Ladies (?) and Gentleman, after months of hard work I am finally ready to present to you the first draft of what I'm calling the "yakFAQs", a set of completely 100% unofficial FAQs for the game of Warhammer 40,000 4th edition.

You may be asking yourself, "why the hell do we need another FAQ, especially a fan created one?"

That is a very good question, but the answer is simple: No one has ever made a FAQ for 40k quite like this before (at least to my knowledge). What makes this FAQ so much different from some of the rather complete FAQs that have been put out in the last few months (like the Adepticon FAQ)?

One word: organization.

Previously, FAQs were always divided into general sections such as "movement", "shooting", "psychic powers", etc. And as the questions pile up in the FAQ, it becomes increasingly difficult for players to find the answer to the quesiton they're looking for. Basically, you have to scan through the whole FAQ section trying to find what your'e looking for.

Well no more, I say! The yakFAQ has its questions organized by a numbering system that is based on the corresponding page number of the rulebook or codex. Say you have a question about the "Fleet" universal special rule, so you flip to the rulebook ( the "RB" ) and find the universal special rules on page 74, but your question isn't answered by the RAW. What to do?

Well. . .the next step is to hop into the yak rulebook FAQ, and head into the "RB.74" numbers (rulebook, page 74). You know that you'll be looking at the questions dealing with universal special rules. How easy is that!

Also, questions in the FAQ that impact  other questions have a little "reference number" at the bottom that will help you quickly jump to another section of the FAQ to check out related questions. I've even repeated the same question in different (but appropriate) sections to make it more simple for a player to find the question he or she is looking for with the minimum of fuss.

For example, say you're wondering if pinned psykers can cast psychic powers? Well, you can either look in the pinning section of the rulebook questions (RB.32) or the psychic power section (RB.52) to find the exact same question.

Now, all of this organization comes at a price. Combining the rulebook FAQ and all codex FAQs comes out to about 70 whopping pages! This isn't the kind of FAQ you print up and carry around with you (at least not yet).

This is more meant to be more of a master FAQ you go back and reference after the game. It doesn't tackle quesitons that are clearly answered in the RAW, and it doesn't include the GW FAQ answers. I'm assuming players reading my FAQ have already checked the rulebook and the online FAQs for their answer before checking out the yakFAQ.

This is the kind of complete tournament FAQ that organizers and judges can use to cover their butts. Because this is, by far, (IMO) the most complete set of questions and answers for 40k ever compiled, if a tournament says they're going to use this FAQ you can be pretty confident that all the major areas are covered.

But you may be wondering: where did I get the answers to the quesitons from?

Easy. They're all from me (and perhaps a few Dakka polls). These answers are based solely on my experience and opinion. I have tried to stay with the RAW when possible, but when I felt that the RAW presented an absurd or unfun solution, or went against how the vast majority of players (I've encountered) play the game, I didn't hesitated to rule against the printed word. I tried to make it very easy and clear to indetify where and when I did this:

• Rulings based on the rules as written are noted as [RAW].

• Rulings that clarify an issue that has no conclusive RAW answer are noted as [clarifications].

• Rulings that change the RAW because I feel playing that way is absurd, unfun, or goes against the vast majority of players are noted as [rules change].


• On rare occasions rulings that go against existing GW FAQs are noted as [GW FAQ overrule].

In some cases, I've left the answers colored red, which means I'm not entirely sure the answer is the right one (even from my own perspective). In other areas I've included alternate answers colored green to represent a possible second way to rule. You also may notice a few [DIAGRAM NEEDED!] notes left around indicating places I intend to insert diagrams in order to make the answers more clear.

As a tournament organizer if you don't like my answers, the yakFAQ is also a perfect start for you to erase my answers and write your own!


But this is just the very first draft of this FAQ. And from you all, I need your feedback, input, help, etc. You name it, I need it.

If anyone wants to help me by taking some pics and photoshopping up some diagrams I would be eternally grateful (I'd let you know what the diagram needs to look like).

I could also use someone who wants to clean up the document and make it look a bit more pretty (and turn it into a PDF when we're finished).

To everyone else, I just want to know what answers you think are idiotic, stupid, poorly thought out, don't make sense, ruin the game, etc, etc, etc.

The more feedback the better!

Also, I know that the list of quesitons are still incomplete (even at 70 pages). I don't have any Forgeworld queries, Kroot Merc or Armored Company questions, and I'm sure there are plenty of rulebook and codex questions still out there I missed. Please let me know of any you think I missed.


Finally, anyone who wants to steal this FAQ to use in their tournament or "borrow" just the questions to answer for their own FAQ, please feel free (you don't need to ask permission)! That's the whole point of spending time doing something like this: so that other people who want to use this as a resource can. If this document can help you out, feel free to take it, change it and make it work for you.

Lord knows, I've stolen most of these questions from other FAQs around the net, so its only right they get passed on back around through me.

. . .

Whew! Enough jibber-jabber. 


Attached below are two separate Word documents.

• One is the rulebook FAQ (it also contains Cities of Death and Wargear Book questions too).
  
• The other document is a complete compilation of FAQs for all codices, including questions that pertain to multiple (or all) codices.

Please let me know what you think!

CSM.18.01 ? Q: What classification type is a model with Daemonic Speed?
A: They count as ?Beasts?, which means they are kept in Reserve during Escalation [clarification].
Ref: RB.264.01


That is a Rules Change actually.

And I noticed you didn't include the Greater Daemon/Daemon beast under Alpha Legion.

And another note-You allow Autarachs to fleet, but not Dark Eldar IC's on a skyboard...Shouldn't both work the same way?

(Sorry for the multiple posts. I'm at work so don't want to make a full list then consolidate since I don't have long online )

Make multiple posts, I don't mind.

1) I considered the Daemonic Speed classification a clarification because there is no classificaiton for models with Daemonic Speed listed in the rulebook. I guess you could consider them a "Chaos Space Marine on foot", but all the other movement modes were clearly defined.

2) What is the Greater Daemon/Daemon beast Alpha Legion deal (I'm not familiar with what you're talking about)?

3) Yes they should, as consistency is key in a FAQ. It's easy enough to change and I'm leaning towards disallowing the Fleet in either case. Which way would you rule personally?

On the speed thing-RAW has it being an infantry model that just moves as a beast. I agree, it probably should be classified as a beast for balance reasons, but every semi-official FAQ I've seen (Ones from GW...Forum and UKGT FAQ) has it being able to deploy in escalation.

The Alpha Legion rules strongly imply that the only daemons they can use are Princes, possessed, and packs from cultists. However, no where in the actual rules do they outright state that that's the only daemons they can take. There was a lengthy YMDC thread on it...It got ressurected somewhat recently I think. (Flavius was the last one to post on it if memory serves).

On the jetbike thing...I'm honestly not sure. I'd probably go with the RAW saying they both can fleet unless it's officially FAQ'd. I don't play either army currently.

 

Edit-Greater Daemon discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/66251/view/topic/Default.aspx

Space Wolves section: Wolf Lord Battle Leader shoulfd read Wolf Guard Battle Leader.

I know this isn't the place to debate it, but the entry says that bodyguard members can choose heavy weapons(one in every three IIRC), not the IC that is attatched to the retinue (bodyguard in this case).

Otherwise very cool stuff.

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 1:10 PM

On the speed thing-RAW has it being an infantry model that just moves as a beast. I agree, it probably should be classified as a beast for balance reasons, but every semi-official FAQ I've seen (Ones from GW...Forum and UKGT FAQ) has it being able to deploy in escalation.

The Alpha Legion rules strongly imply that the only daemons they can use are Princes, possessed, and packs from cultists. However, no where in the actual rules do they outright state that that's the only daemons they can take. There was a lengthy YMDC thread on it...It got ressurected somewhat recently I think. (Flavius was the last one to post on it if memory serves).

On the jetbike thing...I'm honestly not sure. I'd probably go with the RAW saying they both can fleet unless it's officially FAQ'd. I don't play either army currently.

 

Edit-Greater Daemon discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/66251/view/topic/Default.aspx

Cool, I'll add that Alpha Legion question to the FAQ.

As for the Jetbike w/ fleet, the DE codex specifically disallows fleeting with any Jetbike model and prohibits "hellions" from fleeting. This leaves a Skyboard taken by an IC as a loophole to the rule that I close with the FAQ.

Now, if I'm going to stay consistent then I should clearly rule that Eldar Jetbikes cannot fleet as well.

Asmodai is correct on both counts.

A Wolf Gaurd Battle Leader cannot take the heavy weapons from the Wolf Gaurd entry because they are seperate entries in the codex. He may have Wolf Gaurd in his name, but he does not get to take the cheaper wolf gaurd price for equipment or the heavy weapon choices from their entry. I have seen this answered before by GW and on Dakka.

It should say No [RAW]

(P.S. Fan-freakin-tabulous work!)

Posted By asmodai650 on 11/30/2006 1:22 PM
Space Wolves section: Wolf Lord Battle Leader shoulfd read Wolf Guard Battle Leader.

I know this isn't the place to debate it, but the entry says that bodyguard members can choose heavy weapons(one in every three IIRC), not the IC that is attatched to the retinue (bodyguard in this case).

Otherwise very cool stuff.

Thanks for the heads-up on the name.

The WGBL entry (on page 5) says that they may take weapon options allowed in the WG Bodyguard entry. Since the HWs are the only weapons presented in that entry I don't know what else they could be refering to.

Congrats on putting this together! I definitely plan on encouraging my gaming group to use the answers in this FAQ for our games.

I'll post some feedback when I have more time to go over them.

Posted By SetantaSilvermane on 11/30/2006 1:50 PM

Asmodai is correct on both counts.

A Wolf Gaurd Battle Leader cannot take the heavy weapons from the Wolf Gaurd entry because they are seperate entries in the codex. He may have Wolf Gaurd in his name, but he does not get to take the cheaper wolf gaurd price for equipment or the heavy weapon choices from their entry. I have seen this answered before by GW and on Dakka.

It should say No [RAW]

(P.S. Fan-freakin-tabulous work!)

Not being a SW player, I based much of my decision based upon Insaniak's argument found in this thread:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/1/view/Topic/postid/113101/Default.aspx


Even from an intent point of view what could this rule in the WG Battle Leader's entry mean:

"The Wolf Guard Battle Leader may be given any euiqpment allowed from the Space Wolves Armoury and/or the Wolf Guard entry in the army list."

The only equipment allowed in the Wolf Guard entry are heavy weapons, so I really don't understand how this could mean something else, even from an intent point of view.

Probably the right thing to do removing fleet from Eldar IC's on jetbikes too. 

CSM.36.01 ? Does a Chaos Land Raider use the new Machine Spirit rules from the Space Marine codex?
A: No [RAW].

Might want to put in that the Chaos Land Raider is not a scoring unit unlike the Loyalist Land Raider in that case.

ELD.43.01 -- Q: Can?a Fire Prism contribute its Prism Cannon?to another Fire Prism that is more than?60" away?
A: Yes [RAW].

Personally, I'd say change the RAW here. Doesn't make sense to help things out of range. Not that they'd often be out of range of each other


ELD.51.01 -- Q: When Divination is used to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units or just one?
A: Two. Embarked units do count towards the Divination total [GW rulebook FAQ overrule].


I don't think Embarked units should count. On a fluff basis, it would take just as much effort to conceal the presence of a vehicle with passangers as a vehicle without pasengers...


SM.39.02C ? Q: If multiple Castellan Minefields occupy the same space on the table, do enemy models moving over that area test for each minefield, or just once no matter how many Minefields are stacked there?
A: A model rolls once to trigger a mine when moving through an area of the table covered by one or more minefields, no matter how many actual minefields are stacked in the same spot [rules change].


I think with stacked minefields, there should be a higher denisity, thus check for each one


MCO.03A ? Q: Many weapons in codices are not defined as being either single or two-handed. How should those weapons be treated; especially in close combat?
A: Any weapon that isn?t defined as to how many hands it takes to use is considered to be ?single-handed? [rules change].
Ref: RB.40.01

I'd err on the side of caution and say they should be considered two handed. I don't think a Calidus needs another attack


BA.07.01 ? Q: Can Furioso Dreadnoughts be equipped with a Drop Pod?
A: Yes [rules change].

More a clarification than a rules change per se.


CSM.16.02 ? Q: If a character with a Bike upgrades the combi-bolter, do the points spent on the upgrade count against the character?s Wargear points limitation?
A: Yes [RAW].

I'd treat this like buying another weapon...So not count against wargear allowance.


CSM.18.02A ? Can a Daemon Icon summon its bound daemons on the first turn of the game?
A: No, only on the second turn or later [clarification].

I think that's a rules change, and I don't really care for it. Seems to me the intent of the Daemon Icon is first turn summoning.


CSM.55.01A ? Q: Does a model behind cover who is charged by an enemy with Warp Scream fight at Initiative 9 or 10?
A: Initiative 9. Also, against abilities that double (or halve) a model?s Initiative, the -1 Warp Scream penalty is applied after the Initiative is doubled (or halved) [clarification].


I always see the going to I10 as the final thing after all modifiers. I don't think warp scream would overrule that any more than furious charge would.

On to Rulebook FAQ

RB.27.01C ? Q: Regarding removing ?whole? models, when a multi-Wound unit (that contains a previously wounded model) suffers a wounding hit that will cause instant death, is the owning player compelled to put it on an un-wounded (whole) model or can they choose to place it on the previously wounded model?
A: A wounding hit that has the potential to cause instant death to at least one model in the unit must be allocated before any other wounds [rules change]. As clarified in RB.27.01B, wounding hits must be allocated to a previously wounded model. Of course, if the unit also contains single Wound models the player is free to allocate the wound to them instead.

ALT A: A wound that will cause instant death on a multi-wound model must be allocated to an unwounded (whole) model where possible.


I'd go with the non-alternate interpretation. Multiple wound models are more expensive than they're worth.



If the Ordnance marker does not scatter, the defending player may remove casualties from any models in the affected unit that are within range and line of sight of the firing weapon, not just from those beneath the Ordnance marker [rules change].


Isn't that a clarification?


RB.30.01B ? Q: When firing a Blast weapon, if a non-vehicle model is so large that cannot be completely covered by the marker is it possible for the model to be automatically hit?
A: No [RAW].

ALT A: If a non-vehicle model is so large that a blast marker entirely over the model doesn?t completely cover it, then the model suffers an automatic hit; no ?partial? roll is needed [rules change].


I'd go with the auto-hit personally.

RB.30.01C ? Q: If a shooting unit contains multiple Blast or multiple Template weapons, can it utilize the ?torrent of fire? allocation rule (page 26)?
A: When firing multiple Blast or Template weapons, keep a running total of how many wounds the target suffers (even those that are saved). The final Blast or Template weapon is resolved along with the rest of the unit?s ?regular? shooting (if it has any) [clarification].

If the target unit suffers as many total wounds as it had models when the enemy unit?s shooting began, then the ?torrent of fire? rule may be used [RAW]. The defending player may choose to wait until the all the ?to wound? rolls have been completed for the unit before deciding which the selected model will have to save against (although Wounds that have already been fully resolved may not be chosen)[clarification].
Ref: WH.18.03

So fire the plasma cannon in the middle of the other template weapons...Results in an auto casaulty most of the time...

RB.47B.02 ? Q: If a unit suffers 25% casualties in its own shooting phase (for example, by scattering Ordnance, or ?Gets Hot? weapons) does it take a morale check?
A: Yes. Casualties from friendly fire can be equally (if not more) demoralizing [RAW].

That's a rules change I believe. It's only (if memory serves) from enemy shooting/enemy shooting phase.

RB.61.02E ? Q: Can a Skimmer over area terrain disembark passengers?
A: No. To keep things simple, in a non-?Cities of Death? game, a Skimmer model that ends its move over area terrain may not disembark transported models [rules change].

ALT A: Yes, in non-?Cities of Death? games [RAW]. However, disembarking models may not be placed directly beneath the Skimmer model unless the area terrain has floors (like a Ruin); and provided the disembarking models underneath the Skimmer are still within 2? of one of the vehicle?s Access Points (or any part of the vehicle in the case of open-topped vehicles).


I'd go with the Alternate, allowing disembarkation. Assume they have rappels or jump packs or something

RB.69A.02 ? Q: When a Skimmer is attacked during its own movement phase (for example, from a Castellan Minefield or a Death or Glory attack), do you use the Skimmer?s current or previous movement phase to determine if it benefits from the ?Skimmers Moving Fast? rule?
A: If a Skimmer is attacked in its own movement phase, at the point of the attack, if the Skimmer is more than 6 inches from where it started the movement phase, then it uses the ?Skimmers Moving Fast? rule against the attack [rules change].


The rule for this and for moving through difficult terrain should be the same. Either go with what you intend to move or go with what you actually move on both.

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 3:37 PM

MCO.03A – Q: Many weapons in codices are not defined as being either single or two-handed. How should those weapons be treated; especially in close combat?
A: Any weapon that isn’t defined as to how many hands it takes to use is considered to be “single-handed” [rules change].
Ref: RB.40.01

I'd err on the side of caution and say they should be considered two handed. I don't think a Calidus needs another attack

I agree, as this also allows a WGBL with a CCW and a Heavy Weapon to use the heavy weapon in close combat...

Yeah...WGBL with a Frost Blade and an assault cannon...Using the assault cannon for a 2nd single handed weapon. Nasty combo.

Having read that more closely, I see how that works. Having never seen anyone do that on a WGBL or any other place where you could give a marine character a heavy weapon, I never considered it as a valid option.

This means that I can have a Wolf Gaurd Battle leader in Termi armor with Assault Cannon accompanied by a 7 man retinue with 3 more assault cannons, and then drive them around in my crusader with its twin linked assault cannons.

Not that I am going to run out and make a new termi leader with cannon cause they will probably take that away in the redo.

I yield to master Yak

Posted By yakface on 11/30/2006 2:35 PM

Not being a SW player, I based much of my decision based upon Insaniak's argument found in this thread:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/1/view/Topic/postid/113101/Default.aspx


Even from an intent point of view what could this rule in the WG Battle Leader's entry mean:

"The Wolf Guard Battle Leader may be given any euiqpment allowed from the Space Wolves Armoury and/or the Wolf Guard entry in the army list."

The only equipment allowed in the Wolf Guard entry are heavy weapons, so I really don't understand how this could mean something else, even from an intent point of view.

From the codex:

WOLF GUARD BATTLE LEADER, p.5: "The Wolf Guard Battle Leader may be given any equipment allowed from the Space Wolves Armory and/or the Wolf Guard entry in the army list..." (italics mine)

WOLF GUARD, Wolf Guard bodyguard section, p.8: "Wolf Guard Heavy Weapons: Up to one in three models in the Wolf Guard bodyguard ... may be armed with one of the following heavy weapons each." (italics mine)

I assert that the Wolf Guard Battle Leader is not in the Wolf Guard bodyguard, and therefore cannot take the heavy weapons allocated to them.  The ruling in question appears to duplicate the WGBL's ability to take items from the armory.

Alternately, if you read the WGBL rule as overuling the "one in three models in the Wolf Guard bodyguard" rule, then it appears that WGBL can also buy Storm Bolters and treat them as one-handed weapons.

I have to ask - why make it so Vibrocannons can't hit units out of LOS? Doesn't that completely invalidate them as a choice in an army?

And yeah, I agree on the whole 'Jetbike + Fleet' thing. In this instance I don't care what the RAW says - if you're on a Jetbike or have a WS Jump Generator, you shouldn't be able to fleet, especially when the Dark Eldar equivalents can't Fleet.

BYE

Also, as long as a blanket rule is being created to count unspecified weapons as one-handed, it would make more sense to me to make them two-handed instead; the only weapons that do not have a handedness assigned to me seem to be weapons that would be thought of as two-handed (e.g., Assault Cannons, Lascannons, etc). As well, it's the least beneficial of the two options.

Posted By Lowinor on 11/30/2006 4:36 PM
I assert that the Wolf Guard Battle Leader is not in the Wolf Guard bodyguard, and therefore cannot take the heavy weapons allocated to them.  The ruling in question appears to duplicate the WGBL's ability to take items from the armory.

So what's the point of him being able to select from the Wolf Guard entry, then?

Posted By insaniak on 11/30/2006 4:47 PM

Posted By Lowinor on 11/30/2006 4:36 PM
I assert that the Wolf Guard Battle Leader is not in the Wolf Guard bodyguard, and therefore cannot take the heavy weapons allocated to them.  The ruling in question appears to duplicate the WGBL's ability to take items from the armory.

So what's the point of him being able to select from the Wolf Guard entry, then?

This is GW rules writing we're talking about...

At the least, the text is ambiguous.  One set says they can take any option, but the rule that grants the option, even if given to the WGBL, wouldn't let him use the weapon.  I'd argue that strictly by the rules, the WGBL can't take the heavy weapon, and even with a more open interpretation it's ambiguous and should fall to the less advantageous interpretation.

The point of Yakface's FAQ is to make the GW's rules make sense.

So, given that the Heavy Weapons are the ONLY items available from the Wolf Guard entry that he couldn't get from the Armoury, it would seem to make far more sense to allow him to take them than to assume that his allowance to take items from the WG entry is some sort of error.

At least, that's how I see it. It's less confusing to allow a rule that already exists to work in a sensible manner than it is to pretend that the rule just doesn't exist in the first place.

Wow so much feedback to comment on. This is going to take a little while (Skyth I'm going to get back to your comments last since there's so many of them).


@HMBC: Vibro cannons *CAN* hit targets out of LOS, but I see how you could easily misread that (I think I'll rephrase it).


But as for the topic of a blanket rule that makes undefined weapons single-handed, the reasoning is this:

The vast majority of undefined weapons in the codices belong to Special Characters (at least I think so). In most cases, the weapons are pretty clearly supposed to be single-handed, including the Callidus. . .IMO if you look at the model it is pretty clear that the Nueral Disruptor is a single-handed weapon.

Now, what that ruling DOES mean is that I need to identify possible abuses (such as the WGBL taking heavy weapons) and directly FAQ those weapons as being two-handed.

Although, now that I think about it, the vast majority of basic weapons carried by basic troops in codices are undefined as well meaning that if they also have a pistol they'd be considered to have two single-handed weapons, and that sure doesn't work.

So I guess I'll need to reverse that ruling and then go through all the codices looking for specific situations where a character's weapon needs to be defined as single-handed.

yay, more work!


Anyway, thanks again for the feedback so far.

The IG codex under the doctrine INDEPENDENT COMMISSARS says that they ACT as independent characters meaning they can leave a join separate units and be treated as elite. Does this mean that they ARE independend characters meaning they have to be in B2B to attack and that they can be targeted?

Also under Jungle Fighters it says that they can see 12" THROUGH jungle or forest terrain. So I take it tht unless a forest piece of scenery is more than 12" that they can shoot THROUGH it right?

As for the 1h/2h weapons, I tend to look at it as a weapon being one-handed grants it a specific ability -- to give an extra attack when paired with a second one-handed weapon -- that should, in my opinion, be explicitly given to the weapon.

Consistency is not inherently a virtue. Personally I vote to err in the direction of accuracy over consistency.

Also this is awesome work, Yak. I'm going to adopt the FAQ wholesale as my default options for house rules.

Dude...I'm building a shrine...

 

Okay, I came up with a solution to the weapon-handed question:

RB.40.01 – Q: Many weapons in the codices are not defined as being either single or two-handed. How should those weapons be treated in close combat?
A: Any weapon defined as a “close combat weapon”, or that provides a special close combat attack, counts as a single-handed weapon unless specifically designated as two-handed. All other weapons are considered two-handed unless specifically designated as single-handed [rules change].

Fantastic work.

I think if you can convince Adepticon to adopt this, it has a good chance of becoming relatively universal.

I'd also contact Jeff Hall and get him to use it for the US GTs.

Lowinar, that is completely how I understood the WGBL situation, I never could find the way to say it. Like I told Yakface, i can see it being possible from fluff standpoint, but not via the rules.

 

Okay, I'm going to try to respond to most of your points Skyth, but I may break this up into a couple of replys if it starts getting too long.

That's an easy addition.

Well, I figured since its not going to happen very often that FP's are beyond 60" of each other I might as well stick with RAW in this case. I'll consider changing it. . .what does everyone else think about this?

Divination doesn't "conceal" the targets, Eldrad is actually looking into the future and allowing his units to get a jump on the enemy. The thing is if you don't count embarked units, you can easily have a situation where Eldrad is able to move more than double the number of units he rolled for.

Say he rolls that '4' units may be moved. If you allow embarked units, including an attached ICs (Eldrad too), you could be moving a total of 10 units, the 3 transports, 3 embarked units and two attached ICs.

That makes Divination really, really, really powerful (better than I think was intended). Especially for mech Eldar armies. Does anyone else disagree with me?

Have you ever played with or against someone with 3 Whirlwinds (honestly)? All it takes is one time to realize how ridiculous it can get, espeically if there is an objective or somewhere centralized where the SM player knows he can lay a ton of mines around. Basically you can get a pile of minefields all partially over-lapping each other stacking up several inches. It's hard to even stand minis in that garbage and its hard to tell which minefields they are actually in (since so many are overlapping each other).

It's ridiculous and unfun, so I've changed it.

If you consider the Furioso a seperate unit from a standard Dreadnought then it would actually be a rules change (ultimately it doesn't really make any difference, so when I was unsure of whether it was actually a clarification or a rules change I went with rules change).

I don't think so. It doesn't come from the weapon list, nor does it count against the total number of weapons a model can take, so you are essentially advocating that the model can take more items without any sort of limitation on them. The bike is a piece of wargear and the upgrade is a cost that comes into being because of that Wargear.

I know a LOT of people disagree with you, and I know Adepticon ruled the same way as I did. Besides the possiblity of infiltration along with first turn automatic summoning is a pretty ridiculous concept.

Well if Initiative could go above I10 I'd allow furious charge to boost that up to I11. There's a couple of reasons I ruled this way. First of all, whenever possible if rules can successfully work together, they should do so. Second, when a characteristic is doubled, it is always applied before a characteristic addition/subtraction. Obviously this is a different situation, but I believe that applying a similar mechanic makes it consistent and easy to remember.

 

 

Well, the summary in the back of the book indicates that models under an Ordnance blast marker are hit by it, so allowing any model in the unit to be removed as a casualty can be technically seen as a rules change. . .although again its not really a bid deal.

It appears as though you've misunderstood my answer, as I feared people might (since it is quite complex). Once the torrent of fire is triggered, the owning player can choose to wait until any point to actually make the save, so even if the Plasma cannon triggers the torrent of fire, the defending player can wait for a regular shooting wound to make the torrent save against.

I'll try to think of a clearer way to say this.

Nope, check out the rulebook. It just says casualties during a shooting phase.

They are slightly different circumstances since with SMF the vehicle has to actually end up more than 6" away from its starting point no matter how far it actually moves.

I guess I could write that a Skimmer which takes damage in its own movement phase has to declare whether it is going to end up more than 6" away from where it started, and if it can still move after that damage it must do so. That would make both ruling pretty consistent with each other.

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 4:03 PM
RB.69A.02 – Q: When a Skimmer is attacked during its own movement phase (for example, from a Castellan Minefield or a Death or Glory attack), do you use the Skimmer’s current or previous movement phase to determine if it benefits from the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule?
A: If a Skimmer is attacked in its own movement phase, at the point of the attack, if the Skimmer is more than 6 inches from where it started the movement phase, then it uses the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule against the attack [rules change].


The rule for this and for moving through difficult terrain should be the same. Either go with what you intend to move or go with what you actually move on both.

Well, this change turns out to be a pretty-long winded answer no matter how you slice it.

A: If a Skimmer is attacked during its movement, the player must declare whether it is going to end its move more than 6" from where it started or not. If it is, apply "Skimmers Moving Fast" to the attack, but the Skimmer must end its move more than 6" from where it started provided it can still move after the attack. If the player declares otherwise, the Skimmer does not benefit from "Skimers moving Fast" against the attack.

 

I think my original solution is more simple and elegant, personally.

 

I don't like the way you've done Minor Psychic Powers vs GKs/SoBs.

I'm not about to get into a whole Siren vs GK argument here, but you've gone and basically said things that have a 'direct' effect will be ignored by GKs/SoBs/BTs, and then defined 'direct' effect as 'everything'. Siren, like a lot of minor powers, does not have a 'direct' effect upon enemy units. It's target is Self. Or take Weaver of Fates (or whatever its called). It has no direct effect upon any particular unit, it affects the game as a whole.

You can't go and define that GKs/SoBs/BTs are immune to 'direct' minor psychic powers, like Stream of Corruption/Beam of Slaanesh and then go and say powers that don't have directed effects also count as 'directly' affecting enemy units. And while there is no such thing as a 'direct' or 'indirect' effect in the 40K rules, if you are going to change the rules to include direct effects, then you must include indirect effects (which Siren and Weaver of Fates quite clearly fall into).

Going back to Weaver of Fates, it means this power cannot be used if a single GK or SoB model is on the table, using your flawed and broad definition of 'direct'.

BYE

 

 Hey Yakface,

Nice effort and good work!

 

RB.47B.02 – Q: If a unit suffers 25% casualties in its own shooting phase (for example, by scattering Ordnance, or ‘Gets Hot’ weapons) does it take a morale check?
A: Yes. Casualties from friendly fire can be equally (if not more) demoralizing [RAW].

That's a rules change I believe. It's only (if memory serves) from enemy shooting/enemy shooting phase.

Nope, check out the rulebook. It just says casualties during a shooting phase.

This is incorrect. The rulesbook says: If a unit takes 25% or more cassualties from shooting. 

When a models fails his save after a 'Gets hot' result, he isn't a cassualty from shooting, but a cassualty from the 'Gets hot' special rule.  

Following RAW, suffering 25% cassualties from the 'Gets Hot' rule doesn't trigger a morale check.

Cilithan out...

 

 

I don't know what to tell you HBMC. Would it help if I simply removed the word "direct" from the answer?

Because I fully understand that Siren has a "target" of self, but it does directly do something to enemy units that then try to shoot or charge the enemy model with the power cast on him.

Every player I've ever encountered on this issue seems to somehow intuitively assume that Siren will not prevent a a GK unit from shooting at a Sirened psyker, but that Weaver of Fates can still be used in a game that contains GKs.

And I carefully checked my ruling against every single minor psychic power currently in the game (including the general ones in CA) and there should be absolutely no issue discening which ones work in a game with immune models and which ones don't (and in what case).


I mean honestly, if Siren's wording was changed to: "Any enemy unit that attempts to shoot or Assualt the psyker is targeted by Siren and may then not shoot or attack him"?

Because that's essentially what Siren does regardless of how the power is worded. The net result is that it prevents enemy units from doing something they would normally be allowed to do. Therefore that is a clear and recognizable thing that can be ignored by immune models.


Last question: What would do? Would you only apply the immune rule to powers that officially "target" immune models? Or would you simply bar minor powers in games containing immune models (like the Adepticon FAQ did)?

Because I feel my ruling is closer to the way most people I've seen actually play the game, which was the whole point of my FAQ.

Posted By Cilithan on 12/02/2006 5:13 AM
 

 Hey Yakface,

Nice effort and good work!

 

Nope, check out the rulebook. It just says casualties during a shooting phase.

This is incorrect. The rulesbook says: If a unit takes 25% or more cassualties from shooting. 

When a models fails his save after a 'Gets hot' result, he isn't a cassualty from shooting, but a cassualty from the 'Gets hot' special rule.  

Following RAW, suffering 25% cassualties from the 'Gets Hot' doesn't trigger a morale check.

Cilithan out...

 

 

Thanks, I appreciate it. What exactly constitutes a "shooting" casualty has always been a bit of a mystery (does a vehicle that explodes due to shooting and kills models; do those models count as having been killed by "shooting"?). So if you look in my FAQ at: RB.47B.01, you will see that I've defined any casualty that occurs in the shooting phase as a "shooting" casualty.

It's nice, simple and easy to remember.

Would it not be more appropriate (in some cases, at least) to qualify the FAQ answers as "dismabiguations" as opposed to "clarifications"? Of course, I'm going full steam into pedantry, but that appears to be the point of a rules FAQ in the end

As for the Daemon Icon, I would tend to agree that RAW allows summoning the first turn, but a) it's ridiculous, and b) it's somewhat ambiguous, and at the core of it, that's one of the big things I'd want such a resource to handle. Although I'd call it a "disambiguation" and not a "clarifcation"

Yak,

The problem is not so much with Siren, but more how you've chosen to define minor psychic powers. You've gone and defined 'direct' without defining 'indirect'. Worse, your definition of 'direct' seems to include everything.

Let's take... Fuelled by Pain as an example. It's less of a contentious issue than Siren is.

With Fuelled by Pain the Sorc casts the power on himself, and then gains additional attacks for each wound blah blah blah. How does this work with models immune to minor powers? Well, there are a few ways to look at it:

1. Absolute RAW. Everything that anything does in a game will have an effect upon every unit, no matter how small. Therefore, whether the Chaos Sorc is using Fuelled by Pain to fight Grey Knights, or using it to fight Guardsmen who have GKs in the army, the power will have an effect on the GKs, therefore the power can never be used during the game. This would then apply to every minor power in the game, no matter its rules, as everything has an effect on something else. I personally find this view absurd.

2. For a power to have an effect on something, it must target that unit. So, I can try to use a Beam of Slaanesh on a unit of Black Templars, but that ability of theirs stops me. I use Fuelled by Pain on myself, and I get the benefit because the BTs are not the target of the attack.

3. We change the rules to determine Direct and Indirect effects of powers, and allow GKs/SoBs/BTs to ignore Directed effects, but not Indirect ones.

If we go with three, we then have to define what powers have a direct effect, and what powers have an indirect effect. Powers that target Self, such as Fuelled by Pain, would very clearly come under the 'indirect' umbrella. Powers that target enemy units (Beam of Slaanesh) would come under the direct.

And, as I have said, your current change of the rules Yak doesn't do any of this. It defines Direct without defining the opposite, and then defines everything as Direct.

BYE

Posted By yakface on 12/01/2006 8:19 PM

ELD.51.01 -- Q: When Divination is used to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units or just one?
A: Two. Embarked units do count towards the Divination total [GW rulebook FAQ overrule].


I don't think Embarked units should count. On a fluff basis, it would take just as much effort to conceal the presence of a vehicle with passangers as a vehicle without pasengers...

Divination doesn't "conceal" the targets, Eldrad is actually looking into the future and allowing his units to get a jump on the enemy. The thing is if you don't count embarked units, you can easily have a situation where Eldrad is able to move more than double the number of units he rolled for.

Say he rolls that '4' units may be moved. If you allow embarked units, including an attached ICs (Eldrad too), you could be moving a total of 10 units, the 3 transports, 3 embarked units and two attached ICs.

That makes Divination really, really, really powerful (better than I think was intended). Especially for mech Eldar armies. Does anyone else disagree with me?

Sticky one that is. I am inclined to say i disagree, but regarding how it could be abused.... Hmmm.

let me put up the rule for reference while posting this.



For the independant characters, I can see the point, as it isnt part of the squad entry so it isnt an "upgrade", persay.

But transports are basically a squad upgrade as it implies such in the entry. Thus I would have to vote that embarked units and their transports count as a single "unit" for the purpose of divination.

By your line of thinking, it would be feasible to disloge a warlock from a gaurdian unit, because it has a seperate entry in the HQ section. I know thats not the implication, but it isnt a far stretch that way either.

I would exclude IC's from being part of the embarked "unit" even if attached, but leave embarked units as a "unit" themselves.

I think I have a solution. Non scoring units. Transports are non scoring units. The emabrked units and their transport "upgrade" should be allowed entry into the divination rules as a single unit, while non upgrade transports as well as IC's should not.

fire dragons attached to autarch riding in a  falcon, for example. This would count as three.

Dire avengers in a serpent would count as one.

I think this seems fair, as it wont punish people buying upgrades, but will for the stronger elements of the army, such as snakes on a plane with farseer, etc.

Make any sense?

Il'll leave it up to your sense of language to word it better than my free-flowing-typing-while-thinking approach.

By the way this is a great exhaustive FAQ you have going here. It puts to shame FAQ's written by GW, adeptus windy city, or anywhere else that I have seen.

A couple things:

ELD.60C.02 states that the farseer and warlocks are the same unit. I am still not convinced of this. It states by implication in atleast four seperate places how warlocks are autonomous of the farseer. They form a single "HQ choice", not a single unit.

Notice how there is no mention of retinue?






And finally from the rulebook:



I also disagree with ELD.35.01
The skyleap ruling.  My opinion is that RAW allows such to take place, much to my chagrin.





 Deepstrike rule doesnt discount skyleap's abilities, because skyleap isnt movement either. You simply skyleap during movement. Its like saying psychic powers are shooting because it happens in the shooting phase.

I appreciate your ruling, but since GW thinks their rules are so good, that they promote raw so strongly, that in this case they can infact skyleap the same turn as they deepstrike.

I dont think that this is imbalanced either, as they cant do much other than drop grenades on heads. They are a non-entity for the most part and risk high percentage of eventual failure due to deepstrike scatter.

Posted By yakface on 12/01/2006 8:19 PM

 

ELD.43.01 -- Q: Can†a Fire Prism contribute its Prism Cannon†to another Fire Prism that is more than†60" away?
A: Yes [RAW].

Personally, I'd say change the RAW here. Doesn't make sense to help things out of range. Not that they'd often be out of range of each other

Well, I figured since its not going to happen very often that FP's are beyond 60" of each other I might as well stick with RAW in this case. I'll consider changing it. . .what does everyone else think about this?

---

Like I said, was just a nit...Won't actually affect a game much...

---

ELD.51.01 -- Q: When Divination is used to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units or just one?
A: Two. Embarked units do count towards the Divination total [GW rulebook FAQ overrule].


I don't think Embarked units should count. On a fluff basis, it would take just as much effort to conceal the presence of a vehicle with passangers as a vehicle without pasengers...

Divination doesn't "conceal" the targets, Eldrad is actually looking into the future and allowing his units to get a jump on the enemy. The thing is if you don't count embarked units, you can easily have a situation where Eldrad is able to move more than double the number of units he rolled for.

Say he rolls that '4' units may be moved. If you allow embarked units, including an attached ICs (Eldrad too), you could be moving a total of 10 units, the 3 transports, 3 embarked units and two attached ICs.

That makes Divination really, really, really powerful (better than I think was intended). Especially for mech Eldar armies. Does anyone else disagree with me?

---

I like Hellfury's way of dealing with this.   Dedicated transports are allowed to be moved with thier squad if it's embarked.

As for being powerful in a mech list-In a mech list, Eldrad would be the only thing starting on the board in escallation.  Right there is a big weakness.

---

SM.39.02C – Q: If multiple Castellan Minefields occupy the same space on the table, do enemy models moving over that area test for each minefield, or just once no matter how many Minefields are stacked there?
A: A model rolls once to trigger a mine when moving through an area of the table covered by one or more minefields, no matter how many actual minefields are stacked in the same spot [rules change].


I think with stacked minefields, there should be a higher denisity, thus check for each one

Have you ever played with or against someone with 3 Whirlwinds (honestly)? All it takes is one time to realize how ridiculous it can get, espeically if there is an objective or somewhere centralized where the SM player knows he can lay a ton of mines around. Basically you can get a pile of minefields all partially over-lapping each other stacking up several inches. It's hard to even stand minis in that garbage and its hard to tell which minefields they are actually in (since so many are overlapping each other).

It's ridiculous and unfun, so I've changed it.

---

No, I haven't played someone that used mines at all.  I see what you mean about overlapping minefields around an objective.  I don't like take and hold, personally...So I forget about it.

---

CSM.16.02 – Q: If a character with a Bike upgrades the combi-bolter, do the points spent on the upgrade count against the character’s Wargear points limitation?
A: Yes [RAW].

I'd treat this like buying another weapon...So not count against wargear allowance.

I don't think so. It doesn't come from the weapon list, nor does it count against the total number of weapons a model can take, so you are essentially advocating that the model can take more items without any sort of limitation on them. The bike is a piece of wargear and the upgrade is a cost that comes into being because of that Wargear.

---

Well, technically it would be a two-handed weapon since it isn't defined. (Actually, combi-meltas are defined as two-handed).  Just keep the limitation on the two total weapons/three hands.  As for the upgrading counting as the same points as the original item, mastercrafted weapons don't follow that procedure.

---

CSM.18.02A – Can a Daemon Icon summon its bound daemons on the first turn of the game?
A: No, only on the second turn or later [clarification].

I think that's a rules change, and I don't really care for it. Seems to me the intent of the Daemon Icon is first turn summoning.

I know a LOT of people disagree with you, and I know Adepticon ruled the same way as I did. Besides the possiblity of infiltration along with first turn automatic summoning is a pretty ridiculous concept.

---

Personally, I don't find it ridiculous.  I don't see what the problem is with first turn infiltrated summoning.  Almost any army can do something nasty on the first turn.

---

CSM.55.01A – Q: Does a model behind cover who is charged by an enemy with Warp Scream fight at Initiative 9 or 10?
A: Initiative 9. Also, against abilities that double (or halve) a model’s Initiative, the -1 Warp Scream penalty is applied after the Initiative is doubled (or halved) [clarification].


I always see the going to I10 as the final thing after all modifiers. I don't think warp scream would overrule that any more than furious charge would.

Well if Initiative could go above I10 I'd allow furious charge to boost that up to I11. There's a couple of reasons I ruled this way. First of all, whenever possible if rules can successfully work together, they should do so. Second, when a characteristic is doubled, it is always applied before a characteristic addition/subtraction. Obviously this is a different situation, but I believe that applying a similar mechanic makes it consistent and easy to remember.

 

---

I still don't like it.  I think an absolute modifier should be applied last of all.

Here's a question-How would you resolve a model with furious charge assaulting a model with warp scream in cover?

---

And I should say, most of the FAQ I agree with, and I realize that was alot of work to put it together.  Just had some minor nit's about some things

 

Good work on it Yakface.

Posted By yakface on 12/01/2006 9:58 PM

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 4:03 PM
RB.69A.02 – Q: When a Skimmer is attacked during its own movement phase (for example, from a Castellan Minefield or a Death or Glory attack), do you use the Skimmer’s current or previous movement phase to determine if it benefits from the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule?
A: If a Skimmer is attacked in its own movement phase, at the point of the attack, if the Skimmer is more than 6 inches from where it started the movement phase, then it uses the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule against the attack [rules change].


The rule for this and for moving through difficult terrain should be the same. Either go with what you intend to move or go with what you actually move on both.

Well, this change turns out to be a pretty-long winded answer no matter how you slice it.

A: If a Skimmer is attacked during its movement, the player must declare whether it is going to end its move more than 6" from where it started or not. If it is, apply "Skimmers Moving Fast" to the attack, but the Skimmer must end its move more than 6" from where it started provided it can still move after the attack. If the player declares otherwise, the Skimmer does not benefit from "Skimers moving Fast" against the attack.

 

I think my original solution is more simple and elegant, personally.

 

I like this way.  It doesn't make sense to me that if a skimmer moved 12" last turn, and is moving 12" this turn, that because it got attacked 2" into the move, it would somehow be easier to damage.  It would have been going the same speed it was the turn before when it wasn't vulnerable to damage.

Posted By skyth on 12/03/2006 5:45 AM

 Dedicated transports are allowed to be moved with thier squad if it's embarked.

Thanks. I knew there was a better way of wording that beyond my extemporaneous fashion.

Though, for clarity I would go even further to state that:

A squad embarked in it's dedicated transport count as one unit for purposes of "Divination".

Posted By smart_alex on 11/30/2006 6:44 PM
The IG codex under the doctrine INDEPENDENT COMMISSARS says that they ACT as independent characters meaning they can leave a join separate units and be treated as elite. Does this mean that they ARE independend characters meaning they have to be in B2B to attack and that they can be targeted?

Well, in a game, if something acts as something else it would act as that thing in all cases so I don't really understand how that could be a legitimate question either from RAW or just from a common sense/intent point of view.

 

That is a valid question. I'll add it to the IG section.

 

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 12/02/2006 6:32 PM

3. We change the rules to determine Direct and Indirect effects of powers, and allow GKs/SoBs/BTs to ignore Directed effects, but not Indirect ones.

If we go with three, we then have to define what powers have a direct effect, and what powers have an indirect effect. Powers that target Self, such as Fuelled by Pain, would very clearly come under the 'indirect' umbrella. Powers that target enemy units (Beam of Slaanesh) would come under the direct.

And, as I have said, your current change of the rules Yak doesn't do any of this. It defines Direct without defining the opposite, and then defines everything as Direct.

BYE

You keep saying that I've defined everything as "direct" which simply isn't true. I did define what was direct and what wasn't direct in this particular case (minor psychic powers vs. "immune" models), you just don't care for my definition (which is fine).

I was attempting to replicate how I think the majority of players handle this issue without even thinking about it (what comes intuitively to them).

I can't be entirely sure if players would ignore the extra "Fueled by Pain" attacks when they were attacking "immune" models, but I felt that they probably do, although I could be wrong.

Even if I do change the "direct" definition" to those powers that target enemy units, Siren is still going to be an exception, as I am much more secure in the knowledge that most players intuitively let "immune" units ignore the Siren restrictions.

I would love to hear some other people's opinions on this issue. How do you play that units that are immune to minor powers handle some of the more obscure minor powers?

Posted By skyth on 12/03/2006 5:45 AM

CSM.55.01A – Q: Does a model behind cover who is charged by an enemy with Warp Scream fight at Initiative 9 or 10?
A: Initiative 9. Also, against abilities that double (or halve) a model’s Initiative, the -1 Warp Scream penalty is applied after the Initiative is doubled (or halved) [clarification].


I always see the going to I10 as the final thing after all modifiers. I don't think warp scream would overrule that any more than furious charge would.

 

Well if Initiative could go above I10 I'd allow furious charge to boost that up to I11. There's a couple of reasons I ruled this way. First of all, whenever possible if rules can successfully work together, they should do so. Second, when a characteristic is doubled, it is always applied before a characteristic addition/subtraction. Obviously this is a different situation, but I believe that applying a similar mechanic makes it consistent and easy to remember.

 

---

 

I still don't like it.  I think an absolute modifier should be applied last of all.

Here's a question-How would you resolve a model with furious charge assaulting a model with warp scream in cover?

 

The charging unit would strike at I10. Charging takes them to I10, the -1 for Warp Scream is cancelled by the +1 for Furious Charge.

Basically, I feel you apply modifiers if at all possible (i.e. "break no rule" where possible).

Posted By Hellfury on 12/02/2006 7:43 PM


For the independant characters, I can see the point, as it isnt part of the squad entry so it isnt an "upgrade", persay.

But transports are basically a squad upgrade as it implies such in the entry. Thus I would have to vote that embarked units and their transports count as a single "unit" for the purpose of divination.

By your line of thinking, it would be feasible to disloge a warlock from a gaurdian unit, because it has a seperate entry in the HQ section. I know thats not the implication, but it isnt a far stretch that way either.

I would exclude IC's from being part of the embarked "unit" even if attached, but leave embarked units as a "unit" themselves.

I think I have a solution. Non scoring units. Transports are non scoring units. The emabrked units and their transport "upgrade" should be allowed entry into the divination rules as a single unit, while non upgrade transports as well as IC's should not.

fire dragons attached to autarch riding in a  falcon, for example. This would count as three.

Dire avengers in a serpent would count as one.

I think this seems fair, as it wont punish people buying upgrades, but will for the stronger elements of the army, such as snakes on a plane with farseer, etc.

Make any sense?

Il'll leave it up to your sense of language to word it better than my free-flowing-typing-while-thinking approach.

By the way this is a great exhaustive FAQ you have going here. It puts to shame FAQ's written by GW, adeptus windy city, or anywhere else that I have seen.

A transport and its embarked unit are still clearly seperate units unlike a unit with a Warlock leading it. The transport moves seperately, fires seperately and is ultimately worth seperate victory points. In fact, the only thing a dedicated transport does at the same time as its parent unit is that they are deployed at the same time (although not necessarily near each other).

A Warlock leading a unit moves, shoots and is deployed as part of the unit (and must stay with it the entire game).

But I digress, although I think your solution of only penalizing non-scoring transports is a nice one, I don't feel comfortable making the distinction. I think you either need to count all embarked units or ignore all embarked units.

Ultimately redeploying a big chunk of your army is a pretty bid advantage but I don't think it is necessarily going to win the game for you. So I'm thinking maybe I should just stick with the RAW and not have any embarked units count for Divination moves.

I think the Mixed Armour rules change regarding invulnerable saves is very elegant, but is missing something. Going by the answer, I actually MUST put a wound on the chappie in a marine squad if there are enough wounds. I would rather have the OPTION.

Posted By onlainari on 12/06/2006 8:34 PM
I think the Mixed Armour rules change regarding invulnerable saves is very elegant, but is missing something. Going by the answer, I actually MUST put a wound on the chappie in a marine squad if there are enough wounds. I would rather have the OPTION.

I'm curious about your response. Are you refering to RB.76E.02 or to RB.25.03?

Posted By yakface on 12/04/2006 9:48 PM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 12/02/2006 6:32 PM

3. We change the rules to determine Direct and Indirect effects of powers, and allow GKs/SoBs/BTs to ignore Directed effects, but not Indirect ones.

If we go with three, we then have to define what powers have a direct effect, and what powers have an indirect effect. Powers that target Self, such as Fuelled by Pain, would very clearly come under the 'indirect' umbrella. Powers that target enemy units (Beam of Slaanesh) would come under the direct.

And, as I have said, your current change of the rules Yak doesn't do any of this. It defines Direct without defining the opposite, and then defines everything as Direct.

BYE

You keep saying that I've defined everything as "direct" which simply isn't true. I did define what was direct and what wasn't direct in this particular case (minor psychic powers vs. "immune" models), you just don't care for my definition (which is fine).

I was attempting to replicate how I think the majority of players handle this issue without even thinking about it (what comes intuitively to them).

I can't be entirely sure if players would ignore the extra "Fueled by Pain" attacks when they were attacking "immune" models, but I felt that they probably do, although I could be wrong.

Even if I do change the "direct" definition" to those powers that target enemy units, Siren is still going to be an exception, as I am much more secure in the knowledge that most players intuitively let "immune" units ignore the Siren restrictions.

I would love to hear some other people's opinions on this issue. How do you play that units that are immune to minor powers handle some of the more obscure minor powers?

I feel this goes back and forth way to much and here is my way of resolving it.

There is a clear diference between the target of something and the effect of something. For example, if I fire a rocket into a tank the target may be the tank but their is still a direct effect against the crew inside.

So logically, my solution to the problem would be to seperate those two definitions.

Checklist for whether or not an immune model will be effected by a minor power.

1. Does that power target the model directly.

2. Does that power prohibit the model from doing anything that it would normally be able to do.

If the answer to either or both of those is yes than the power is having a direct effect on a model that is immune.

And I already hear the counter arguement. "Well Mahu, everything has an ambigous effect in the game" which is a stupid arguement, Like I said above, if a power is directly effecting a model, not in a round about way but the actual rule for the power in question is doing anything to the model, it is a direct effect and therefore would be ignored by models that ignor Minor powers.

99% of the players play it that way. And this is the second custom FAQ to rule that way to. If you don't like the ruling fine. Maybe Yakface will change it, but when it come to a custom FAQ that is making rules changes, you need to have a better arguement than an ambigous rule interpretaion.

Okay, so I updated the rulebook portion of the FAQ (v1.1), mainly incorporating a bit more of a snazzy look that should make the whole thing even easier to decipher.

Please let me know what you think of the format, cause I'd like some feedback before I spend the time re-formatting the codex file as well.

Do you like the font, the size, the borders, etc?

I obviously also still need to create and add a few diagrams (unless someone wants to help me out).


Thanks for all your help!

I like the formatting. Only nit is the color picture on the first page. Granted, one must love Sean Connery, but a color picture like that would be printer intensive work.

Posted By yakface on 12/07/2006 8:15 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/06/2006 8:34 PM
I think the Mixed Armour rules change regarding invulnerable saves is very elegant, but is missing something. Going by the answer, I actually MUST put a wound on the chappie in a marine squad if there are enough wounds. I would rather have the OPTION.

I'm curious about your response. Are you refering to RB.76E.02 or to RB.25.03?

25.03 slightly clarifies my question with the note. 76.E.02 by itself appears to make the unit mixed armour, even if the wounds do not ignore the save. For example, chappy and 6 assault marines are wounded 9 times. Powerfist is allocated the torrent of fire save. I want to take the other 8 saves all on the assault marines, but if the unit is mixed armour, I must allocate 1 or 2 to the chappy (1 or 2 due to there being a choice of who to allocate to first, 3+ saves or 3+/4++ saves). I want the option of allocating 1, 2, or 0 wounds to the chappy.

Is that too much to ask?

Also, in your codex FAQ, I don't see anything related to shooting at monat IC's behind stealths. I don't think it's clear and should be FAQ'd. Some people will argue that RAW the Stealth Field Generator rules do not allow you to ignore the rule on page 51.

Posted By onlainari on 12/07/2006 5:53 PM

RB.25.03 slightly clarifies my question with the note. 76.E.02 by itself appears to make the unit mixed armour, even if the wounds do not ignore the save. For example, chappy and 6 assault marines are wounded 9 times. Powerfist is allocated the torrent of fire save. I want to take the other 8 saves all on the assault marines, but if the unit is mixed armour, I must allocate 1 or 2 to the chappy (1 or 2 due to there being a choice of who to allocate to first, 3+ saves or 3+/4++ saves). I want the option of allocating 1, 2, or 0 wounds to the chappy.

Is that too much to ask?

RB.25.03 deals with a situation where the unit's "Armor" save is all the same but some models have invulnerable saves (or some models have different invulnerable saves than others).

RB.76E.02 deals with units that are using the mixed armor rule (i.e. they have differing "Armor" saves in their unit) AND have some models with invulnerable saves (or differing invulnerable saves) within the same Armor type "set".

If your example above is a Chaplain in power armor with 6 Assualt marines, then it would fall under the jurisdiction of RB.25.03 (as all the models have a 3+ Armor save in the unit).

As explained in RB.25.03, this new allocation process ONLY applies to wounds that ignore the unit's basic armor save. So if the unit is suffering 9 wounds that ignore armor saves, then the Chaplain is absolutely going to take wounds no matter how you look at it.

If those 9 wounds DON'T ignore the units basic 3+ armor save, then RB.25.03 isn't used. . .you just make saves for the unit and then allocate the unsaved wounds as you see fit.

If SOME of the wounds ignore "Armor" saves and SOME of the wounds don't ignore "Armor" saves, then you use RB.25.03 to allocate the wounds that ignore "Armor" saves first. After those wounds are resolved you move onto making general unit Armor saves for the rest of the wounds.

Is that clear? Do you have any suggestions on making RB.25.03 more clear? I spent a lot of time working on it to make it play how most everyone seems to intuitively play the issue, but I'm sure the wording can still be improved for clarity.

 

You're talking about the IC targeting restrictions still applying to Stealth teams when they probably shouldn't? I agree, but don't you think that question should go in the Tau FAQ rather than the general rulebook FAQ?

 

Posted By yakface on 12/07/2006 6:42 PM

If those 9 wounds DON'T ignore the units basic 3+ armor save, then RB.25.03 isn't used. . .you just make saves for the unit and then allocate the unsaved wounds as you see fit.

AH HA! Ok thanks now I understand.

Is that clear? Do you have any suggestions on making RB.25.03 more clear? I spent a lot of time working on it to make it play how most everyone seems to intuitively play the issue, but I'm sure the wording can still be improved for clarity.

It should be clear enough for most people!

You're talking about the IC targeting restrictions still applying to Stealth teams when they probably shouldn't? I agree, but don't you think that question should go in the Tau FAQ rather than the general rulebook FAQ?

 Yes I meant Codex FAQ sorry.

Okay, now both the codex and RB FAQs have been updated into the new style.

Again, any feeback on the layout or any paticular question is always greatly appreciated.

Vibrocannon shots should read clarification. Or maybe I'm just to geeky in going with the definition of a line being the shortest distance between to points, and anything else being a curve.

WH.18.03 ? If a unit has Multiple
Blasts/Templates and wants to use
Divine Guidance Act of Faith, how exactly
does this work?
A: In this case (and this case only), the
player must declare they are using Divine
before rolling to hit [rules change].
Ref: RB.30.01C

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to roll to hits with anything that requires a roll (ie bolters, pistols, etc) first.

I love the new layout. Very easy on the eyes.

That said, for the second time, I still disagree with the farseer and warlocks being lumped into one unit. I am not going to repeat myself regarding why, as I already stated the rules earlier in this thread.

Posted By frenrik on 12/08/2006 6:41 PM
Vibrocannon shots should read clarification. Or maybe I'm just to geeky in going with the definition of a line being the shortest distance between to points, and anything else being a curve.

Well, there are definitions of the word line that include a curved line, so I'm just playing it safe and sticking with a "clarification".

That's a good idea, I'll change it in the next update.

 I, of course, completely agree with you from a RAW perspective. There is absolutely no argument there.

However, there simply is no other codex that allows a bodyguard as a seperate unit, and nothing in the Eldar codex this time around specifically indicates a reason why GW would suddenly change this concept.

I can't find anything in the fluff or think of any reasoning why a Warlock unit that is only allowed to be taken if the army includes a Farseer would now be able to run around on their own. It doesn't logically fit to me as a change as much as it could be simple omission/error.

I could be totally off base, but I also think that the majority of players will continue to play the Farseer/Warlocks as a single unit for the "intent" reasons I've just stated.

I could be totally wrong here, and I haven't had a chance to play against people using the new codex to "feel" how they play this issue. I think this could call for a nice little YMTC poll to help me make a decision.

 

 

After reading the 1h/2h thread and thinking about it, I have to change my earlier suggestion that unspecified weapons should be treated as two-handed: It appears to me that the simplest and most parsimonious solution to this is to go strcitly by RAW: Any weapons that are not specified to be single handed or two-handed do not receive the rules associated with either weapon type.

Posted By Lowinor on 12/12/2006 11:31 AM
After reading the 1h/2h thread and thinking about it, I have to change my earlier suggestion that unspecified weapons should be treated as two-handed: It appears to me that the simplest and most parsimonious solution to this is to go strcitly by RAW: Any weapons that are not specified to be single handed or two-handed do not receive the rules associated with either weapon type.

I don't personally think that the goal of a FAQ should be to stick with the simplest answer if it goes against how most people intuitively play the issue.

In all the games I've played or watched players generally just make an assumption of whether a weapon is single or two-handed based on the model itself.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, as some models are holding their two-handed weapons with one hand (such as Terminators with Storm bolters), and that is exactly where a FAQ needs to step in and clarify the issue.

What you may not realize is how many weapons are undefined, and if we suddenly changed them all to "two-handed", players would not only want to ignore the FAQ, but would think I was lazy and stupid for going with that answer.

The Axe of Khorne (or many of the Cult Daemon weapons in the Chaos codex) are good examples. If you try to tell Chaos players that the Axe of Khorne cannot be used to gain the +1A bonus they will scream bloody murder, and with good reason too. It is a CC weapon that is pretty clearly shown being used by Kharne with a single hand while wielding his pistol.

The fact is, if you go through the codices (as I have), and look at what weapons are undefined, making undefined CC weapons into single-handed weapons and other types of undefined weapons two-handed makes the game function 95% of the time exactly like players already play the issue without even thinking about it.

And that, IMO, is the hallmark of a good FAQ answer.

 

In reading back over the Chaos codex, I'm forced to agree. I was under the quite erroneous belief that most close combat weapons were actually specified, when even within the Chaos codex it's slipshod.

Posted By yakface on 12/12/2006 12:32 AM

Hellfury wrote:
I love the new layout. Very easy on the eyes.

That said, for the second time, I still disagree with the farseer and warlocks being lumped into one unit. I am not going to repeat myself regarding why, as I already stated the rules earlier in this thread.

 I, of course, completely agree with you from a RAW perspective. There is absolutely no argument there.

However, there simply is no other codex that allows a bodyguard as a seperate unit, and nothing in the Eldar codex this time around specifically indicates a reason why GW would suddenly change this concept.

I can't find anything in the fluff or think of any reasoning why a Warlock unit that is only allowed to be taken if the army includes a Farseer would now be able to run around on their own. It doesn't logically fit to me as a change as much as it could be simple omission/error.

I could be totally off base, but I also think that the majority of players will continue to play the Farseer/Warlocks as a single unit for the "intent" reasons I've just stated.

I could be totally wrong here, and I haven't had a chance to play against people using the new codex to "feel" how they play this issue. I think this could call for a nice little YMTC poll to help me make a decision.

Just as an info point, you'll recall the IG codex offers a number of additional, independen units which can be included only in the presence of the Command Platoon. A platoon, for that matter, does much the same thing. Multiple scoring units, a single force org slot - what's the issue, exactly? Just the semi-historical hangup associated with "seer council"-like retinues?

btw, shouldn't this post be stickied?

I didnt see anything about the Kroot. Thats one army that got No help at all in Fourth Ed

Yeah, I don't have any Kroot questions at all.

It would be a tremendous help if someone who is a Kroot player would take the time to let me know about some of their common questions.

Q: What happens when someone has bought wargear like a Blacksun Filter and tries to use it's effects against the Veil of Tears psychic power? How about indirect-fire weapons such as Smart Missile Systems?

Q: When Vectored Engines take effect (I.E. your SMF vehicle just suffered an immobilized result) does the vehicle count as immobilized immediately and for the rest of the turn, or does SMF stay in effect until the beginning of the owning player's next turn?

---This ambiguity stems from "as if it was immobile" phrase in the Vectored Engines text. The question arises from "As if it was immobile" being interpreted as *after* the VE take effect, or *in reference to* the fact that this is an exception to the normal case? Obviously the implication in interpretation is huge here, meaning the difference between a expensive upgrade working for a whole turn or only against a single damage result a single time...

Q: What is the correct method of firing a Tempest Launcher? (I.E. Multiple Barrage or Barrage rules?) The weapon description is not helpful other than listing it as a "G" weapon and giving it 2 shots base...

Issue with YakFaq: Why did you decide it was necessary to outright kill an Autarch that rolls doubles with a Warp Jump Generator? When a Chaplain with a Jumpack runs into a tree, he only loses one wound, but when an Autarch's equipment malfunctions he dies an immediate and horrible death!? They seem like similar rules to me, and in every circumstance EXCEPT this one GW has specifically noted/FAQed that ICs only take one wound from Dangerous Terrain checks. The support of RAW is in your favor, of course, but since this is an entirely subjective FAQ and you're trying to interpret things as "not rediculous" and "fair" I think I'd have to disagree with your FAQ here.

Issue with YakFaq: Your interpretation (as insignificant as it seems) of two Fire Prisms out of range from each other still contributing shots to one another rubs me very much the wrong way. Not only does it go against all the rules for firing a weapon (which admittedly do not apply but give us an intuitive or "intent" base from which to work), and the "intent" of the "contribution" rules seems to indicate that one weapon is actually firing directly at another weapon of the same type on another vehicle. Common sense seems to indicate that it would need Line of Sight and Range, just as if firing at a real target...

Read the rules for the Warp Spider jump pack; if you use it to move 2d6" in the assault phase, and roll doubles, you lose one model in the unit. If the Autarch is alone and uses the pack, and rolls doubles, he's the only model available, and thus is lost. It's not Dangerous Terrain; it's the pack's special rule.

Well, he DID say RAW was in favor of the way the FAQ rules. He just was saying that the RAW doesn't make sense.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/05/2007 4:27 PM
Q: What happens when someone has bought wargear like a Blacksun Filter and tries to use it's effects against the Veil of Tears psychic power? How about indirect-fire weapons such as Smart Missile Systems?

I don't see any reason why the Veil of Tears rule is anyway connected to the Night Fighting spotting rules. They are similar in some regards (in that you roll a few dice and multiply the result to see if the unit can be fired at) but they are ultimately two different things. I see no current special rules or wargear that would exempt a unit from following the Veil of Tears rule. In short, I don't see a reason to include this question in the FAQ, but I guess if enough people keep asking the question it might just be included for the sake of clarity.

 

First, the vectored engines rules don't say "as if it was immobile" they say: "If the vehicle would crash due to being immobilised, it instead makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that turn."

However, I think your question was about the Skimmers Moving Fast rule, and if you look at the SMF rule it states that the vehicle may only utilize the rule if it is a "mobile" skimmer. So once an Eldar vehicle becomes immobile it can no longer utilize the SMF rule regardless of whether it moved last turn or not.

That is a good question. I'll add it to the FAQ.

Those are both two very difficult situations. I originally had the Fire Prism ruling opposite (that they had to be within range) but some people argued that since GW had been very specific about the range, there's a good chance that they actually intended for them to be used beyond 60". More importantly, since the range issue will hardly ever be an issue (60" is pretty darn far), it 'felt' best to me to leave the ruling with the RAW.

For the Autarch, any other ruling would require me to essentially 'make up' a rule. Having the Autarch only suffer one wound on a doubles roll? There's absolutely no basis for that in the rules. The Jump Generator is a specialized piece of equipment, and the Autarch can already Fleet along with moving 12" in the movement phase. If he really wants to push it in the Assualt phase (and he's not joined to a Spider unit) then I guess he is taking a big risk.

I just don't see any other fair way to rule on it, personally. But I respect your difference in opinion.

 

Thanks so much for the feedback and be on the lookout for an updated version of my FAQ to be out very, very soon.

 

Posted By yakface on 02/05/2007 5:59 PM

For the Autarch, any other ruling would require me to essentially 'make up' a rule. Having the Autarch only suffer one wound on a doubles roll? There's absolutely no basis for that in the rules. The Jump Generator is a specialized piece of equipment, and the Autarch can already Fleet along with moving 12" in the movement phase. If he really wants to push it in the Assualt phase (and he's not joined to a Spider unit) then I guess he is taking a big risk.

I just don't see any other fair way to rule on it, personally. But I respect your difference in opinion.

Thanks so much for the feedback and be on the lookout for an updated version of my FAQ to be out very, very soon.

 

How would "making up a rule" be any different that what you've already done on several occasions? I'm not trying to personally attack your admirable effort in trying to put together a FAQ that fills all the gaps GW leaves, but...

1) I thought an IC counted as his own unit at all times. I questioned your Warp Generator ruling because I was under the impression I'd have to roll a "special" roll just for the Autarch if he *ever* wants to use his pack... (kind of like "gets hot" ) To put it another way, why would being joined to a unit of Spiders somehow protect the Autarch's personal gear from malfunctioning just the same as anyone else's?

2) Why would an Autarch get to fleet with a WJG and not a jetbike? In both cases the "base" unit that uses such wargear does NOT benefit from fleet. Since you say that consistency is necessary in any FAQ, you can hardly nullify the Autarch's Fleet rule in one circumstance and not in another identical one... Same goes for Farseers and Warlocks (although just jetbikes here). It would seem to me that if we are using "other units" in the codex as a reference baseline, then nobody would be able to fleet with a WJG either. (BTW--saying that Fleet is not allowed on these units with wargear upgrades is *precisely* making up your own rules. The RAW contradicts you bitterly here...)

3) I know you're set on the Fire Prism issue, but during Cleanse missions it *is* possible to get more than 60" between two friendly units, and I think that your ruling opens up avenues of abuse, whereas sticking with the normal firing rules does not... (I am being critical here because a local tourney is considering using these rules and if they do it'll pretty much be our own local precedent on rulings I think...so this is important to me)

4) You're right about vectored engines. While the Codex seems to imply that the SMF rule should stay in effect, the Rulebook definitely does not. I wonder how much of this is due to poor editing and writing... What a useless upgrade for 20 points. I think I hate GW...

P.S.-- Around here, many of our frequent GT competitors seem to be under the impression that Smart Missiles and BSFs nullify Veil almost completely. I haven't checked the exact wording on these issues myself, but perhaps this is more worth your consideration than you think... (we're talking at least 1/2 dozen people with the same impression here...not just me...)

Posted By yakface on 12/20/2006 10:18 AM

Yeah, I don't have any Kroot questions at all.

It would be a tremendous help if someone who is a Kroot player would take the time to let me know about some of their common questions.

Kroot are pretty straight forward. The only thing you might want to throw in is "Can Kroot Mercs Sweeping Advance?"

By the RAW, they certainly can. Their special 'eaters of the dead' rule says that they "must consolidate" and nothing more. In 3rd edition, this meant they couldn't sweeping acvance, as it was either sweep or consolidate, you couldn't do both. Now, in 4th, you can both sweep and consolidate, so you can sweep someone while still fulfilling the 'must consolidate' rule.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/07/2007 7:30 AM

How would "making up a rule" be any different that what you've already done on several occasions? I'm not trying to personally attack your admirable effort in trying to put together a FAQ that fills all the gaps GW leaves, but...

1) I thought an IC counted as his own unit at all times. I questioned your Warp Generator ruling because I was under the impression I'd have to roll a "special" roll just for the Autarch if he *ever* wants to use his pack... (kind of like "gets hot" ) To put it another way, why would being joined to a unit of Spiders somehow protect the Autarch's personal gear from malfunctioning just the same as anyone else's?

Well, I"m just going with the rules in this case. An Autarch with a unit wouldn't roll seperately because you'd make one distance roll for the whole unit. As for a fluff reason. . .perhaps its Daemons in the warp or getting lost during the extra jump that causes most of the casualties and having a unit around him means that the regular Spiders 'jump on the grenade' to save the Autarch. Ultimately, it would make just as little 'sense' to have the Autarch lose only one wound. If he's lost in the warp he's lost in the warp, it doesn't matter how many wounds he has.

The only reason I've ruled against models on bikes fleeting is because the Dark Eldar codex specifically disallows this and it would seem quite unfair for regular Eldar to do it when DE don't. Now, when the new DE codex comes out, perhaps GW will reverse their position and allow DE bikes to fleet too. If that's the case, then obviously I'd change my position.

Well, I wouldn't say I'm 'set' on it. Like I said, I originally ruled the same way you did but was convinced to change it by other people. I obviously know it's open for abuse, but I can't entirely rule out that it wasn't intended to function like that by GW. Look at it this way: The Fire Prism doesn't have to roll to hit in order to combine it's Prism Cannon, so obviously there is some advanced linking technology going on between the vehicles. GW spelled out the LOS restriction it really seems they would have included the range restriction in that same sentence.

You're joking right? Vectored Engines are a great upgrade for 20 points when you're talking about a several hundred point vehicle that would otherwise be totally destroyed by an immobilized roll.

I think a lot of that is the fact that the rules are so new and people are unfamiliar with them. I say give it a few months and you won't see these interpretations still around. Although I could be wrong, and like I said, If I keep seeing the question asked I'll definitely add it into the FAQ.

 

Posted By Sir Drake on 02/07/2007 9:17 AM

Kroot are pretty straight forward. The only thing you might want to throw in is "Can Kroot Mercs Sweeping Advance?"

By the RAW, they certainly can. Their special 'eaters of the dead' rule says that they "must consolidate" and nothing more. In 3rd edition, this meant they couldn't sweeping acvance, as it was either sweep or consolidate, you couldn't do both. Now, in 4th, you can both sweep and consolidate, so you can sweep someone while still fulfilling the 'must consolidate' rule.

Thanks a bunch, I'll add that to the FAQ.

Anyone else doesn't have any Kroot Merc questions? Wasn't there some issues caused by the new Tau codex coming out (like different statlines or something)?

 

Posted By yakface on 02/07/2007 5:51 PM

2) Why would an Autarch get to fleet with a WJG and not a jetbike? In both cases the "base" unit that uses such wargear does NOT benefit from fleet. Since you say that consistency is necessary in any FAQ, you can hardly nullify the Autarch's Fleet rule in one circumstance and not in another identical one... Same goes for Farseers and Warlocks (although just jetbikes here). It would seem to me that if we are using "other units" in the codex as a reference baseline, then nobody would be able to fleet with a WJG either. (BTW--saying that Fleet is not allowed on these units with wargear upgrades is *precisely* making up your own rules. The RAW contradicts you bitterly here...)

The only reason I've ruled against models on bikes fleeting is because the Dark Eldar codex specifically disallows this and it would seem quite unfair for regular Eldar to do it when DE don't. Now, when the new DE codex comes out, perhaps GW will reverse their position and allow DE bikes to fleet too. If that's the case, then obviously I'd change my position.

I didn't know your position was based off the DE bike rule. Regardless, maybe I didn't state myself clearly before. Shining Spears and Guardian Jetbikes do not get to Fleet. Neither do Warp Spiders. But technically (by RAW) an Autarch with either wargear option *can.* Since we're ruling that that doesn't make sense, it's unfair to only penalize the Jetbike crowd, and an Autarch w/ WJG also shouldn't be able to fleet in order to maintain consistency. The fact that Swooping Hawks specifically *can* Fleet, since we're applying common sense here, then that means that for whatever reason a WJG prevents you from Fleeting just the same as a Jetbike. I belive Dark Eldar on a Skyboard also can't fleet. And so there seems to be a precedent that if "basic" units loose fleet due to their method of transport, then so do HQ units despite having Fleet in their profile. Do you agree with this assertion?

GW spelled out the LOS restriction it really seems they would have included the range restriction in that same sentence.

It *seems* GW would have done a lot of things had they thought out the codex properly... I guess it would make more sense to me to use a ruling that's not open to abuse, and unlikely to cause disputes between players. That's my bottom line. (I can just see it now: [whiny Smurf player] "But you're *out of RANGE!* How can you still contriubte when you *can't reach*!?)

4) You're right about vectored engines. While the Codex seems to imply that the SMF rule should stay in effect, the Rulebook definitely does not. I wonder how much of this is due to poor editing and writing... What a useless upgrade for 20 points. I think I hate GW...

You're joking right? Vectored Engines are a great upgrade for 20 points when you're talking about a several hundred point vehicle that would otherwise be totally destroyed by an immobilized roll.

My intent is not to go O-T, but since we're sort-of discussing this on a side tangent, I'd like to point out that it's 20 points that only works once, and you can quite easily be subsequently blown up in the *same turn* by a follow-up shot. Maybe I just have phenomenally bad luck, but the one time VEs came into effect in my game, the vehicle was immediately blown up by the next follow-up shot. Although it protects you from the re-roll to wound, your expensive aspect squad is still pretty much dead if they're entangled. And a "6" just means you spent 20 points more than you had to on the vehicle... The limited applicability combined with what is essentially a *very* modest durability upgrade combine to make 20 points seem a steep price to pay. (How hard is it to destroy a non-skimmer AV12 vehicle? Look at the surviveability of Dreadnaughts and  you have your answer...destroying a waveserpent "twice" in a turn is very much within the realm of possibility for competitive opposing lists, especially considering that Wave Serpents' critical turn is the first one... Perhaps I'm just dissapointed that GW decided not to make the possibility of running only a single wave serpent (as a reliable transport--the gunboat option you use is the only viable one if you ask me) a good one---Vectoed Engines scales in effectiveness if you run multiple wave serpents though.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/08/2007 7:37 AM

I didn't know your position was based off the DE bike rule. Regardless, maybe I didn't state myself clearly before. Shining Spears and Guardian Jetbikes do not get to Fleet. Neither do Warp Spiders. But technically (by RAW) an Autarch with either wargear option *can.* Since we're ruling that that doesn't make sense, it's unfair to only penalize the Jetbike crowd, and an Autarch w/ WJG also shouldn't be able to fleet in order to maintain consistency. The fact that Swooping Hawks specifically *can* Fleet, since we're applying common sense here, then that means that for whatever reason a WJG prevents you from Fleeting just the same as a Jetbike. I belive Dark Eldar on a Skyboard also can't fleet. And so there seems to be a precedent that if "basic" units loose fleet due to their method of transport, then so do HQ units despite having Fleet in their profile. Do you agree with this assertion?

 

Y'know you're right. I did rule that DE characters can't fleet on a skyboard, and if that's the case then Autarch's shouldn't be able to fleet with a Jump Generator either. So I need to change both rulings either one way or another.

Ultimately, the problem is that the DE fleet rule allows all units to take fleet except for the ones listed (making it seem like if a character is given gear matching a unit that *can't* fleet they shouldn't be able to fleet either), where as the Eldar fleet rule is obviously expressly given to certain units (making it seem like they use that rule no matter what gear they have).

It's certainly a pretty tricky situation but I'm leaning towards your suggestion now (of not allowing jump generator equipped Autarchs to fleet).

 

 

Collar of Khorne, Sisters shield of Faith and the Null rod offer potential ways of getting around VoT I think...

I am not all too familiar with DE, and maybe things are alot differant with the new Eldar codex as I am still reading through that, but I remember in the old eldar codex fleet was related to a models armor save.  You could not have anything better then a 4+ and fleet unless it was specifically stated like with the Exarchs.
Aztralwolf

Another for you to mull over...

The GW FAQ for the Ork codex says that a KFF provides a vehicle with "Concealment."

There was some debate about what this actually meant around my area recently, but since nobody seriously plays Orks the issue was dropped...

But what exactly is a KFF in/on a vehicle supposed to accomplish? Does it provide Hull Down? Does it count as close-topped? There seem to have been many different rulings on this throughout most of 4th edition (different for Feral orks or Speed Freaks). So which one is an Ork player supposed to know to apply?

EDIT: Point of interest--the only place that "Concealment" shows up in the RAW is under the  "Smoke Launchers" entry. I also can't check the RAW verbatim on this right now, so this is from memory...

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/14/2007 7:57 AM
Another for you to mull over...

The GW FAQ for the Ork codex says that a KFF provides a vehicle with "Concealment."

There was some debate about what this actually meant around my area recently, but since nobody seriously plays Orks the issue was dropped...

But what exactly is a KFF in/on a vehicle supposed to accomplish? Does it provide Hull Down? Does it count as close-topped? There seem to have been many different rulings on this throughout most of 4th edition (different for Feral orks or Speed Freaks). So which one is an Ork player supposed to know to apply?

EDIT: Point of interest--the only place that "Concealment" shows up in the RAW is under the  "Smoke Launchers" entry. I also can't check the RAW verbatim on this right now, so this is from memory...

Since that FAQ answer was produced, the KFF in the Ork codex has been revised (it is also in the Wargear Book).

It states that the KFF provides vehicles with "obscurement" not concealment.

Just a quick one...

Can Wraithguard be carried in a Falcon transport? (by RAW it appears that yes, they can)

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/19/2007 4:44 PM
Just a quick one...

Can Wraithguard be carried in a Falcon transport? (by RAW it appears that yes, they can)

Page 67 of the codex: Falcons cannot carry Wraithguard.

 

 

But of course...and I've even read that before! New layout be damned...