http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/

Yakface is even credited on the Eldar FAQ. Very cool.

The Eldar one is very interesting...

All those people who were dissing the Adepticon FAQ, what do they say now that the official GW publications are crediting Yakface?

Eh? Eh?

Intercept: Stupid, pointless nerf. Yeah, that'll show those imba Hawks.

A lot of those "FAQs" should properly be called errata. A few of them seem to be gratuitous changes to things that were clear by RAW. Still, I'm so glad they finally put this out. It seems to settle all the issues that've been giving people headaches, at least as far as Eldar are concerned.

And there's a (well-deserved) shout-out to yak at the end! Damn right.

Edit: CSM FAQ looks solid too. They left out the rather significant Tzeentch biker question, but that must be because 5th ed turboboost rules make the point moot. The ruling on wings gave me a chuckle.

Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

Couple of things that stand out:

Lash of Submission even more lenient in moving models.

Linked Fire Prism shots; FP can't be shaken/stunned (man, I've been subject to that a few times)

2 Autarchs may give a +2 to Reserve rolls. My 5th ed Eldar idea really benefits from this. Hell, I can safely keep my entire army off the table and have it enter from Deep Strike/Flank/Reserves on a 2+ starting turn 2. Whoa...

Harlies and VoT cleared up.

Eldrad's Divination. I always played that the Falcon and fire Dragons inside were counted as two units being repositioned. Guess I was wrong.

Guess this answers all those questions about Typhus. I shall now do a happy dance while singing 'I was right, I was right!'

Eldar players can rest easy, Kharn's hitting your skimmers on 6's again

And apparently you can kill with the lash, if you're slamming bikers or jumpers though terrain :S

Is the Wood Elf FAQ another new one? It was updated pretty recently, I thought.

- Salvage

They updated the WE FAQ just a week or two ago, but this has a change. It’s pretty substantial, too. They changed Moonstone of Hidden Ways to only work in the WE player’s turn. Ruling the opposite in the last version was one of the most controversial rulings, as it allows some amazingly powerful (arguably broken as hell) moves, like teleporting out of combat after the enemy charges you, or teleporting into a forest on the enemy side of the board on their turn 1, then immediately charging them in the flank or rear on your own turn.

good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!? their website is so unprofessional, much like their rules writing.

Yakface gets his name on the CSM faq, too. Unsurprisingly, since he already had all that work on the other tournament's FAQ (if I'm not mistaken). Maybe they should've used that one

edit - it sounds baddass, Jon Yakface and the FAQ RULING COUNCIL! ( I wanna have a metal band named after that)

jeremycobert:

good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!?

What are you talking about?

Arhiman only being able to use one shooting attack power a turn hurts him alot. It pretty much ignores some poor wording under the Black Staff. I don't know why anyone would take him now.

jeremycobert wrote:good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!? their website is so unprofessional, much like their rules writing.

Shockingly enough, in Europe they use the European dating system...

Jeremycobert: lol

tC: Um... they are called Errata. It's even in the url and the page header.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

davidson wrote:Arhiman only being able to use one shooting attack power a turn hurts him alot. It pretty much ignores some poor wording under the Black Staff. I don't know why anyone would take him now.

But he can still spawnify things x3, apparently.

- Salvage

jeremycobert wrote:good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!? their website is so unprofessional, much like their rules writing.

Apparently you haven't had much experience with European dating schemes...

American standard is MM/DD/YYYY (e.g. 5/15/2008 is May 15, 2008)
European standard is DD/MM/YYYY (e.g. same date is 15/5/2008)

Interesting, the yo-yo hawk is finally official (Swooping Hawks can Skyleap the same turn they deep strike). Thats paying 132 points for a couple of S4 large blast template grenade packs... but worth so much more in pure annoyance.

Just read the Vampire Counts. Mauleed, you are 0-2 my friend. Invo can be cast into combat and barding does cause -1 to movement.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Is it my imagination, or did they revise the Wood Elf faq again as well? The one on that site is listed as posted today, but I don't seem to see anything different from the one from last month...

Edit: Oh, and other then the errata in Beasts of Chaos (no mixing), are there any changes there people have noticed?

Mannahnin wrote:They updated the WE FAQ just a week or two ago, but this has a change. It’s pretty substantial, too. They changed Moonstone of Hidden Ways to only work in the WE player’s turn. Ruling the opposite in the last version was one of the most controversial rulings, as it allows some amazingly powerful (arguably broken as hell) moves, like teleporting out of combat after the enemy charges you, or teleporting into a forest on the enemy side of the board on their turn 1, then immediately charging them in the flank or rear on your own turn.

The answer has already been posted. In this thread no less.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozy:

Um... they are called Errata. It's even in the url and the page header.

Yes, but the document itself is divided into an "Errata" and a "FAQs" section. All I'm saying is some of the latter would fit better in the former category as they are clear rules changes (as opposed to rulings that clarify a point that is unclear).

Buzzsaw, scroll up. The WE change has been commented on already (Mannahnin's post).

Oz and tC: Thanks.

Eldar faq: Embolden lets you reroll psychic tests? Wow, just wow.

Oh, and nice to see Yakface and co.'s hard work recognized, congratulations!

First, big Congrats to Yak and the "FAQ COUNCIL (of Doooommmm)"


Only one issue pops out at me.

Why are warp Spiders allowed to move after they deep strike?

Most things that can do X instead of Y can't do X if they can't do Y.
For an example, the Fire Prisms in the same FAQ can't support if they have no gun. (Can't shoot, can't support instead of shooting.)

And *nothing* gets to move after deepstriking.
If you allow assault moves, when assaulting is directly not allowed; how can you disallow fleeting, when shooting is allowed.

I just don't get it.

May be looking to 5th, where last I heard you could run or fleet after striking ...

- Salvage

Ah. Vindication. I remember people jumping all over me when I suggested that Embolden can be used to reroll failed psychic tests.

Capt K

Also, Lash's ability to be stopped by the target unit being pinned by a previous lash is funny to me.

Ahiriman is now most definatly not worth it. And I am sad to see Kharn has lost his ability to jump into the air and magically hit a skimmer 6 times.

Boss_Salvage wrote:May be looking to 5th, where last I heard you could run or fleet after striking ...

- Salvage

That's 4th too.

There's no running in 4th?

Anyway, let's not start that debate...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

jeremycobert wrote:good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!? their website is so unprofessional, much like their rules writing.

How very "Umurikin" of you.

davidson wrote:Arhiman only being able to use one shooting attack power a turn hurts him alot. It pretty much ignores some poor wording under the Black Staff. I don't know why anyone would take him now.

I think you misread it.
He can use multiple shooting powers... he can't use ONE shooting power multiple times.
He can use one NON-shooting power multiple times, though.

Eric

Boss_Salvage wrote:And apparently you can kill with the lash, if you're slamming bikers or jumpers though terrain :S
- Salvage

Well, you always could do that to bikes. I've done it before... it didn't work, but would have been hilarious.

Jumpers, though, is different. Notice in the FAQ/Erratta that it says the player may choose whether to use Jump packs or walk. You won't be cheap-shotting any jump packers that way.

Also... Am I the only one who thinks it sucks that you can't, apparently, Lash a pinned unit?

Eric

Surprised there was no clarification regarding Eldrad's staff and casting a second shooting-power.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Jumpers, though, is different. Notice in the FAQ/Erratta that it says the player may choose whether to use Jump packs or walk. You won't be cheap-shotting any jump packers that way.

Also... Am I the only one who thinks it sucks that you can't, apparently, Lash a pinned unit?

Eric

Actually it says the moving player (who is the player who cast lash) gets to choose how the jumpers move, so yeah you can slam them into trees.

And no, I don't personally think it sucks that you can't lash pinned troops, I think its appropriate.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

I really hate to complain on this Sacred Day of FAQ Release, but yeah that is annoying. So Farseer in a vehicle is not on the table and can't cast powers, but WG in Serpents are? Booooo

ubermosher wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

I really hate to complain on this Sacred Day of FAQ Release, but yeah that is annoying. So Farseer in a vehicle is not on the table and can't cast powers, but WG in Serpents are? Booooo

My first reaction to this ruling was similar to your reaction. But then I remembered if the leaked 5th edition PDF holds true in 5th edition models in transports no longer count as being off the table, so this ruling would then be in line with the rest of the game.

Ok so, am I wrong in that the Chaos FAQ asked whether the whip using player could bundle the target unit's minis together, but failed to actually answer it? Am I missing that?

jfrazell wrote:Ok so, am I wrong in that the Chaos FAQ asked whether the whip using player could bundle the target unit's minis together, but failed to actually answer it? Am I missing that?

You're wrong. It says that the Lash is normal movement up to the amount rolled. So that means the controlling player (the lash player) can move the models any way he sees fit within that distance, including bunching the models up.

In 4th, by RAW, fleet is as valid as shooting after DS.

Or perhaps everyone I have played with simply abuses me and I am too friendly.

Ugh. Ba-roken. I'm only going to bring one lash to Saturday's tournament instead of two.

But at least it's clear. That's the most important thing.

I am glad to see many points I have argued about regarding the Eldar Codex have come to pass, and errata/clarifications being made.

Errata such as the vibro cannon shooting in a straight line (though I think it is obvious that it was meant to do so, it was still worth clarifying so you dont get the snaking line winding its way among units).

Clarifications such as:

Vibro cannon LOS.

Swooping Hawks being able to rubber bounce.

Guardian heavy weapon crew coherency.

I would like to thank General Hobbs for arguing with me by proof of asserition ad nauseaum to make this come to pass. *coughIWINcough*

[edited to add links to pertinent articles of discussion.]

Note Yakface adamantly saying that it was not GW's intention to allow Swooping hawks to "rubber hawk".... *coughIWINAGAINcough*

Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

MagickalMemories wrote:

davidson wrote:Arhiman only being able to use one shooting attack power a turn hurts him alot. It pretty much ignores some poor wording under the Black Staff. I don't know why anyone would take him now.

I think you misread it.
He can use multiple shooting powers... he can't use ONE shooting power multiple times.
He can use one NON-shooting power multiple times, though.

Eric

Understood but in play it doesn't mater. If I need to take out a tank, being able to bolt of change and doom bolt doesn't help me. It was when you could cast bolt of change 3 times vs a tank or doom bolt 3 times to take out troops. For 250 points I can just build a better sorcer/hq with points to spare.

Why must they nerf my ultimate skimmer killing machine. Poop.

yakface wrote:

ubermosher wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

I really hate to complain on this Sacred Day of FAQ Release, but yeah that is annoying. So Farseer in a vehicle is not on the table and can't cast powers, but WG in Serpents are? Booooo

My first reaction to this ruling was similar to your reaction. But then I remembered if the leaked 5th edition PDF holds true in 5th edition models in transports no longer count as being off the table, so this ruling would then be in line with the rest of the game.

If so, I withdraw my complaint. Cheers.

Oh... is the hat tip to you by GW a tacit message that we can direct all whining about tardy FAQ's in the future to you?

now I want them to clarify if 13th co. can hot a skimer on a 3+ with mark of the wulfen

Well, according to the wording on the faq, it says that phoenix lords can only use their powers with aspect warriors. However, it does not say only aspect warriors of the same aspect as the phoenix lord. I don't have a eldar codex on me but it seems to me that you could have infiltrating banshees (if you attached Kahrandras) or Scorpions with the defend power (if you took Asurmen). Someone tell me I'm wrong. I don't have the 'dex.

I only read the CSM one as that's my army. If find the following interesting:

1) Smoke launcher use for Dread that fires frenzies. Glad they clarified this for all those who thought Dreads weren't too bad because of the smoke end around. Dreads just plain suck now.

2) Appears you can "mob up" with lash. This especially true with the change from a "must" to a "move up to" interpretation on the movement distance.

3) Two ranged psychic powers in the same round for a Monstrous Creature shows rules for 5th. Dakkafex still exists.

Buzzsaw wrote:Oh, and other then the errata in Beasts of Chaos (no mixing), are there any changes there people have noticed?

Other than that small change? No, I haven't noticed anything.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Well, according to the wording on the faq, it says that phoenix lords can only use their powers with aspect warriors. However, it does not say only aspect warriors of the same aspect as the phoenix lord.

It doesn't need to. Phoenix Lords can't join Aspect Warrior squads of a different Aspect, so it's simply not an issue.

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

Anything that hurts MEQs is fine with me. Bunching up marines and then hit them with a Demolisher is fun.


Now we're going to hear Marine players whine again.

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

I'm curious. Does your gaming circle use the term "mouthbreathers" also, or are you taking it from one of my posts?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

It doesn't need to state that. A Warlock attached to the unit is definitely "within 6" of the vehicle."

On a side note, I'm really stoked that the erratta seem to confirm that units inside transports don't seem to be considered "off the table." My guess is that psychic powers will still be blocked from ebing used out of the vehicle (except possibly through fire ports), but the off chance that powers might still be able affect the vehicle _itself_ makes my little Serpent-Fortuning schemes seem a bit more realistic.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Intercept: Stupid, pointless nerf. Yeah, that'll show those imba Hawks.

I didn't see intercept mentioned at all. Am I missing something?

I notice the Eldar FAQ didn't address fleeting jetbikes, though they did address fleeting autarchs w/warp generator (Says that even though warp spiders can't fleet, the autarch can-lends credence to Bikes being able to fleet).

skyth: Yes, you are missing something. You are missing the errata that limits Intercept to working on vehicles without a WS.

Nurglitch wrote:skyth: Yes, you are missing something. You are missing the errata that limits Intercept to working on vehicles without a WS.

I'm not sure I understand how the FAQ change is a nerf; intercept still allows Hawks to hit skimmers and other fast moving vehicles on 4+, and they already hit everything with a WS on 4+, don't they? Actually the hawks hit on 4+, the Exarch (who must be there for anyone to have intercept) is hitting all vehicles with a WS on 3+, no? Are there any vehicles with a WS higher then 4?

SM and CSM Dreads are WS4, Defilers, Soul Grinders, War Walkers and sentinels are WS 3. I don't have the Ork codex, but I assume their WS is along those lines. Aren't Hawks already always hitting WS vehicles on 4+ or 3+?

Buzzsaw wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:skyth: Yes, you are missing something. You are missing the errata that limits Intercept to working on vehicles without a WS.

I'm not sure I understand how the FAQ change is a nerf; intercept still allows Hawks to hit skimmers and other fast moving vehicles on 4+, and they already hit everything with a WS on 4+, don't they? Actually the hawks hit on 4+, the Exarch (who must be there for anyone to have intercept) is hitting all vehicles with a WS on 3+, no? Are there any vehicles with a WS higher then 4?

The nerf comes into play in that Hawks can only affect a Walker with Haywire Grenades... and unless stunned, Grenades only hit a Walker on a 6+. It was argued that Intercept allowed Grenades to hit Walkers on a 4+.

I'm not claiming that it is a "nerf".

Anyone else a little surprised that they took the most powerful and user-lenient approach to Lash?

The only one in the Eldar FAQ that I think is stupid is that Fire Prisms can contribute fire when they're out of range. Yes, it's 60", yes, the chances of that ever happening are slim, but even so - if they can't do it whe shaken/stunned then they should have to be in range.

Skyleap in the same turn as arriving sure is interesting, as is the Warp Spider move after Deep Striking.

BYE

Maybe. If units can be voluntarily pinned, then that takes some of the hurt out of the Lash of Submission.

Hmm... interesting answer on 11+ model units taking Rhinos.

Interesting answer on the LoC too, being able to fire two guns. May 'Zilla 'Nids isn't dead in 5th?

I like the Typhus answer.

BYE

Savnock wrote:
On a side note, I'm really stoked that the erratta seem to confirm that units inside transports don't seem to be considered "off the table." My guess is that psychic powers will still be blocked from ebing used out of the vehicle (except possibly through fire ports), but the off chance that powers might still be able affect the vehicle _itself_ makes my little Serpent-Fortuning schemes seem a bit more realistic.

The leaked PDF already pretty much confirmed this. In 5th edition as long as the power doesn't require LOS, you should be able to use it freely from inside a vehicle.

Hmmm, interesting. I guess I overlooked that bit in the PDF and just factored in the the 4th edition FAQ assuming I would not be able to do it.

I agree with Savnock; Wave Serpents may be a pretty viable choice.

With my current Ulthwe list, I could have Eldrad, his entire Warlock retinue all in a Fortuned Wave Serpent and Fortune the squad. Plus, the Warlock w/ Embolden will give rerolls for Eldrad's psychic power rolls (which I always end up wounding Eldrad with every game).

Possibilities...

skyth wrote:

I notice the Eldar FAQ didn't address fleeting jetbikes, though they did address fleeting autarchs w/warp generator (Says that even though warp spiders can't fleet, the autarch can-lends credence to Bikes being able to fleet).

It seems as though the FAQ is written with 5th edition in mind. In 5th edition, bike models cannot run in the shooting phase. Since the Fleet special rule only allows models which ran in the shooting phase to then charge in the same turn, such a clarification will be unneeded for 5th edition, hence it isn't included in the FAQ.

Doesn't it seem a little odd to release these FAQs so close to the release of 5th edition? Surely small details of the new rules will interact problematically with even these two books and raise several new questions.

Either way, good work Mr. Yak.

Doesn't it seem a little odd to release these FAQs so close to the release of 5th edition? Surely small details of the new rules will interact problematically with even these two books and raise several new questions.

That was my thought before looking at em but now I agree with others, these are more 5ed FAQs then 4ed (which is odd to me).

Kilkrazy wrote:All those people who were dissing the Adepticon FAQ, what do they say now that the official GW publications are crediting Yakface?

Eh? Eh?

I'd say that those FAQ's, Like all other FAQ's are not official since they're not in a Codex.

Blackheart666 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:All those people who were dissing the Adepticon FAQ, what do they say now that the official GW publications are crediting Yakface?

Eh? Eh?

I'd say that those FAQ's, Like all other FAQ's are not official since they're not in a Codex.

Do you understand the phrase, "Willful ignorance?"

Blackheart666, you're being ridiculous. The same thing that makes codices official is what makes these errata/FAQs official.

Call me dumb if you want but do vibrocannons need a LOS, the FAQ doesn´t seem to clear to me. I would say no but...

M.

DeathGod wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

I'm curious. Does your gaming circle use the term "mouthbreathers" also, or are you taking it from one of my posts?

Common usage. Truth is rare, but disparaging terms are universal

I'd say that those FAQ's, Like all other FAQ's are not official since they're not in a Codex.

Thats neither a lucid, nor coherent argument.

inquisitor_bob wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

Anything that hurts MEQs is fine with me. Bunching up marines and then hit them with a Demolisher is fun.


Now we're going to hear Marine players whine again.

You say it like its a bad thing

edit-double post

inquisitor_bob wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

Anything that hurts MEQs is fine with me. Bunching up marines and then hit them with a Demolisher is fun.


Now we're going to hear Marine players whine again.

I find it funny that a Chaos Marine player is talking about hearing "Marine Players" whine again.

Ironic isn't it.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I find it funny that a Chaos Marine player is talking about hearing "Marine Players" whine again.

You're not lumping US in with THEM are you?

Well to us "hordy's" all you MEQs look alike...

Lots of skulls- check
Gaudy paint job in a combat theater - check
One arm raised in the air in fist/waving gun/sword- check

yep, you all look alike to us

Rbb wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I find it funny that a Chaos Marine player is talking about hearing "Marine Players" whine again.

You're not lumping US in with THEM are you?

I fail to see how Chaos Marines aren't just another MEQ army.

Sure they've got a bit more variety than your average MEQ list, and they're still really cool, with good fluff and all that, but at the end of the day they're still Marines of some sort or another. It was that way before the 4th Ed Codex, but then they were just MEQ's with really nasty assault support.

Mosg wrote:Anyone else a little surprised that they took the most powerful and user-lenient approach to Lash?

Yes, but on further reflection I think it’s mostly for ease of play. If you just treat it as regular movement (except for the specified exceptions) it’s extremely powerful, but it prevents lots of other questions. For example, if you say that all models must move exactly the rolled distance in a nominated direction, you have to explain what happens if some of them CAN’T. Like if one model in the unit is blocked by another unit or impassible terrain. Does the whole movement get stopped? Does that model move as far as he can, with the other models reducing their moves just enough to stay in coherency? Or what? Also, under the straight line interpretation, a fair number of armies can pretty easily negate the lash by interspersing their models.

Allowing the Lashing player to move the models around just like regular voluntary movement avoids all those issues.

About time they posted FAQs. Hopefully they'll get the other codecii up to snuff within a few months so we can all start 5th edition on an even playground.

I was very glad to see Yakface and Council get the nod. Were you guys approached beforehand or was this as much a surprise to you as it was to all of us?

1) I hope you guys get some free product for being the 2007 contributors of the year.

2) I hope GW continues to utilize Team Yakface to fix the ambiguities associated with all of their rules.

Flagg07 wrote:2) I hope GW continues to utilize Team Yakface to fix the ambiguities associated with all of their rules.

Considering GW's record with contradictory, incorrect, broken and in some cases actually offensive answers, I think it's better they let other people do the work for them. They're bad at writing rules, but their worse at correcting their mistakes.

BYE

It's encouraging when they show signs of listening to people who care so much about the hobby and put so much work into trying to make it better.

Yakface and the FAQ guys (and all of the people who supported them- I’m looking at you, You Make The Call fanatics) on the 40k side, and the Direwolf team on the Warhammer side. There are some very dedicated hobbyists doing a lot of work for nothing but love of the hobby and a desire to help their fellow players.

Definitely grats to Yak and the council. It warms my heart to see GW starting to look to outside sources for input on the game. I hope this bodes well for future co-operations between players and developers.

jeremycobert wrote:good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!? their website is so unprofessional, much like their rules writing.

set up your own games company and do it yourself then

Will have a look at these when I get home - cant believe they didnt rein in the lash for CSM - ie made it the same as Pavane for the Daemon dex......

40kenthusiast wrote:Also, Lash's ability to be stopped by the target unit being pinned by a previous lash is funny to me.

Also if you take wounds in shooting you can voluntarily pin yourself to keep you from getting lashed - so if the sorc is in a unit they have to (or rather, should) give up their shooting. Interesting to say the least.

edit: oh yeah pavane =/= lash. you can stop lash, you can't stop pavane.

So, they fix the moonstone but fail to fix a Treeman stand and shooting 360.

You fail GW, you fail.

The newer FAQs are ok, CSM is decent, but they fail with Ahriman. Can GW please make up its mind if it wants to be RAW or Not?
Seriously. They could just rule that he can. make it work that way and be done with it. Its what the FAQ is for. Making sure things
_work_. And hell make sure they work _AS INTENDED_. It's a shame that GW finds it in their hearts to Errata _some_ things. But
not others that _clearly_ need errata. (I'm looking at you Beasts of Chaos)
Also big fail on Blood Drinker and the Vampire Counts FAQ. The item clearly states that it works as if the spell was
cast on the unit. So its a kinda not really casting eh?

Agree with you on the Beasts of Chaos issues...

Oh well!

In as far as GW has made these two FAQs official , I will be useing them most Riki Tic.
I do find at least one ruling compleatly wrong , but if GW says "jobs a good'un" then so be it.

Sincity

Did anyone else notice that it seems that Warp Spiders can jump in the opponents assult phase?

Yea , thats what is says. Poor wording or stupid , you pick.

From now on , my motto will be "all errors will be abused".

Sincity

It's pretty clear that Warp Spiders can only move in their own assault phase. It is clear because the only Assault phase in which Warp Spiders could assault is their own Assault phase.

Yes , thats true , if the answer to this question had not changed it to ANY assault phase.
You see, people on this board want to act like this FAQ is the be all , end all of 40K knowlage. When really it is only slightly better than GW has done (GW could not even be bothered to do it).

But , hay , they have GWs stamp of approval , so let the games begin.

Sincity

The sentence in question:

"This move can be made in any Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."

So yes, any Assault phase in which Warp Spiders could assault is their own Assault phase. Clearly "any" refers to the any Eldar Assault phase.

So if you choose not to do a Assault move by your logic, you can skip that pesky phase once the Tyranids/Orks reach your lines?

Whew! That's a relief!

Nurglitch wrote:The sentence in question:

"This move can be made in any Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."

So yes, any Assault phase in which Warp Spiders could assault is their own Assault phase. Clearly "any" refers to the any Eldar Assault phase.

Wouldnt the spiders meet those requirements in their opponents phase so long as they didnt fight?

Oh Jesus Christ.

The intent here is obvious. Please do not be stupid.

Darkness wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The sentence in question:

"This move can be made in any Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."

So yes, any Assault phase in which Warp Spiders could assault is their own Assault phase. Clearly "any" refers to the any Eldar Assault phase.

Wouldnt the spiders meet those requirements in their opponents phase so long as they didnt fight?

Yes.
Conditions=

Warp Spiders are not locked
Warp Spiders are not assaulting
Current phase is the assault phase

=

Warp Spiders can move in any assault phase by that ruling.

Salvation122 wrote:Oh Jesus Christ.

The intent here is obvious. Please do not be stupid.

Intent is a funny thing. If intent was clear we wouldnt have needed a ruling on rubber Hawks. I agree the intent seems clear, but GW has a way of sticking it to us with RAW.

What does the Holy Answer God Yakface think?

Nurglitch is in his own little world again. If it is an Assault phase, and the Spiders have neither assaulted nor fought in an assault, then it is plain to any logician that it is indeed an "Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault." It won't be the first time GW has opened such a loophole even as it clears up something else and it certainly won't be the last.

Of course, I would expect this level of denial from someone (probably the only person on earth) who believes that GW rules are 100% coherent and never contradict themselves "so long as you read them correctly."

Tegeus-Cromis, I know the two of you go back and forth with more than a little warmth, but this is the wrong area for a rules debate, and more importantly, there are two completely gratuitous personal attacks in that post. This is a warning.

This entire misunderstanding is clearly a case of disassociating the answer from the question and, as a result, the clear and unambiguous context in which it was meant to be taken. The FAQ question is:

"Q. The warp jump generator description says Warp Spiders may make an extra move 'instead of assaulting.' Does this mean that they can make their extra move during the Assault phase only if they are in a position where they could assault, or can they do it anyway?"

The question is clearly asking whether or not Warp Spiders can use their jump generator when they would not ordinarily be allowed to assault in their assault phase. The response, when read with the context of the question in mind, does not leave any room for someone to believe that the warp generator move can be used in their opponents assault phase. The response says:

"A. This move can be made in any Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."

The context, which is set in the question, cannot be divorced from the answer-It is implicit in the question that the extra move can only occur in the Warp Spider's Assault phase, and the question is simply seeking to clarify the circumstances. Furthermore, RAW makes this an even less palatable attempt at breaking the clear spirit of the rule-the rule clearly says, "instead of assaulting." The unambiguous implication being that you have to be able to assault (meaning it must be the Warp Spiders' turn) in order to use the warp jump generator.

This raises questions which have bugged me for some time. In my almost 20 years of 40k, I've seen this cycle time and time again. One thing is certain: It is impossible to write a completely balanced rule set with all of the "moving parts" currently in the game. GW strives to give players choices as far as unit composition goes, but with that comes the inherent problem of balance. This is infinitely worsened by players who attempt to pick rules apart in an attempt to do things that were clearly not intended by the developers. This warp jump generator issue being a timely example-the intent is clear, the RAW makes the interpretation impossible, and it takes removing the context from a related FAQ question to get a result that's not only outside of the spirit of the rule, but the letter as well. In this type of setting, is it any wonder why GW has a tough time writing a rule set that everyone is happy with? If the rule set is too restrictive, people gripe that the armies are bland and uninspired, but the balance increases. If the rule set is too open, people jump in with obviously abusive combinations and resort to a variation on the Nuremberg Defense (It's in the codex).

That said, I am particularly impressed with the effort Yakface and others put into these FAQs, and I am very happy that GW is incorporating player feedback into the game.

Brice

Actually that doesn't work. I can read that as saying ANY assault phase. It would have been better if they had asked the Q A) or B) and then replied with the letter.

Clear and concise. Thats what they need to be.

How can you read the question as "ANY assault phase"? How can a Warp Spider move "instead of assaulting" during the opponents turn?

The RAW nuts are parsing.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Because it says that. "any Assault " and then limits it where the spiders are not already assaulting or in CC.

These things have to be clear as you have people with English as s econd language reading them, and different areas will have different good faith views on how to parse the swamp that is the English language.

O.K. I’ll bite. How does any reasonable reading and construction/deconstruction of this question allow for someone to read it as saying “ANY assault phase”?

"Q. The warp jump generator description says Warp Spiders may make an extra move 'instead of assaulting.' Does this mean that they can make their extra move during the Assault phase only if they are in a position where they could assault, or can they do it anyway?"

The question clearly cites the rule, stating “instead of assaulting”, so how does that allow for someone to assume that the warp jump move can be made in the Warp Spiders’ opponent’s Assault phase? It doesn’t. The context of both the question and the response is made clear by the inclusion of the citation to the rule-“instead of assaulting.” Any other attempted construction is grasping of the worst sort. As a lawyer by trade, I deal with issues of statutory construction all the time. As I hinted in my above post, it is practically impossible to draft a rule that cannot be questioned. That said, there are certain cannons of statutory construction that must be applied, not the least of which is: Noscitur a sociis (A word is known by the company it keeps). In the case of the warp jump generators, this means that you cannot divorce the context of “Assault phase” provided in the question from the answer. Said differently, since the question is discussing conditions for using the warp jump generator in the Warp Spiders’ Assault phase, the answer to the question has to be taken in the same context. Furthermore, jumping in your opponent’s Assault phase completely ignores RAW.

This doesn’t even address the issues raised by a failure to consider the rule, and its implications, in the spirit it was written. As overpowered as the “jumping in your opponent’s assault phase” interpretation would be, doesn’t it give you pause to consider, at the very least, that it’s not what was intended by the developer.

Now, after all of this, can anyone say that the games developers don’t have a tough job, particularly when it comes to managing players who look for ways to massage rules to their liking?

Brice

They're quite concise. The "any Assault phase" is qualified as being any one in which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault. The only Assault phase in which Warp Spiders can either assault or fight in an assault is the Eldar Assault Phase.

Nurglitch your chart procedes from the assumption that they cannot move in the opposing player's turn.


How did I get sucked into arguing about this? I could give a and actually agree with you. I'm not sure how I got caught into playing the devil's advocate. Someone else can argue this. i'll go back to arguing how anal people with laser pointers are.

Any argument that warp jump generators can be used in the Warp Spiders’ opponent’s Assault phase completely ignores the question posed in the FAQ and only relies on the answer to create the ambiguity necessary to argue that warp jump generators can be used in any assault phase. None of the ambiguity exists when the answer is read in the context of the question. So far everyone who has argued the contrary has pointed only to the language “any assault phase” without any regard to the context of the question posed in the FAQ. The interpretation that warp jump generators can be used in the Warp Spiders’ opponent’s Assault only exists out of context, and no one has so far been able to address a construction that would allow this and not fly in the face of the question in the FAQ and the RAW. Ultimately, this is the problem with “rules lawyers” and “power gamers”-simply reasserting out of context statements for the truth does not make them so. Any individual Codex or rule cannot be considered in a vacuum. It was obviously not the developers intent to create a completely unassaultable unit.

Brice

BBeale wrote: Ultimately, this is the problem with “rules lawyers” and “power gamers”-simply reasserting out of context statements for the truth does not make them so. Any individual Codex or rule cannot be considered in a vacuum. It was obviously not the developers intent to create a completely unassaultable unit.

Brice

One can argue the merits of your case with ease. Your gross assertion concerning "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" is both reaching and unnecessary.

jfrazell: Yes, my chart does indeed follow from the assumption that the ordinary Warhammer 40k turn sequence is in place. It's that 'context' thing Brice is talking about.

I think its time to continue this YMTC.

jfrazell wrote:

BBeale wrote: Ultimately, this is the problem with “rules lawyers” and “power gamers”-simply reasserting out of context statements for the truth does not make them so. Any individual Codex or rule cannot be considered in a vacuum. It was obviously not the developers intent to create a completely unassaultable unit.

Brice

One can argue the merits of your case with ease. Your gross assertion concerning "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" is both reaching and unnecessary.

And the truth. The comment is only unnecessary because everyone already knows it's truth. And redundant. And the truth.

I have to say I'm baffled by the Beasts of Chaos ruling on ranking up less than four wide. I really expected them to change it to 5 wide, to make it make sense in the new edition.
The orc and goblin ones make sense for the most part.

I think the way to look at it is that the answer is just that: the answer to a question. It is not a rule in and of itself. The question wasn't "when can my spiders jump", it was "do my spiders have to be able to assault in order to jump."

Intent and all that aside, let's at least be fair: the answer does ready any assault phase. Since the rule in question breaks another major rule in the first place (being able to move in assault phase aside from assaulting), it's not exactly a massive leap for it to get a bonus move in the opponenets assault phase.

BBeale: one thing to remember is that GW likes to answer questions with sweeping answers (holdings, if you will). Despite GW printing the question as "can I do X with Y at time Z?", GW chooses to answer "when can I do X with Y," and the answer will simply read "Y can do X at these times."

Is it pretty clear what GW meant? Of course it is. But let's not try to argue our way out of the fact that GW wrote a sloppy rule (and the oddsmakers take a beating!)

Intent aside, i think the best reason to not play it as any assault phase is that it asks a huge question: who moves first?

kinda sad... there still no updated C:Orkz errata\faq

That's not sad but expected. The Ork dex is the most recent, after all. One would expect the FAQ to be a little longer coming.

Like tomorrow, perhaps.

Polonius wrote:I think the way to look at it is that the answer is just that: the answer to a question. It is not a rule in and of itself. The question wasn't "when can my spiders jump", it was "do my spiders have to be able to assault in order to jump."

Intent and all that aside, let's at least be fair: the answer does ready any assault phase. Since the rule in question breaks another major rule in the first place (being able to move in assault phase aside from assaulting), it's not exactly a massive leap for it to get a bonus move in the opponenets assault phase.

BBeale: one thing to remember is that GW likes to answer questions with sweeping answers (holdings, if you will). Despite GW printing the question as "can I do X with Y at time Z?", GW chooses to answer "when can I do X with Y," and the answer will simply read "Y can do X at these times."

Is it pretty clear what GW meant? Of course it is. But let's not try to argue our way out of the fact that GW wrote a sloppy rule (and the oddsmakers take a beating!)

Intent aside, i think the best reason to not play it as any assault phase is that it asks a huge question: who moves first?

This is probably the most concise and best answer yet on this subject.
You've echoed my thoughts perfectly.

What seems obvious (to me) is that GW INTENDED to answer in relation to the question. What the succeeded in diong, however, through shoddy wording and editing, was create a loop-hole that can be argued by those with the desire.

This sentence -
"This move can be made in any Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."
would be clearer if they added one & changed two -
"This move can be made in any of their Assault phases during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."
or -
"This move can be made in either player's Assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in an assault."



A good editor would have caught that.

Eric

Salvation122 wrote:Oh Jesus Christ.

The intent here is obvious. Please do not be stupid.

ROFL!