If you're a daemons player, you've likely already noticed that Games Workshop has issued a daemons FAQ recently.
In the FAQ, there are two errata and four FAQs.
The first erratum concerns Ku'Gath's necrotic missiles. They go from being ordnance 1 to heavy 1. Hence they won't penetrate vehicles as often ... or so it would seem on the surface. The problem here is that the strength of the missile attack was listed as "n/a", hence they never would have done that anyway. The second bit of the erratum on the necrotic missiles changes their strength from "n/a" to 1. This makes sense in the context of the above. But it doesn't make any odds really (when was the last time we saw a vehicle that had an armour rating below 8? Only in home brew games). It does makes the rules slick, so a good move in my opinion.
The second erratum words transfixing gaze better to make it clear that opponents fight with one less attack. This is more of an English language adjustment than a true erratum I think (unless I'm missing something here?).
For me, the four FAQ questions are straight forward and how I've been playing all along. (Although I didn't previously see the loop-hole in the Changeling that might have allowed it to target multiple opponents). Regardless, I am very glad to see them in there as they reduce the number of arguments about these things and make the typical questions very obvious.
In the FAQ, there are two errata and four FAQs.
The first erratum concerns Ku'Gath's necrotic missiles. They go from being ordnance 1 to heavy 1. Hence they won't penetrate vehicles as often ... or so it would seem on the surface. The problem here is that the strength of the missile attack was listed as "n/a", hence they never would have done that anyway. The second bit of the erratum on the necrotic missiles changes their strength from "n/a" to 1. This makes sense in the context of the above. But it doesn't make any odds really (when was the last time we saw a vehicle that had an armour rating below 8? Only in home brew games). It does makes the rules slick, so a good move in my opinion.
The second erratum words transfixing gaze better to make it clear that opponents fight with one less attack. This is more of an English language adjustment than a true erratum I think (unless I'm missing something here?).
For me, the four FAQ questions are straight forward and how I've been playing all along. (Although I didn't previously see the loop-hole in the Changeling that might have allowed it to target multiple opponents). Regardless, I am very glad to see them in there as they reduce the number of arguments about these things and make the typical questions very obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment