Hello everyone the new GW Faq just dropped, and everything seemed pretty ta…. Oh my gosh! Check out that Warp Spider Errata!
Looks like Warp Spiders are still in the pipes, however they are not jumping around as often as they used to. Check out GW’s new errata.
Combined with the new Age of Sigmar rules, and the Dreadnought errata it really looks like GW is trying their best to make their customer base happy. What do you guys think?
You can check out the rest of the Eldar/Dark Eldar/ Harelequinns FAQ here
“Also remember, the ITC is going to use the errata for dreadnoughts, because that is an official GW change to their rules, and not an unfinished FAQ.”
That statement makes no sense. The Black Library webpage is titled “FAQs and Errata”. The new errata are not posted on this official space. What makes them any different than the non-final FAQs that are also not posted?
Because it is a change most people agree with and won’t shake up the meta at all. Personally ITC should have just taken the FAQs as a whole and then voted out what they didn’t like.
Suppose it will come to that a couple of months from now anyway.
Well here’s hoping tau is next week.
The whole point of not using the FAQs right away was that they weren’t final. There are plenty of things in the FAQs that the majority agrees with.
The reason I like the ITC is that it provides clarity for rule questions. I know where to find the answers. Either in the GW FAQ or in the ITC FAQ. Creating an ambiguous source of rules such as the GW Facebook page, does nothing for clarity.
Pablo misspoke, sorry for the confusion.
I am not the ITC. Reece has the final say, and though it is true we are using the dreadnought FAQ, the reasoning behind it was my own personal reason and I overstepped a bit when I posted that. Anyways I don’t see any reason why the ITC shouldn’t vote to use the GW FAQ when it finally does come out completely.
I feel so happy for all those people that went out a bought 50 of them lol
They’re still incredibly good! They won the LVO 40k Champs this year with limited jumps.
Without a doubt the 2nd best unit in the OP Eldar codex behind the Wraith Knight.
They are especially good because of the ITC objective placement rules.
If the ITC moved to fixed objective placement, it would be a much larger nerf to Warp Spiders.
Lol you realize that ITC already limited it to one jump right?
Yeah, the only thing this would really change (if the ITC implemented it) was preventing using Flickerjump in response to an Overwatch attack.
To be fair that is still a useful nerf however it’s not like warpspiders charge a lot of units in the first place.
Warpspiders are still very competitive.
Does this mean that all errata released will be immediately used by ITC?
Though Death from the Skies was also an official rules change from GW and ITC ignored that.
We already played it that way, the post title was a bit amped up and made it seem like we did not already play it that way in the ITC.
Oh that was in response to the dread errata and I suppose the blood angel errata too.
Will the errata that came with the FAQs be used?
I mean, it’s nice and all, but that’s now ITC already played it.
Yeah, Pablo got a bit excited with that post tile, haha
To be fair, to some people this GW FAQ is a big nerf to Warp Spiders. I did get a bit excited, I was thoroughly happy with the fact that GW actually nerfed something with an errata, and that something was Warp Spiders.
I think you are over analyzing the thought they put into it. Pretty sure they just see this as a clarification not a purposeful nerf.
It may have been a “nerf” but I don’t think it was a “we think this is way too powerful so we had to nerf it and fix it” type of nerf.
I think it was a “holy crap we totally misworded this and now people have been cheesing it and jumping a million times because RAW allowed you to do that. We should probably fix this.”
Those are two very different things.
Of course, it’s not really possible for anyone to prove intent unless GW comes out and explains their intent themselves, but this seems like a change where you could make a strong argument they are just fixing faulty wording. It’s not a nerf like “oh yeah Warp Spiders can no longer warp jump and their weapons are S5” where that one would obviously be solely a balance-focused nerf.
I was surprised they corrected it with an errata and not a simple FAQ answer but the wording was pretty open and people have been pressuring them to write things as errata lately.
Ya I always read the flicker jump was a warpjump and that rule states you could only roll it once a turn. But flickerjump never contained that caveat. This errata is more a rewording then clarification and it seems to have always been the intent.
Not for nothing (can you tell I am from Brooklyn) BUT, I never used flicker jump more than once and have never thought that the spiders where anything less than stellar. I get that Mr. Imma Neckbeard played it like an all you can eat buffet of unending crazy, however it does very little to dampen the spiders efficiently.
Bright side, Iyanden supplement will be brought back to life. I, for one, think this is a good thing. Nothing broken in that codex. It brings something fluffy back to the game, like a battle company. I would love to see this get speed tracked in to use for tournaments. Even though I am sure that this will have to wait for the finalized FAQ, I am still ecstatic for that part of the FAQ. It is literally the first part of any of these FAQ’s that I have been overjoyed to see addressed.
I actually really like that part, yeah. I am a huge fan of the Soulshrive as well as the Celestial Lance and getting Battle Focus makes Wraithblades a lot more viable. I don’t really understand why ITC doesn’t allow its use- I mean, yeah, Eldar aren’t lacking for good toys already, but nothing in the Iyanden book is actually good enough to make it into a competitive Eldar list.
It was a wording issue. The book changed from Codex Eldar to Codex Eldar Craftworlds. The Supplement said it was a supplement for Codex Eldar and was never updated. It would be fun to run around with an army of Ob Sec Wraithblades, though.
Aren’t there also updated rules in the Craftworld codex, and a lack of clarity how they work with Iyanden?
Iyanden doesn’t have a way of making Wraiths troops does it? Thought that was from Codex:Eldar itself (Craftworld has since done away with it)
I believe the Iyanden book states that wraithblades/wraithguard can be brought as troops regardless of the presence of a spiritseer. I may be mistaken. I need to dig up the book again.
Being able to make a WK your warlord is pretty competitive. Some traits are amazing on a WK.
Unfortunately you can’t roll for warlord traits if your warlord isnt a character. Still good though!
So does this mean Iyanden is legal in ITC events? Got my first one in August and was hoping to revive the old battle focussing Wraithguard for the event!
I thought from reading my buddy’s Iyanden book after I had this same thought that the printed version says your wraithknight becomes a character if you choose him as your warlord. I’m not positive, though.
The Iyanden FAQ that came out with 7th edition changed it so that they become characters. I think the digital copy automatically includes that change.
Solid updates. I like the clarification that the Solitaire can use Kiss of Death with the Caress. I also like how the Archangel of Pain is now at least usable against Fearless mobs, the fearless models just don’t get the wounds.
Gotta say though, the very last one on the DE page had me laughing out loud:
Q: “The Orbs of Despair are really bad. Like, really, REALLY bad. Are they seriously supposed to be that bad?”
A: “Yes.”
Haha poor Dark Eldar.
Got two questions regarding warp spiders
1. Does a witchfire power with a weapon profile (ex: Assault 4 S5 AP3) count as a shooting attack?
2. Does a witchfire power that affect a unit that does not need to roll (like Psychic Scream) count as a shooting attack?
A witchfire is a psychic “shooting” attack, so I would believe that they can, indeed flicker away from it. I am also pretty sure that witchfires don’t have any type of a caveat to nullify the “counts as shooting” bit for being a witchfire because it does not roll to hit. That is my 2 cents at least.
“Witchfire powers are shooting attacks.”
First sentence in the witchfire section.
To further elaborate. The flickerjump says “once per turn” when you are the “target of a shooting attack.”
So yeah… if a witchfire targets you (not the same thing as being under a beam for example if you aren’t targetted) there’s no reason you can’t flickerjump.
The GW faqs strongly imply that using any attack that bits a unit counts as “targeting”, weird as that may be.
Also the ITC FAQ.
Yeah, they really should have done a better job with the BRB FAQ.
“A beam attack does not target a unit – can you still jink?”
“Yes”
Well… ok… you can only jink when you’re the target of an attack. So you could draw parallels with other abilities that require targetting and infer they also work (i.e. – flicker jumps). But GW could have just said “any unit under a beam is considered targetted by the attack” and it would be a lot more clear.
Yays:
Iyanden is legal.
1st turn skyleap is a go. Hopefully the same can be said for mawloc burrowing.
Warp Spider flicker jump nerf.
Boos:
Didn’t recost the wriathknight.
mawloc states that it can not turn 1 burrow in its entry
Nothing to mindblowing imo. One jump per Unit/Turn warpspiders. As ITC are playing it already. I play space elves and have only jumped twice with my spiders one time during all my years playing em outside ITC. Still one of the best units in the game; Insane movement, shooting against I, monofilament, hit n run and one Turn flickerjump.
Yeah, they still rock.
Clarification for the podcast; the No Escape rule is for templates hitting open top vehicles or buildings. The errata gives the occupants some small hope when hit by Wraithguard.
Actually the errata in regards to the Distortion weapons is specifically an amendment to the paragraph dealing with Distortion Scythe weapons, all the other D weapons still hit at STR 10, when STR needs to be determined
Yeah, we biffed that one.
So after runes of farseer FAQ how would be Lakota casts be affected by farseer rerolls when: casting invisible on himself, shrieking a eldar unit farseer is not in?
Belakor sorry
No and no. The FAQ explicitly states you cannot use his runes of the farseer if he isn’t targetted (or in the unit being targetted). Neither of those scenarios you listed targetted the Farseer. (This is also explicitly covered in the BRB in the Deny the Witch section)
Yeah that’s what I figured. My game group had been using it that they get deny rerolls on any deny which made casting invisibility and summoning really hard for me. I’m glad it’s in writing now to set it straight.