This brief post will explain why and how they got quite a boost.
Shadowseers have the 'Veil of Tears' ability. This is found on page 49 of Codex: Eldar, and reads thusly;
A Shadowseer is a psyker and always has the Veil of Tears psychic power. It follows the same rules as Warlock powers (see page 20-21).
The Shadowseer uses her powers to confuse and terrify her foe. Any enemy nit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with must roll 2d6x2. This is their spotting distance in inches.
If the models are not within spotting range, they may not fire that turn. The Shadowseer and her unit can always be ignored by the enemy for the purpose of determining target priority.
The FAQ tells us;
Replace the second and third sentences with: "The Shadowseer, and all models in her unit, have the Stealth and Shrouded special rules."
In case that isn't clear, here are the sentences we are instructed to replace, one more time:
It follows the same rules as Warlock powers (see page 20-21).
The Shadowseer uses her powers to confuse and terrify her foe.
So...that's only an errata in the most technical sense. An erroneous errata, if you will. And, believe me, I shall. Anyone fields Harlequins (from either Codex, I'm not a dickhead) against me until this is fixed (assuming, in fairness it is a mistake, not a buff. Not, for instance, Phil Kelly's parting act of Eldar-boosting) against me, they get both the Spotting Distance mechanic, and the +3 to their Cover saves. They're still T3 and I gots me some Flamers, what's the big deal?
5 comments:
Are you serious? It's obvious the new rules are supposed to replace the second and third paragraphs, not sentences. You seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time rules-lawyering and RAW-exploiting lately. Nothing good will come out of it.
From what someone wrote in Fritz's blog, the FAQ's written in other languages make it clear that GW clearly wrote paragraphs, which means it is only a matter of time before the FAQ is rewritten.
I play opponents who keep up with rules changes; I would *never* be able get away with this.
Like it or not, intent or not, it's the RaW.
Maybe they meant paragraphs, (I believe they did) but since they have English as their native language, they can't have an excuse for only getting it wrong in THAT FAQ.
nvm, in my language faq it also says "sentence" but devs left an old errata which already says to change the second and third sentences... so we have two erratas which say to change those sentences. i guess the magenta one is to be taken for true :\
Post a Comment