maybe look at using actual strategies.


Sort of felt that way about Eldar. Banshee's were the go-to but AP3 STR3 didn't even feel like it was worth chasing them with at all anymore...of course a fire prism and some blade storms still work and they cut through 3+ marines anyway still, the more common unit.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Some more info on this FAQ (and others) and when they're coming (courtesy of the Space Wolves Blog):



> * Regular FAQ PDF Updates for 40K *
> 
> 2:00 PM by Adam · 5 comments
> Labels: rumours, space wolves
> ...


So more FAQs, more often, more changes to adjust game balance as the edition evolves and supplements in the White Dwarf.

Is it just me or does this sound *COMPLETELY AWESOME*?


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Karyudo-DS said:


> Sort of felt that way about Eldar. Banshee's were the go-to but AP3 STR3 didn't even feel like it was worth chasing them with at all anymore...of course a fire prism and some blade storms still work and they cut through 3+ marines anyway still, the more common unit.


AP3 kind of sucks...but going against terminators or other 2+ armored units is a bad way to use Banshees anyways. They are best at hitting tactical squads or things that aren't almost always hindered by powerfists/thunder hammers. The one thing they can't take on now is terminators armed with lightning claws, but again...you should be hitting that 10 man Tac squad anyways. So it's really not that big of a deal.

(When it comes to fighting marines anways)


----------



## Karyudo-DS (Nov 7, 2009)

Zion said:


> Is it just me or does this sound *COMPLETELY AWESOME*?


If it's true and not just disappointment with the FAQs? Yup. It does make sense in a way. I haven't gotten a huge number of games in so I'm still murky about some of the rules. Though that's mostly because they didn't have a Starter to coincide with the new edition, probably would have that book and read it cover to cover. 

I would love to see digital balance updates/unit additions etc. It's one thing they're really good for. That would even be a great use of WD's. Though would be nice if they made it to digital format after at least. WD's stop printing eventually.



Taggerung said:


> AP3 kind of sucks...but going against terminators or other 2+ armored units is a bad way to use Banshees anyways.


Normally I would hit Terminators with things like Prism's. Banshees, if they outnumber the squad, have Doom on their side, and you soften the target up, I have found to be very capable of taking out 2+ units. Of course you could never charge a 10 model unit and have a good chance of survival though.

AP3 actually doesn't seem that bad. It's a downgrade, but 2+ units aren't incredibly common and yeah, a tactical squad is a much safer target.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

Karyudo-DS said:


> Normally I would hit Terminators with things like Prism's. Banshees, if they outnumber the squad, have Doom on their side, and you soften the target up, I have found to be very capable of taking out 2+ units. Of course you could never charge a 10 model unit and have a good chance of survival though.
> 
> AP3 actually doesn't seem that bad. It's a downgrade, but 2+ units aren't incredibly common and yeah, a tactical squad is a much safer target.


Randomly Striking Scorpions are now better at ap2 than banshees - when ap isn't as much of a factor, more attacks and a higher strength tells. And don't forget Harlequins


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Point for point, Harlequins are our (Eldar) best answer to everything. The only problem is lack of a dedicated transport, but given the new rules for being unable to assault out of vehicles that's somewhat irrelevant anyway.

Drop your Scorps/Banshees and take 10 Harlies all with kisses and a Shadowseer. You'll be pleasantly surprised as to how much you can mow through.

On the subject of FAQs, just torrent Terminators. Dark Eldar put out over a hundred shots per turn, and Eldar have Scatters/Shuriken/Dragons to deal with them.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Karyudo-DS said:


> If it's true and not just disappointment with the FAQs? Yup. It does make sense in a way. I haven't gotten a huge number of games in so I'm still murky about some of the rules. Though that's mostly because they didn't have a Starter to coincide with the new edition, probably would have that book and read it cover to cover.
> 
> I would love to see digital balance updates/unit additions etc. It's one thing they're really good for. That would even be a great use of WD's. Though would be nice if they made it to digital format after at least. WD's stop printing eventually.


I agree completely, it's all going to come down to if it's true. But this is something we've seen rumors of GW working on before, maybe they're finally ready to implement it.


----------

