Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tortuga932 wrote:the majority of models engaged in this fight have ws 3

No, half of the models in this fight have WS3.

It would only be a majority if there were more models with WS3 than other models.

A majority is more than half of the entire group, not just a sub-group that is larger than any other sub-group.

Okay, final batch of responses to the (current) feedback from this thread. Then I'll be moving onto the thread in the YMTC forum to try to give some responses there. . .

don_mondo wrote:SM.73A.01 Techmarine. OK, he's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed. So? Neither are my IG Officers, yet they give up a KP regardless of when or how they die. I think I see where you're getting it, the TF cannon isn't a retinue as per the Annihilation rules. So does the sequence in which they die change the situation? This applies (IMO) to gun drones etc as well. Sequence of death should not matter, all that matters is that the model(s) can become an IC or separate unit. Or does a unit that is wiped on while attempting to disembark from a destroyed vehicle not give up a kill point (as per the gun drones answer)?

The truth is, there is no simple answer for ruling on Kill Points. There just isn't enough information provided in the rules for Kill Points to cover some of the bizarre situations that exist in the game. As soon as you think there is one blanket concept that covers everything, once you start to apply it you quickly find that it makes other situations ridiculous.

We decided that Kill Points aren't Victory Points in that they don't apply just to units that are purchased from your army list. Instead, they are rewarded whenever a unit is destroyed in the game. So the question ultimately becomes: When does a unit become a unit in the case of units that are essentially 'created' in the middle of the game?

If Gun Drones never leave their vehicle, they are never a separate unit. If a Biovore never creates a Spore Mine cluster, that Spore Mine cluster never becomes a unit in the game, etc. So we have ruled that if something never becomes a unit in the game then there simply is no way it can possibly give up a Kill Point for being destroyed. This absolutely doesn't apply to a standard unit being carried in a transport because they are most certainly still a separate unit, as opposed to Tau Gun Drones which become a separate unit only when (if) their vehicle is destroyed.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Thanks for this I like the ruling on intermingling units.

Just another question though:
On RB.22A.02: I was under the impression that waving arms don't count as part of the model for being shot at, so why would it be counted when checking to see if you could shoot over said model?

Because you have to use the 'true' line of sight when attempting to draw line of sight past enemy models. Yes, the rules require you to draw LOS to the 'body' of a model you are firing at, but that is only for models you are targeting. In all other cases (such as drawing LOS past an intervening model) you use true line of sight which means that, yes all parts of an intervening model count. But remember, on the first page of the FAQ we are very specific that players cannot convert their models specifically to gain a game advantage.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:And a question: Is a Relic Blade a two-handed weapon and can it be combined with a Shield.

Yes, there is no rule preventing these two items from being used on the same model.

Zubb wrote:Also want a calrification - is power lance treated as ccw in a round model doesnot provoke an assault? It is Important for Autarch.

I will definitely look into seeing if this warrants being included in the final FAQ.

chromedog wrote:p25, BA25A.01
Q: How is the Whirlwind Launcher
mounted and can it fire both ‘Vengeance’ and
‘Incendiary Castellan’ missiles in the same game?
A: Yes [clarification].

I take it 'YES' is to whether it can fire both types during a game. The type of mounting, however (first part of question) is not covered. Is it a turret or (fixed) Hull-mount.

Thanks, I'll get that fixed in the final version (it is turret-mounted).

ubermosher wrote:SM142: Land Raider Multi-Melta is hull mounted? Every kit I've seen has it mounted on the exact same cupola as the pintle storm-bolter. I would think it would be pintle mounted as well.

IIRC (don't have all my codexes on me), other marine codexes (like Templars) list the multi-melta as hull-mounted so we were simply using that as our basis. I'll double-check on that for the final version of the FAQ though.

dancingcricket wrote:CD.52D.01 - I'm curious as to how you got from RAW (All attacks from followers of Nurgle ignore armour saves!) to not include all attacks? I'm pretty sure that someone shooting at you is an attack, and not a display of affection or a marraige proposal...

It is listed as a [clarification] not [RAW]. All of Epidemus's gifts up until the final one are most certainly CC based, and the term 'attacks' is both a very general word and a game term for a models close combat 'Attacks' (such as in their profile). GW has in the past made the same mistake of using the term 'Attacks' in a rule that pretty clearly didn't make sense when applied to 'ranged attacks' (the Tzeentch Gargoyle upgrade in the previous CSM codex, for example).

As such, we've made the ruling that this reference to 'Attacks' is indeed referring to the more strict game definition of close combat 'attacks'. Although, I do agree that this probably should be re-categorized as a [rules change].

BoxANT wrote:

IG.GEN.02 – Q: When models are part of a Heavy
Weapon team do either of them have a Lasgun?
A: Both models have a lasgun and either may fire the
heavy weapon (but not both at the same time) while the
other model fires his lasgun [RAW].

So am I correct in reading this in that if the HW team moves, both can fire their lasguns?

Yes. But remember that if you are going to play this way you'll need to have lasguns modeled on each of your Heavy Weapon trooper models.

BoxANT wrote:

IG.44.01 – Q: Can individual units of an Infantry
Platoon be held in Reserve?
A: Individual units of an Infantry Platoon may be held in
Reserve while others are deployed normally. When rolling for
Reserves, only a single roll is made for all elements of the
Infantry Platoon that are in Reserve. In ‘Dawn of War’
missions, each unit in the Platoon counts as a separate unit
for how many units may be deployed [clarification].

You say that each squad in an infantry platoon counts as a separate unit durring DoW. Does not this go against the RAW in the IG codex?

Nope. Unlike the Command Platoon, which says it is deployed as a single unit, the standard Infantry Platoon only says they all count as a single force organization choice. Page 92 of the rulebook ("Multiple Unit Choices") explains that this alone does make the entire platoon deploy as a single unit.

shirou wrote:Nice FAQ. At a glance, I take issue with one response that has not yet been addressed:

WH.18.01B (pg 73)

Your "clarification" is a rules change because your definition of "affected" is overly restrictive. For example, shield of faith can be used to nullify the Eldar power doom, but your rules don't allow for this.

I will double-check to see if 'Doom' should be included. But this really falls into the incredibly grey area of when a unit is actually 'affected' by a power, and the truth is there isn't one easy answer which means this will always be a [clarification] rather than a [rules change].

Kallbrand wrote:
Lastyly, does this game really take a FAQ thats larger then the rulebook with changes (clarifications are good, pure rule changes are bad imo)? Doesnt this make it a whole diffrent game.

Please remember that this FAQ is only used to solve disputes in games. If both players naturally play the game a certain way, a FAQ ruling isn't going to even come up. Or if both players hate a particular FAQ ruling they will, of course, just ignore that ruling for their game. The ONLY time a FAQ ruling comes into play is when you have two players who disagree on a rule. WHEN (and only when) this happens, the FAQ becomes a guide for both players and judges so that everyone can know what the ruling should be, instead of just leaving the ruling up to a random opinion from a random judge that can never possibly be consistent across an entire tournament filled with multiple judges.

And as for this FAQ somehow 'changing the game' the fact remains, that there is no one true way to play the game that everyone agrees upon. The reality is that each person interprets the rules as written based on their own understanding of language. The truth is, a lot of what is labeled a [rules change] in the FAQ are issues that many people simply take for granted as the RAW already.

Despite what some people may think, we have no desire to change 40K or force people to play a certain way. I'm personally happy playing any way my opponent wants to play on nearly any issue. The FAQ is only ever designed to be a tool to help give consistent rulings at a tournament between palyers who have a DISPUTE. As I've said before, players who see eye-to-eye on the rules are going to play how they want to play regardless of what any FAQ says.

In my opinion, for those players who do have a rules dispute it is always better to try to create a situation where a consistent ruling is provided as opposed to just leaving every judge out on a limb to wing things as best they can. And that is the only goal of the FAQ: to help resolve disputes consistently.


Thanks once again for all the feedback.

For some reason I can't download it...

Sidstyler wrote:For some reason I can't download it...

What's happening when you try?

yakface wrote:

shirou wrote:Nice FAQ. At a glance, I take issue with one response that has not yet been addressed:

WH.18.01B (pg 73)

Your "clarification" is a rules change because your definition of "affected" is overly restrictive. For example, shield of faith can be used to nullify the Eldar power doom, but your rules don't allow for this.

I will double-check to see if 'Doom' should be included. But this really falls into the incredibly grey area of when a unit is actually 'affected' by a power, and the truth is there isn't one easy answer which means this will always be a [clarification] rather than a [rules change].

I looked at the FAQ again, and upon rereading, it seems like the list provided in the FAQ is intended to define "area of effect." Shield of faith may be used by units that are targeted by or included in an area of effect of a psychic power. Since Doom explicitly targets a unit, I think it is clear that Doom can be nullified with Shield of Faith, and that the FAQ does not prohibit this because it is only defining what constitutes an "area of effect."

However, I think my original point -- that the wording is overly restrictive -- still stands. Doom is simply not a good example because it does not have an area of effect. I'll suggest Null Zone instead. Null Zone has a clear area of effect (a circle with 24" radius centered on the librarian), and a sororitas unit inside the area of effect would be affected.

I don't think it is a gray area about whether or not a sororitas unit is "affected" by Null Zone. While it is true that "affected" may not be clearly defined by GW as a game term, it does have a clear meaning in the English dictionary, and by that definition the sororitas unit is affected.

(I am cross-posting this to the other thread about the same topic as it is now rather unclear to me where I should be posting this comment.)

so by the logic of its not more than half you're telling me that a unit of 2 inquisitors 1 space marine captain on a bike, and 3 techmarines on foot form a unit when I shoot at them I count the unit as toughness 5???

I don't believe that to be right at all and since toughness and ws are both worded the same way...

I don't believe majority is referring to each type vs the unit. (3 vs 6, 1 vs 6, 2 vs 6) I'd bet that majority is a reference to the other types in the unit,
ie 3 vs 1 vs 1 in which case you would treat the above example as toughness 4 not 5 since it makes more sense that bullets would hit more T4 guys than anybody else, since there are more of them than either other type. Otherwise you have one T5 model running around the whole unit catching all the bullets and that seems silly.

Tortuga932 wrote:so by the logic of its not more than half

It's not an argument based on logic. It's an argument based on the meaning of the word 'Majority'

you're telling me that a unit of 2 inquisitors 1 space marine captain on a bike, and 3 techmarines on foot form a unit when I shoot at them I count the unit as toughness 5???

Given the current rules for Mixed Toughness units, that is indeed correct.

Unlikely to ever happen, but correct.

I don't believe that to be right at all

Why not?

I don't believe majority is referring to each type vs the unit.

That's what 'majority' means.

Tortuga932 wrote:so by the logic of its not more than half you're telling me that a unit of 2 inquisitors 1 space marine captain on a bike, and 3 techmarines on foot form a unit when I shoot at them I count the unit as toughness 5???

I don't believe that to be right at all and since toughness and ws are both worded the same way...

I don't believe majority is referring to each type vs the unit. (3 vs 6, 1 vs 6, 2 vs 6) I'd bet that majority is a reference to the other types in the unit,
ie 3 vs 1 vs 1 in which case you would treat the above example as toughness 4 not 5 since it makes more sense that bullets would hit more T4 guys than anybody else, since there are more of them than either other type. Otherwise you have one T5 model running around the whole unit catching all the bullets and that seems silly.

The mixed armor/toughness rules are written very poorly, because they more or less assume that there are only 2 types of armor in the unit. However, they still read clearly, even when there are more than two types, they simply lead to some complicated and potentially absurd situations.

What it does is present an "either/or" situation, when the reality is that they could have an "either/or/or" situation.

yakface wrote:

dancingcricket wrote:CD.52D.01 - I'm curious as to how you got from RAW (All attacks from followers of Nurgle ignore armour saves!) to not include all attacks? I'm pretty sure that someone shooting at you is an attack, and not a display of affection or a marraige proposal...

It is listed as a [clarification] not [RAW]. All of Epidemus's gifts up until the final one are most certainly CC based, and the term 'attacks' is both a very general word and a game term for a models close combat 'Attacks' (such as in their profile). GW has in the past made the same mistake of using the term 'Attacks' in a rule that pretty clearly didn't make sense when applied to 'ranged attacks' (the Tzeentch Gargoyle upgrade in the previous CSM codex, for example).

As such, we've made the ruling that this reference to 'Attacks' is indeed referring to the more strict game definition of close combat 'attacks'. Although, I do agree that this probably should be re-categorized as a [rules change].

Yeah, I would consider that a rules change. Attack is used to represent both shooting and close combat in the rulebook. An example;

Pg. 20 under Invulnerable Saves;

'The Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.'

or any of the vehicle result table.

yakface wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:For some reason I can't download it...

What's happening when you try?

"The file is damaged and could not be repaired."

I'm using Firefox.

Worked fine for me, and I'm using firefox too...

Only thing I can think of is for you to check what version of Acrobat Reader you're using. You need to have at least 7.0.

I do have 7.0.

[EDIT] Moved to YMTC thread

Centurian99 wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?

I think you can, but we'll look into it. The first part of that answer is RAW, by the way. Then second part really is more of a clarification than a change (and only applies if the vehicle is destroyed in the owning player's turn).

I got my battlewagon over the weekend and assembled it during the Vikings-Eagles game. You can, barely, fit 20 ork boyz base-to-base under the footprint of the battlewagon.

Here are some things you cannot fit:
19 boyz + warboss (40mm base)
10 meganobs (40mm bases)
19 boys + big mek (40mm base)
18 boyz + mek + warboss

Is it really so bad to just require that models that were within a destroyed transport must be placed as close to within the footprint of the vehicle as possible? I don't think it all that appropriate that this FAQ demands that a player lose models when a player using stock GW models cannot fulfill the requirement.

Perhaps make the rule state that

"Any models unable to be placed within or touching the edge of the vehicle's footprint, and that are not more than 1" away from an enemy model, count as destroyed."

That gives some leeway with regards to the vehicle models that are basically clown cars(like Orks have), but not much. The main point is of course not to let the enemy surround your vehicle and then pop it in the first place.

yakface wrote:

BoxANT wrote:

IG.GEN.02 – Q: When models are part of a Heavy
Weapon team do either of them have a Lasgun?
A: Both models have a lasgun and either may fire the
heavy weapon (but not both at the same time) while the
other model fires his lasgun [RAW].

So am I correct in reading this in that if the HW team moves, both can fire their lasguns?

Yes. But remember that if you are going to play this way you'll need to have lasguns modeled on each of your Heavy Weapon trooper models.

No, you only have to represent upgrades. All guardsmen have lasguns, unless they're replaced by upgrades. If the lascannon replaces either model's lasgun, then they lose it. If they just "take" the lascannon, then they still have their basic equipment and you don't have to represent that - not having to represent basic equipment allows players to model injured guardsmen holding no weapons or a sergeant holding a sword and throwing a grenade, or a space marine breaking a hormagaunt's neck with his bare hands without having to worry about "does he have a weapon?"

Same with CSM. All have bolters and bp/ccw. So if they are modelled with bolters, or modelled with bp/ccw, they still have all three weapons in both ways.

Isn't it called a Plurality, in those situations?

In American voting systems, if someone gets 40% of the votes and two other factions get 30%, the vote doesn't go through because a majority hasn't been reached. I think the word is a plurality.