OK, here we go again.
First, the Legal Junk:

"The Unofficial Codex: Blood Angels FAQ v1.9 by Gwar!" is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales Licence.
Please click and review the licence agreement before downloading "The Unofficial Codex: Blood Angels FAQ v1.9 by Gwar!".
By downloading this document you agree to be bound by the above licence agreement.

I, the user of Dakkadakka.com known by the pseudonym “Gwar!”, have no affiliation with the owners of Dakkadakka.com, Adepticon or anyone on the INAT FAQ Council and this is NOT Part of the INAT FAQ nor am I aware of any approval or endorsement of this FAQ by them.

This FAQ is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.

Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos devices, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2010, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

No challenge to the status of any other Trademarks, Registered Trademarks or copyrights is intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

This thread is for feedback regarding the Unofficial Codex: Blood Angels FAQ by Gwar!
The current Version is 1.9, updated 13/May/2010.
To download the latest version, please read the disclaimer at the start of this post then click here.

If you find any typos, or formatting errors, please respond here so that I may correct them in a subsequent release of this FAQ.

Do not post "XYZ Ruling is Incorrect", insults, flames, trolls or anything of that kind, please. If you feel something is incorrect, Please PM me.

A friendly bump or questions are always appreciated.

Any and all constructive Feedback is welcome

Very quick question that isn't a FAQ, but what the hey.

Does the new assualt squads have melta guns, flamers etc?

Thank you

Make sure to make to print out a couple copies of your FAQ and have them sealed and postmarked (poor/ lazymans copywrite)
That way Dakka won't have another repeat of the "stolen tyranid faq" fiasco.
Good luck with it, can't wait to see it when its done...

Yea I was and am still surprised that GW basically stole your FAQ. I laugh but only in a are you kidding me kind of way. Anywho, good luck man, I want to read it because Im curious about all the crazyness they are going to have

Legit Questions:

Does Lemartes replace a member of the Death company or is he added to the unit? So, will I end up with 30 death company and lemartes or 29 death company and Lemartes?

Lemartes has the Decent of Angels rule, but Death company doesnt. Does he grant the rule to the squad?

Is it a typo that Mephiston, Death Company Tycho, and the Sanguinor are NOT Independant Characters?

1.) I doesn't say upgrade a member of the squad so I would say he is added to it. so you could have Lemartes plust 30 DC's.

2.) Any model equipped with a Jump Pack in a blood angels army has the Descent of Angels special rule.

3.) Definitely not in the case of Mephiston and Sanguinor. Didn't realize that Tycho got the same treatment which stands out a little but I'd say that it was intentional. Especially for Mephiston and Sanguinor as having ablative wounds would make them insane.

Caboose wrote:Legit Questions:

Does Lemartes replace a member of the Death company or is he added to the unit? So, will I end up with 30 death company and lemartes or 29 death company and Lemartes?

Lemartes has the Decent of Angels rule, but Death company doesnt. Does he grant the rule to the squad?

Is it a typo that Mephiston, Death Company Tycho, and the Sanguinor are NOT Independant Characters?

Thank you for the questions I can answer #3 off the top of my head, and that is "No, it is not, unless GW issues Errata to the contrary. [R.a.W]"

You can answer #2 as well. It's in the jump pack entry in the wargear section.

Number one would depend on wording but I'm pretty sure it didn't say upgrade a member since he already costs to much anyway....

Hulksmash wrote:You can answer #2 as well. It's in the jump pack entry in the wargear section.

I must have missed that. Does that mean that Vanguard Veterans equipped with jump packs can reroll a fail reserves roll, roll 1d6 for scatter AND assault on that turn????

He is one about the DC
Are they 3-30 man squad only or can theybe broken up like the old 3e Space Wolf Wolf Guard>

DC are one big squad unless you take astorath as he allows you to take more than one squad of DC.

And yes Caboose. That means that vanguard with them get the special rule and can assault afterwards. actually makes them worth it

That's disgusting.

Here's a couple about the new sanguinary priest rules.

With the Sanguinary priest ability to give units within 6" furious charge and FNP, when do you measure? In the pdf codex Corbulo was the one entry that could provide furious charge and it specified that you measured at the start of the assault phase. The new rule doesn't include that kind of wording IIRC. Do you measure before or after the assault move? i.e can a unit make an assault move and lose the FC bonus by if the assault move takes them outside of the 6" bubble? Conversely, can they make an assault move into the bubble and get FC? Can both work?

What about Feel No Pain? It's different from FC since it's basically "always on" instead of just activating for an assault move. It makes for some interesting permutations. Can I make an assault move away from a priest, keeping FC, but losing FNP? Can I make an assault move towards a priest gaining FNP, but not FC?

Here is one:
How does Wings of Sanguninius Work with Librarian Dreadnoughts

Joetaco wrote:Make sure to make to print out a couple copies of your FAQ and have them sealed and postmarked (poor/ lazymans copywrite)
That way Dakka won't have another repeat of the "stolen tyranid faq" fiasco.
Good luck with it, can't wait to see it when its done...

whats the story on this>?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Here is one:
How does Wings of Sanguninius Work with Librarian Dreadnoughts

I think it works this way:

1. flying dread

2. FFFFFFFF

3. profit

So, question for you guys:
Furioso Librarians (And I quote) "count as Leadership 10 for all psychic purposes."

Now, not regarding the complete and utter horrible vagueness of that rule, how do you guys want to see me rule in regards to things like Psychic Hoods, the Crucible of Malediction and the "Souless" rules for the Culexus and Pariahs?

As I see it, there is either the RaW, which is that Psychic Hoods, the CoM and Souless have no effect whatsoever against them (meaning the Power always punches through the Hood D: ) or I can go for a Rules change, saying that you count the Furioso Librarian as Ld 10 whenever an effect would specifically call for the psykers leadership which would allow Hoods and the CoM to affect it (but would still leave souless doing nothing, but meh, I cant think of a way to do it without completely breaking stuff).

Anything that makes one look at Ld values and is a psychic related ability (*Clarification from a model considered a psycher) Considers Furiosos ld value to be ten... now the lady giving the first aid coursae is glowering at me so I'll have to go lol.

Can a unit of Death Company have mixed Bolters and Bolt Pistols?

Gwar! wrote:So, question for you guys:
Furioso Librarians (And I quote) "count as Leadership 10 for all psychic purposes."

Now, not regarding the complete and utter horrible vagueness of that rule, how do you guys want to see me rule in regards to things like Psychic Hoods, the Crucible of Malediction and the "Souless" rules for the Culexus and Pariahs?

As I see it, there is either the RaW, which is that Psychic Hoods, the CoM and Souless have no effect whatsoever against them (meaning the Power always punches through the Hood D: ) or I can go for a Rules change, saying that you count the Furioso Librarian as Ld 10 whenever an effect would specifically call for the psykers leadership which would allow Hoods and the CoM to affect it (but would still leave souless doing nothing, but meh, I cant think of a way to do it without completely breaking stuff).

I have to disagree. As vague as it is, the psychic hoods and Soulless fit under the "psychic purpose" umbrella. "Counts as Leadership 10" means that it counts as having a 10 Leadership, and that's when soulless would kick in and lower the leadership value.

Does there really need to be a discussion over whether models with psychic powers are psykers?

The thing is, all Soulless does is change the Ld of enemies within a certain distance. The Libby Dread doesnt HAVE a Ld, it just COUNTS AS Ld 10 for "Psychic Purposes" (whatever they are).

So, how's this for a [Rules Change/Clarification] compromise:
The Furioso Librarian Counts as Ld 10 whenever it performs a Psychic Test or needs to reference it's Leadership Value as a result of a psychic power being used (e.g. Psychic Hoods). Special Rules that would change or reduce this leadership affect the Librarian as if it were a non-vehicle psyker (e.g. Soulless). Special Rules that specifically affect Psykers and that call for a Leadership Value use a Leadership Value of 10, modified by any appropriate modifiers as if the Librarian Dread were a non-vehicle Psyker (e.g. Crucible of Malediction).

Sounds good and proper to me.

Here's my question for the FAQ:

How do you make an FAQ for a book that isn't released for another 18 days or so?

Homer

You read it at the counter of the local game store......???

Joetaco wrote:Make sure to make to print out a couple copies of your FAQ and have them sealed and postmarked (poor/ lazymans copywrite)
That way Dakka won't have another repeat of the "stolen tyranid faq" fiasco.
Good luck with it, can't wait to see it when its done...

that only works if the person receivenig the envelope can prove that the seal has never been broken/altered. and mailing it to yourself is rarely admissable because you can steam the envlope open and re-seal it.

don_mondo wrote:You read it at the counter of the local game store......???

Not all stores get one. Mine did not, and I know three other stores in my state that did not get one.

Homer S wrote:Here's my question for the FAQ:

How do you make an FAQ for a book that isn't released for another 18 days or so?

Homer

I'm Gwar! I go to Jervis with a RaWhammer and threaten to break his kneecaps

In all Seriousness though, I looked at it in a "local" (1+ hour away) store and jotted down the bits that stuck out to me.

Heres another question regarding Furioso Librarians. How do you work out a wound from perils of the warp? Glancing hit... penetrating hit... ignored or what? Or did they address that in the codex entry?

Caboose wrote:Heres another question regarding Furioso Librarians. How do you work out a wound from perils of the warp? Glancing hit... penetrating hit... ignored or what? Or did they address that in the codex entry?

They address this in the codex

I've got a silly question.

Is there some kind of rules mandate for the size of the Storm Raven, or can we go completely nuts with conversions?

starbomber109 wrote:I've got a silly question.

Is there some kind of rules mandate for the size of the Storm Raven, or can we go completely nuts with conversions?

What he said

Would you roll on the Vehicle Damage Table with the Magna Grapple a swell as pulling a Vehicle in?

phantommaster wrote:Would you roll on the Vehicle Damage Table with the Magna Grapple a swell as pulling a Vehicle in?

That one is clear in the weapon description (hit, work out penetration and possible damage, if vehicle survives use grapple rules to attempt movement).

And yeah it can grab and pull even it if fails to penetrate armor.

In a related note folks without the book might want to hold off on questions to keep the signal to noise ratio balanced.

Jack

When magna grapple grabs and pulls a vehicle, does said grappled vehicle tank shock units in the path of it being pulled towards the dread?

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, all Soulless does is change the Ld of enemies within a certain distance. The Libby Dread doesnt HAVE a Ld, it just COUNTS AS Ld 10 for "Psychic Purposes" (whatever they are).

So, how's this for a [Rules Change/Clarification] compromise:
The Furioso Librarian Counts as Ld 10 whenever it performs a Psychic Test or needs to reference it's Leadership Value as a result of a psychic power being used (e.g. Psychic Hoods). Special Rules that would change or reduce this leadership affect the Librarian as if it were a non-vehicle psyker (e.g. Soulless). Special Rules that specifically affect Psykers and that call for a Leadership Value use a Leadership Value of 10, modified by any appropriate modifiers as if the Librarian Dread were a non-vehicle Psyker (e.g. Crucible of Malediction).

Of course, I read the thread I started on this very topic before I read this thread and find the discussion has already taken place.

I think that this is the most appropriate merger of the rules, and should be called a "Clarification" rather than a "Rules Change."

Brother Ramses wrote:When magna grapple grabs and pulls a vehicle, does said grappled vehicle tank shock units in the path of it being pulled towards the dread?

This is covered in the Codex.

As a previous poster said, it is probably best to only have the people who have had a good read through post questions about rules they read. Otherwise we have people fishing for rules on things which can be better done in the news and rumors section, imo.

On Topic: Does an Assault Squad Deep Striking in a Land Raider benifit from the Decent of Angels rule.

Marius Xerxes wrote:On Topic: Does an Assault Squad Deep Striking in a Land Raider benifit from the Decent of Angels rule.

That's a good one. Another good one is do models with Decent of Angels AND a Jump Pack scatter 1D6" less Twice (i.e. don't scatter).

I am interested in the construction of the FAQ.
Do you answer all the questions yourself, or are you part of a team?
Do you maintain the strictest RAW interpretations you use here in YMDC or is the FAQ influenced by notions of practicality and enjoyment of the game?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am interested in the construction of the FAQ.
Do you answer all the questions yourself, or are you part of a team?
Do you maintain the strictest RAW interpretations you use here in YMDC or is the FAQ influenced by notions of practicality and enjoyment of the game?

+1.

These things usually come out better when decided upon by a majority rather then one persons viewpoint.

jp400 wrote:These things usually come out better when decided upon by a majority rather then one persons viewpoint.

Like the INAT FAQ that is very highly consistent and has absolutely no Rules Changes hidden as Clarifications?

Easy there highspeed, no need to get your panties in a twist and bite my head off. Was just makeing small talk.

**EDIT**
I take that back, you know what Gwar, you can step off buddy. Im glad GW borrowed "your" faq that you stole from various users on the forum here and labled it as "your own"

Gwar! wrote:

jp400 wrote:These things usually come out better when decided upon by a majority rather then one persons viewpoint.

Like the INAT FAQ that is very highly consistent and has absolutely no Rules Changes hidden as Clarifications?

The INAT FAQs that GW not only used but publicly thanked Yakface and the ruling council for?

If by consistent, you are referring to a carefully thought out series of clarifications that strive for a sense of the fair and also make good gaming sense, then yes, your quite correct Gwar, the INAT FAQ is an excellent document.

Ok, Version 0.1 Uploaded.
Yes, it is very rough, but better to have it rough than not have it at all

I notice now I forgot to add in the Lemartes Question, I'll add that in in the next version.

v0.2 uploaded for your viewing pleasure.

Q: Does taking “Lemartes, Guardian of the Lost” replace a member of the Death Com
taken in addition to the Death Company unit?
A: The unit can be a mixture of Bolt Pistol and Bolter equipped models. [Clarification]

You probably don't have to have what is essentially the same Dedicated Transport question twice.

El Facepalm. I'll fix it now and upload v0.2b in about 10 mins

Did I say 10 mins? I mean it's up now That's the 2nd time Ive messed up the Lemartes Question. I guess he just hates me ;(

Here is one I will add in 0.3:
How do Magna Grapples interact with Vehicle Squadrons.
Namely can they pull a Squadron out of Coherency (RaW: Yes)

Dante attaches to a unit of Honour Guard, and embark into a Stormraven Gunship.

Does the gunship scatter when it lands, as Dante's rule says he doesn't scatter?

Spellbound wrote:Dante attaches to a unit of Honour Guard, and embark into a Stormraven Gunship.

Does the gunship scatter when it lands, as Dante's rule says he doesn't scatter?

Yes, as Dante is no longer the one Deep Striking. I clarified this for Decent of Angels, but I will add this to V0.3 especially for Dante as well.

On Lemartes, the codex phrasing is "The Death Company can include Lemartes." Doesn't this indicate that he is part of the total 30? If it was meant to be 31 wouldn't the phrasing be can take or something other than include?

Homer

Homer S wrote:On Lemartes, the codex phrasing is "The Death Company can include Lemartes." Doesn't this indicate that he is part of the total 30? If it was meant to be 31 wouldn't the phrasing be can take or something other than include?

Homer

I do not agree. If he was supposed to replace a member of the Death Company, it would say "Lemartes Replaces a member of the Death Company".
It doesn't, it says "May include". So, you take 30 Death COmpany, then include Lemartes for 30 DC models and 1 Lemartes Model.

I guess I agree, although I would not be surprised at an FAQ change. Every other instance for quite a few back use either replace or upgrade a model as the mechanism.

Homer

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:On Lemartes, the codex phrasing is "The Death Company can include Lemartes." Doesn't this indicate that he is part of the total 30? If it was meant to be 31 wouldn't the phrasing be can take or something other than include?

Homer

I do not agree. If he was supposed to replace a member of the Death Company, it would say "Lemartes Replaces a member of the Death Company".
It doesn't, it says "May include". So, you take 30 Death COmpany, then include Lemartes for 30 DC models and 1 Lemartes Model.

I think a good example of a special character who acts as an upgrade of an existing purchased member of a squad is Arjac Rockfist in Codex: Space Wolves.

Here's one you've not covered yet:

Heroic Intervention vs Stormraven's Skies of blood, can Vanguard assault from skies of blood?

Jack

P.S. Why the hell is the Signum listed in Weapons and not Wargear (or the Devastator entry)? I was convinced they'd left it out for 15 minutes or so hunting for it.

got another one for you, gwar... when you upgrade a sanguinary priest to terminator armor (or armour for you brits), you exchange his wargear for a chalice of blood and a power weapon. while RAI would assume they meant a blood chalice, pure RAW would dictate that they get nothing as a chalice of blood doesn't exist as a defined wargear option.

If a vehicle from a squadron survives the magna grapple and ensuing carnage, what happens next turn? Does it move back to the squadron, wherever that may be, or is it destroyed? Let's say for argument's sake that it's not immobilized since RaW is pretty clear on what happens then.

How does Seth's "whirlwind of gore" ability affect models without a WS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:Easy there highspeed, no need to get your panties in a twist and bite my head off. Was just makeing small talk.

**EDIT**
I take that back, you know what Gwar, you can step off buddy. Im glad GW borrowed "your" faq that you stole from various users on the forum here and labled it as "your own"

You mean that he took other people's questions that were asked in a frequent manner, and then put them in a FAQ? How odd.

@warboss and agnosto: DOne and done. Added to my local 0.5 copy

@Valhallan: Nice catch, adding now.

Expect 0.5 to be released some time tonight or tomorrow and v1 the day after.

Valhallan42nd wrote:How does Seth's "whirlwind of gore" ability affect models without a WS?

i don't see any confusion on that one. the rule simply says "instead of making his normal attacks, ..... seth inflicts a single automatic hit on all enemy models in base contact." you don't make his normal attacks (and thereby don't use the normal rules) but instead hit any enemy touching his base with one s8 rending hit. he hits them regardless of WS, distance moved, etc. forcing him to reroll the hit doesn't do anything as he doesn't actually roll with that. is there a rules conflict i'm missing?

Jackmojo wrote:Here's one you've not covered yet:
Heroic Intervention vs Stormraven's Skies of blood, can Vanguard assault from skies of blood?

I didn't think it needed to be covered, it's pretty clear in the Heroic Intervention Rules
I'll add it anyway since I can see why it would be asked

Yeah, I was tossing it out for much the same reason, not because it had me wondering...unlike the dang Signum.

Jack

v0.5 is uploaded and ready for your viewing pleasure.
This should, with any luck, be the last "Draft" Version before I stick on the INAT Style Numbering and start the Changelog.

As always, feel free to post or PM any new Questions, Typos, Formatting Errors etc and I will fix them ASAP

lol, it's not glitter make up and eye liner! it's warpaint and the tears of sanguinus, dammit!

warboss wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:How does Seth's "whirlwind of gore" ability affect models without a WS?

i don't see any confusion on that one. the rule simply says "instead of making his normal attacks, ..... seth inflicts a single automatic hit on all enemy models in base contact." you don't make his normal attacks (and thereby don't use the normal rules) but instead hit any enemy touching his base with one s8 rending hit. he hits them regardless of WS, distance moved, etc. forcing him to reroll the hit doesn't do anything as he doesn't actually roll with that. is there a rules conflict i'm missing?

But since GW often makes exceptions based on "vehicles w/o WS" bases, I'd like to see gwar's take on the rule.

Well, so much for luck
I forgot to add the stock mountings page to 0.5, so here is 0.6 with that page added.

V1.0 will be available some time on Friday, so try and notice any errors before then my proofreading monkeys!

Just three minor things I noticed - please let me know if I should pm things like this instead.

Special Rules:

First Question - Bracket is facing the wrong way in [Rules Change]

Third Question: I believe it is "Descent of Angels" not "Decent of Angels"

Fourth Question: Same as third question

calypso2ts wrote:Just three minor things I noticed - please let me know if I should pm things like this instead.

Special Rules:

First Question - Bracket is facing the wrong way in [Rules Change]

Third Question: I believe it is "Descent of Angels" not "Decent of Angels"

Fourth Question: Same as third question

See what I mean about proofreading? Cheers for that and I'll fix it now

The recent Space Wolves FAQ allows a repair roll on the transport an Iron Priest is embarked on. I know your feeling on FAQ's but shouldn't this also apply to a BA Techmarine?

Homer

Homer S wrote:The recent Space Wolves FAQ allows a repair roll on the transport an Iron Priest is on. I know your feeling on FAQ's but the shouldn't this also apply to a BA Techmarine?

Homer

You mean the GW one? The GW one is completely and utterly Wrong. Embarked is NOT the same as Base Contact. Until GW decide to release their own FAQ pissing over RaW, I will follow the RaW (and the INAT ruling).

And in any Case, the SW FAQ applies to the SW, because it is the SW FAQ. I do not look to it for guidance any more than I would look at the Necron or Skaven FAQs.

Okay a few more I had the chance to read. An idea (do not know how much of a pain this would be) it would make it easier to reference questions if they were numbered.

A lot of these are really nit-picky.


Special Rules - Last Question

Technically I think periods are always supposed to appear in side quotation marks. If not, then I have been doing it wrong for years!

Veteran Squads
-Period inside quotes again in the answer to the question

Dreadnought
-"Psykers leadership" should be "Psyker's leadership"
-Soulless is italicized in the question but not in the answer

Drop Pods
-Lost the I in if in the first line, second paragraph of the answer

Stormraven Gunship
-Infernus pistol question should have the comma inside the quotation marks

Multiple dread question - comma inside quotes

Captain Tycho
-Comma inside Blood Song

Lemartes
-Space between [R.a.W] and the period on the second question

-Period at the end of the third sentence

Brother Corbulo
-no apostrophe needed in the second question on "unit's"

The Sanguinor
-Question 3 - comma inside quotes

Honor Guard
-Question 1: unit's should be units

-Question 2: Comma inside quotes in list

Commander Dante
-Third Question, should Tactical Precision be in quotes?

General Queries
-Last entry, comma inside quotation marks

Mepheston
-First entry, comma inside "Force Sword"

Reclusiarch
-and should not be italics, comma inside "a chaplain" and "liturgies of blood"

Furioso Dreadnought
-First question, correct bracket on [Clarification[

Assault Squad
-Decent should be descent

Predator
-Second line, period needed

Awesome
As for the Periods and Quotations marks, it may be a difference between English English and US English.

In All honesty, I had not thought about it until now, I have always done the periods outside the quote marks.
I'll see if I can find an English professor to help

Still, thank you for pointing out the random apostrophes!

They always go inside if it is a whole scentence or upto the comma. And if it's the end of a scentence one doesn't need anthoer to end it.

None of the quotes I'm using are full sentences, they are phrases at most, though "carry one Dreadnought" would qualify as a sentence I suppose.

Yep that's what I ment, wasn't fully clear sorry.
So "Grammar is a huge maze."(.) Doesn't need the full stop in brackets as it's already in side the quotation, so capitalisation is needed after.

"can create tricky situations,"(,) doesn't have that bracketed comma. While "create tricky", does need the outside comma.

But, "tricky situations,". That format is still correct.

From what I have gathered the only punctuation that can end up on the other side is a question mark.

Do models scatter 1d6 less for "Descent of Angels"?

Would be okay, but the answer would be

Models do roll 1d6 less for "Descent of Angels."

Do we have a Grammar YMDC section?

calypso2ts wrote:
Do we have a Grammar YMDC section?

that's what the internet world needs... a place to argue GAW vs GAI!

I'm still not convinced, all the material I have read regards full sentence quotes, not single words.

-Sigh- I think I shall leave the punctuation outside the quotes (as that is how I have always done it) until my Brother gets back with the answer from Uni


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:that's what the internet world needs... a place to argue GAW vs GAI!

Everyone knows Gwar as Written is the same as Gwar as Intended!

I got an interesting one that I hope is an oversight or me being silly. (correct me if I'm wrong or just acting stupid since I'm at work and don't have access to any of the books, I'd be very happy if I was) IIRC Sanguinary priest entry reads friendly units within 6" benefit from the FC and FNP USRs.

This says two things to me,

1) obiviously allies get this rule as well,

2) Techincally Vehicles and walkers are friendly units therefore does my sanguinary priest grant both FC and feel no pain to the dreadnoughts and vehicles near him. FC isn't as big of a deal because dreads would get it RAW. However, FNP grants an additional 4+ save against any wound that isn't AP 1 , 2 or more double the models toughness against ranged attack and against all non PW attacks in CC. I'd assume that RAW since vehicles do not have a toughness value then all weapons would ignore the feel no pain that was granted by the priest since a lasgun's S of 3 is more than double the non existent AV.

Sorry again if this sounds stupid I just had to bring it up

dumplingman wrote:I got an interesting one that I hope is an oversight or me being silly. (correct me if I'm wrong or just acting stupid since I'm at work and don't have access to any of the books, I'd be very happy if I was) IIRC Sanguinary priest entry reads friendly units within 6" benefit from the FC and FNP USRs.

This says two things to me,

1) obiviously allies get this rule as well,

2) Techincally Vehicles and walkers are friendly units therefore does my sanguinary priest grant both FC and feel no pain to the dreadnoughts and vehicles near him. FC isn't as big of a deal because dreads would get it RAW. However, FNP grants an additional 4+ save against any wound that isn't AP 1 , 2 or more double the models toughness against ranged attack and against all non PW attacks in CC. I'd assume that RAW since vehicles do not have a toughness value then all weapons would ignore the feel no pain that was granted by the priest since a lasgun's S of 3 is more than double the non existent AV.

Sorry again if this sounds stupid I just had to bring it up

It's a good point, and I'll be sure to add it.

Yes, vehicles and Allies benefit just fine. Vehicles wont get to use FnP however as vehicles can never take wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
VERSION 1.0 AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD!

Oh Yeah!!!!!

As always, feel free to point out mistakes in formatting, spelling etc etc and so on and so forth.

Why it seems Version 1.0 is available.

Huh, so it's really so amazingly perfect no-one has anything to say about it?

Gwar! wrote:Huh, so it's really so amazingly perfect no-one has anything to say about it?

People are posting up questions, but there's no point in posting up things we disagree with, you always think your right and never accept anyone elses arguement. I'm not saying i know everything, but at least i listen to others arguements.

Joetaco wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Huh, so it's really so amazingly perfect no-one has anything to say about it?

People are posting up questions, but there's no point in posting up things we disagree with, you always think your right and never accept anyone elses arguement. I'm not saying i know everything, but at least i listen to others arguements.

Well, can you give an example of something you disagree with in my FAQ, and why, and I will be happy to address the issue.

Gwar! wrote:

Joetaco wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Huh, so it's really so amazingly perfect no-one has anything to say about it?

People are posting up questions, but there's no point in posting up things we disagree with, you always think your right and never accept anyone elses arguement. I'm not saying i know everything, but at least i listen to others arguements.

Well, can you give an example of something you disagree with in my FAQ, and why, and I will be happy to address the issue.

As much as i'd like to start another huge arguement on dakka, it doesn't do anything for me to argue with you. You obviously follow your own rules, i follow my own so why even argue about. You asked why people haven't posted up comments and i answered.

Joetaco wrote:As much as i'd like to start another huge arguement on dakka, it doesn't do anything for me to argue with you. You obviously follow your own rules, i follow my own so why even argue about. You asked why people haven't posted up comments and i answered.

I am not trying to cause an Argument. All I am asking is that you show me something you disagree with, and why, and I will will do my best to show you why I went in one direction rather than the other. I also take offense at your statement that I do not listen to others argument. I do listen, and I have on several occasions been won over by thought out and strong arguments. The problem is, however, that most arguments I have seen are flimsy or flawed, thus my disagreement with them.

Page 10. You misspelled Mephiston.

Here's one for you GWAR:

Blood Lance says "any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a..." I believe that would include units currently embarked on transports. Similar wording and similar logic allow Doom of Malan'tai to do the same thing.

Also, just to be sure, I can use blood lance on a separate target from the one the rest of the librarian's unit is shooting at, right? It doesn't say it requires line of sight or even the selection of a target. Even if I say the librarian shoots at squad A I can just draw the line through squad B and ignore squad A, right?

Arschbombe wrote:Page 10. You misspelled Mephiston.

Noted, Fixed for 1.1 and the Spellchecking Scribe has been terminated for Heresy.

Mike Leon wrote:Here's one for you GWAR:

Blood Lance says "any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a..." I believe that would include units currently embarked on transports. Similar wording and similar logic allow Doom of Malan'tai to do the same thing.

Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you here. Blood lance does not say "Units within x" are hit", which is what allows the DoM to harvest the souls of Embarked models. At no time are you measuring a range, so you cannot possibly measure a range to the unit.

Also, just to be sure, I can use blood lance on a separate target from the one the rest of the librarian's unit is shooting at, right? It doesn't say it requires line of sight or even the selection of a target. Even if I say the librarian shoots at squad A I can just draw the line through squad B and ignore squad A, right?

Correct. While you still technically must "shoot" Blood Lance at the same unit the rest of the unit is firing at, the line can go in whatever direction you want, the same way JotWW can. The new Scribe has been notified.

I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

Gwar! wrote:I'm still not convinced, all the material I have read regards full sentence quotes, not single words.

-Sigh- I think I shall leave the punctuation outside the quotes (as that is how I have always done it) until my Brother gets back with the answer from Uni

See rule number one on this grammar site:

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:The recent Space Wolves FAQ allows a repair roll on the transport an Iron Priest is on. I know your feeling on FAQ's but the shouldn't this also apply to a BA Techmarine?
Homer

You mean the GW one? The GW one is completely and utterly Wrong. Embarked is NOT the same as Base Contact. Until GW decide to release their own FAQ pissing over RaW, I will follow the RaW (and the INAT ruling).

And in any Case, the SW FAQ applies to the SW, because it is the SW FAQ. I do not look to it for guidance any more than I would look at the Necron or Skaven FAQs.

So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

The SW codex, BA and the Vanilla Marine codex contain rules for 'techmarine' type unit choices capable of performing a repair role on a vehicle. These units are clearly analogous and perform a similar function to one another. The Question raised and it's subsequent Answer in the Games Workshop FAQ can certainly be argued to set precedence for this unit type in the other marine codices. There is no RAW in this case as the FAQ Expands on the information and provides additional situational guidance. I am also fairly certain the INAT ruling council are often very led by precendence set by other similarly functioning items or rules in other codices. It can also be suggested that raising this question re Mekboyz for orks might give the same answer.

The FAQ produced by Games Workshop is clearly dominant to any independant FAQ written by several individuals with differing opinions for tourneys and they in turn can be viewed as superior to one written by an individual who expresses a rather fundamental view on play style.

Well, there IS a RAW - embarked is not equal to "in base contact", as you dont have a model in base contact.

The FAQ which states it is a studio houserule, can certainly be wrong compared to the rules as actually written in the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, there IS a RAW - embarked is not equal to "in base contact", as you dont have a model in base contact.

The FAQ which states it is a studio houserule, can certainly be wrong compared to the rules as actually written in the rulebook.

That is not a rule as written. That is taking the written word as exclusive. The FAQ expands the definition of 'in base contact' to include 'embarked'.
What if, in the case of a land raider for example, you simply place the model inside the tank? It is a case of Games Workshop's original rulebook failing to provide an entirely comprehensive answer, this is highlighted by the question being raised, followed by an answer from Games Workshop that does not correspond to the way the 'RAW' folks called it.

GW are saying that they consider an embarked model to be in base contact with the transporting vehicle in this instance, since this expands on the rules provided in the book and 'fills a gap' information wise, it would be appropriate to expand this to cover the same information gap in similar circumstances.

The writing of 'in base contact' connects to distance. It alludes to requiring zero distance from the vehicle to perform repair, it is clear the model should be connecting with the tank to repair it. We can question whether a model in contact with the tank but 'embarked' in the tank can repair it, this question is answered by the FAQ that yes, GW believe the model is in contact and can carry out the repair.
The role is analogous for 'techmarines' in all the marine variant armies and the 'codex' marines, the conclusion of the information provided by the FAQ is that other 'techmarine type' models can perform repairs to vehicles from an 'embarked' status.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
What if, in the case of a land raider for example, you simply place the model inside the tank? It is a case of Games Workshop's original rulebook failing to provide an entirely comprehensive answer, this is highlighted by the question being raised, followed by an answer from Games Workshop that does not correspond to the way the 'RAW' folks called it.

while i personally agree with the GW FAQ, your example isn't the greatest. you can't have a model "inside" a tank per RAW as two models can't occupy the same space per RAW and units that embark are removed from the table per clear RAW. the faq simply restates common sense but unfortunately some people use neither house rules nor common sense during games.

And other people think that repairing the tanks tracks from inside the tank is unlikely. Or that fixing the lascannon sponson that is hanging off while inside is unlikely.

"Common sense" as a plea fails on many, many counts.

"In base contact" means, IN. BASE. CONTACT. Are the two models in base contact? No? Then the rule dfoe not apply.

They then, via a HouseRule, *changed* the rule to state that inside the vehicle counts as well. That is a change in the rules, as being embarked means you are not on the table, and cannot be in base to base.

nosferatu1001 wrote: "In base contact" means, IN. BASE. CONTACT. Are the two models in base contact? No? Then the rule dfoe not apply.

They then, via a HouseRule, *changed* the rule to state that inside the vehicle counts as well. That is a change in the rules, as being embarked means you are not on the table, and cannot be in base to base.

No, they clarified that in the case of a techmarine making a repair, they included 'embarked' as part of being in base contact.

The original rule was not exclusive of embarked. The FAQ clarification does not clash with the rule in the book, it simply expands on it.

There is no rule that states 'Embarked models are not in base contact with the vehicle they are embarked on'. What you are claiming isn't RAW, it is your interpretation of the rule to exclude embarked models, the FAQ indicates it is not the same conclusion reached by the company that make the game.

Again, this now shows that a model embarked on a vehicle count as 'in base contact', the blood angels techmarine is as free to make repairs whilst embarked as the SW one is, since for both, embarked now counts as 'in base contact' for the purpose of 'making a repair'.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, they clarified that in the case of a techmarine making a repair, they included 'embarked' as part of being in base contact.

This is an interesting argument for the reason behind the GW FAQ. I do not agree but you could make that argument. Then again, if it was supposed to say embarked then that should have been in an errata or the original.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is no rule that states 'Embarked models are not in base contact with the vehicle they are embarked on'.

This is a poor argument, since the rule set is permissive.

calypso2ts wrote:
This is an interesting argument for the reason behind the GW FAQ. I do not agree but you could make that argument. Then again, if it was supposed to say embarked then that should have been in an errata or the original.

What does it matter if it's in the errata or the question part? If you're playing by a FAQ written by some random British dude then you're probably playing by GW's FAQs anyway.

If it is an errata to the codex then it does not imply other techmarines have the same ability.

If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

calypso2ts wrote:I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

The problem is, the RaW is very, very clear. There is a very fine line between changing rules so it actually works, and changing rules because I feel like it. If it was the latter, I would have said "Wolf Guard can Join Skyclaws", which they most certainly cannot. I err on the side of caution, so Until GW Errata it, it's staying as RaW.

calypso2ts wrote:If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

No, it cannot. The SW FAQ applies to SW ONLY, the Skaven FAQ to Skaven and the NEcron FAQ to Necrons. It does NOT apply to ANY OTHER CODEX.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

In a word, yes.

The SW codex, BA and the Vanilla Marine codex contain rules for 'techmarine' type unit choices capable of performing a repair role on a vehicle. These units are clearly analogous and perform a similar function to one another. The Question raised and it's subsequent Answer in the Games Workshop FAQ can certainly be argued to set precedence for this unit type in the other marine codices. There is no RAW in this case as the FAQ Expands on the information and provides additional situational guidance. I am also fairly certain the INAT ruling council are often very led by precendence set by other similarly functioning items or rules in other codices. It can also be suggested that raising this question re Mekboyz for orks might give the same answer.

By that logic, Dark Angels and Black Templars have 3++ Storm Shields.

The FAQ produced by Games Workshop is clearly dominant to any independant FAQ written by several individuals with differing opinions for tourneys and they in turn can be viewed as superior to one written by an individual who expresses a rather fundamental view on play style.

Well, if you don't like my FAQ, don't use it and don't post here then. Simple!

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:
This is an interesting argument for the reason behind the GW FAQ. I do not agree but you could make that argument. Then again, if it was supposed to say embarked then that should have been in an errata or the original.

What does it matter if it's in the errata or the question part? If you're playing by a FAQ written by some random British dude then you're probably playing by GW's FAQs anyway.

The difference is that GW themselves have stated that Errata are changes made to the rules, while the FAQ answers are merely the house rules that they at the studio use.

If they wanted all of the FAQ to have the weight of "final arbitration," then they would not have made the differentiation between the two classes of information found on their FAQ files.

MGS - sorry, the English language tells you that "In base contact" means "in base contact", and not anything else.

By changing the rule to state "well, actually, it doesnt mean JSUT in base contact" that is a *rules change*, and is therefore an errata worthy topic.

However, they chose to make it a studio houserule, i.e not the actual rule they wrote.

What about IC with Jump Packs wanting to "jump" with Sanguinary Guard, Assault Troops, or other units with Descent of Angels? Can they start the game with the unit and thus benefitting from DoA, or do they have to be rolled for seperately?

They have Descent of Angels in any case by virtue of the Jump Pack rules.

As for Reserves units are rolled for so if the IC was placed with the unit in reserve a single roll is made for them collectively.

Jack

Ok ignore me. I had looked right over that in the rules. Thanks Jackmojo.

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

The problem is, the RaW is very, very clear. There is a very fine line between changing rules so it actually works, and changing rules because I feel like it. If it was the latter, I would have said "Wolf Guard can Join Skyclaws", which they most certainly cannot. I err on the side of caution, so Until GW Errata it, it's staying as RaW.

I agree with you on this, but I thought it was worth pointing out as well.

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

No, it cannot. The SW FAQ applies to SW ONLY, the Skaven FAQ to Skaven and the NEcron FAQ to Necrons. It does NOT apply to ANY OTHER CODEX.

Once again I agree with you on this. However, that comment was for the benefit of the individual above who asked why it mattered if it was an errata or a FAQ.

calypso2ts wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

The problem is, the RaW is very, very clear. There is a very fine line between changing rules so it actually works, and changing rules because I feel like it. If it was the latter, I would have said "Wolf Guard can Join Skyclaws", which they most certainly cannot. I err on the side of caution, so Until GW Errata it, it's staying as RaW.

I agree with you on this, but I thought it was worth pointing out as well.

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

No, it cannot. The SW FAQ applies to SW ONLY, the Skaven FAQ to Skaven and the NEcron FAQ to Necrons. It does NOT apply to ANY OTHER CODEX.

Once again I agree with you on this. However, that comment was for the benefit of the individual above who asked why it mattered if it was an errata or a FAQ.

Glad to see we are on the same page.

So, v1.1 is shaping up nicely, I have fixed the Mephiston typo and added the questions about Blood Lance, namely about the size of the line and such. I have scoured the codex now and cannot really find anything else. For what it's worth, GW did a better job than normal on this codex

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

In a word, yes.

Self praise is no recommendation...

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The SW codex, BA and the Vanilla Marine codex contain rules for 'techmarine' type unit choices capable of performing a repair role on a vehicle. These units are clearly analogous and perform a similar function to one another. The Question raised and it's subsequent Answer in the Games Workshop FAQ can certainly be argued to set precedence for this unit type in the other marine codices. There is no RAW in this case as the FAQ Expands on the information and provides additional situational guidance. I am also fairly certain the INAT ruling council are often very led by precendence set by other similarly functioning items or rules in other codices. It can also be suggested that raising this question re Mekboyz for orks might give the same answer.

By that logic, Dark Angels and Black Templars have 3++ Storm Shields.

The FAQ produced by Games Workshop is clearly dominant to any independant FAQ written by several individuals with differing opinions for tourneys and they in turn can be viewed as superior to one written by an individual who expresses a rather fundamental view on play style.

Well, if you don't like my FAQ, don't use it and don't post here then. Simple!

Or don't post your 'FAQ' here if you don't like people who don't share your view posting or taking issue with what you're saying.
The Storm Shield comparison is misleading, those shields have clearly printed differing stats. The issue of techmarines being able to repair whilst embarked had not been set out in black and white. Nowhere does it say you can't repair the vehicle, we already have the issue of other models shooting from vehicles or using psychic powers like fortune from inside a vehicle. We have therefore established that 'embarked' does not automatically remove the abilities of models aboard vehicles, that the understanding of 'embarked' is a variable. The actual question had never been set in black and white, the question was then asked and answered in the FAQ produced by Games Workshop.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nowhere does it say you can't repair the vehicle

Nowhere does it say Tactical Marines cannot repair the vehicle either. Are you arguing that they can also repair vehicles now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:MGS - sorry, the English language tells you that "In base contact" means "in base contact", and not anything else.

By changing the rule to state "well, actually, it doesnt mean JSUT in base contact" that is a *rules change*, and is therefore an errata worthy topic.

However, they chose to make it a studio houserule, i.e not the actual rule they wrote.

Yes yes, in base contact, the English language, etc etc. And then GW stated that the SW techmarine can repair whilst embarked, Precedence is Set.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the techmarine should be able to repair the tank whilst embarked, for purely fluffy reasons you'd hate, but the FAQ is a measure of how the rule is played by Games Workshop and they say repairs whilst embarked are a go in the SW codex, given the parallel with the BA techmarine role, the same rule should apply and there is no clear rule to the contrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nowhere does it say you can't repair the vehicle

Nowhere does it say Tactical Marines cannot repair the vehicle either. Are you arguing that they can also repair vehicles now?

Find me the part about tactical marines performing repairs in the first place and sure.

Version 1.1 available for download.

I have one about Libby Dreads Gwar.

Can the SW power Jaws of the World Wolf if passing the requirements force a moral check on a librarian dreadnought?

No. Why do you think it would?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:No. Why do you think it would?

Its a stupid question in retrospec. I saw that "Librarian Dreads have Ld 10" and missed the rest of it. Case of the mind racing ahead of the eyes EDIT: Compounded by the fact I continually see JotWW and think moral test when its an initiative test XD.

Hey guys. Just a quick heads up, if you downloaded v1.1 before 7:20 AM on 30th March, Please re-download it. There was an issue with the encryption that was making it unopenable for some people, as well as a few formatting errors that I forgot to correct when I added the new Questions.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

So I finally got my hands on the dex, seems like you've already caught most of the issues though.

BA.38.06 – Q: When a Stormraven Gunship is immobilized (off its base) can friendly or enemy models move under its
wings at all?
A: Friendly models are able to move under the wings, invoking “Wobbly Model Syndrome” if they cannot physically fit there. In
addition, provided that the wings are more than 1” from the table surface, enemy models may also move under the wings, invoking
“Wobbly Model Syndrome” if they cannot physically fit there and don't move so their base is within 1” of the hull. If the Wings are
physically 1” or less from the table surface, enemy models may not move under the wings except as part of an assault move.
[R.a.W]

I've got a few problems with this.

first is the idea of invoking Wobbly Model Syndrome if the wings are so close to the ground a model cannot physically fit under them. This is exactly the kind of thing forbidden by the rule which states "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)".

I understand that, perhaps if you consider the wings not to be hull, you can do so, however you don't specify this in the FAQ, merely suggesting players clarify what constitutes hull beforehand. This ruling requires a note about your assumptions of what constitutes the hull because if I were to rull the wings are hull, then this ruling is incorrect.

Further, you suggest that, as long as the wings are 1" or more off the table, an enemy model could potentially move under them, but the rules regarding this simply state "a model may not move within 1 inch of an enemy model unless assaulting." It lacks the earlier caveat of bases and hulls, and as such, no part of any model, may be within 1" of any part of an enemy model, the wing would have to be 1" above the enemy's head, not 1" above the table. This also applies to question 'BA.38.03' which states

"making sure that enemy models hulls and/or bases are more than 1” away from the Stormraven Gunship's hull and base," once again this should obviously be altered to reflect that it cannot be within 1" of any part of enemy models, not just their hulls or bases.




'BA.38.14' This is a duplicate question of 'BA.37.01', perhaps intentional given both pages do mention PotMS although 38 simply tells you to view page 37, just making sure you are aware.

BA.38.04 – Q: Can a Servo-arm's additional Power fist attack be used the same phase a Techmarine uses another Special Close
Combat Weapon?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]
• By the strict letter of the rules, in order to use the Power fist attack, he would have to give up the Special Close Combat
Weapon attacks and visa versa.

This seems wrong(the RAW interpretation, not the resultant ruling) given the Servo Arm attack isn't actually said to be a Power Fist attack or something like that, it says "Each Servo-arm grants the model a single extra close combat attack, made separately at Initiative 1 and Strength 8, ignoring Armour Saves."

I fail to see how this would impact his ability to use another special weapon by RAW since it bears a greater resemblance to Tyranid close combat biomorphs than true close combat weapons.

BA.48.01 – Q: When is the range checked to see if unit's are affected by the “Blood Chalice”? Specifically, do units that are
within range before making assault moves but not within range after making assault moves still benefit?
A: Check the range at the beginning of each assault phase, before any assault moves are made. Units found to be within range of
the Sanguinary Priest at this time benefit from the effects of the “Blood Chalice” for the remainder of the phase, even if the “Blood
Chalice” becomes out of range at some point during the phase or if the Sanguinary Priest is slain. [Clarification]
• The rules as written are not sufficiently clear, hence the above clarification. It can, as such, be argued that moving out of
range, sustaining casualties that cause it to be out of range or having the Priest be slain causes the unit to immediately lose
the effect.

Feel No Pain could potentially benefit models within 6" of him outside of the assault phase, your ruling does not allow for that and seems like it focused only on Furious Charge. This also applies to 'BA.49.02' and 'BA.52.01'.

BA.51.02 – Q: How so you determine which Sergeant benefits from “The Sanguinor's Blessing”?

"How so" should presumably read "How do"




That's all I could spot.

#1) Ya know, now that I read it with you pointing it out, I agree xD I'll change that methinks.

#2) Yeah, it's a Duplicate, but I'd rather not have "See xyz for the answer". GW do enough of that pissing about with their codexes and since it's not gonna make any difference in the length of the document, I'd rather keep it there to look nice

#3) Nice catch. I was concentrating on the Furious Charge Aspect, but I shall clean this up. Perhaps I should change it to "when is the range checked to see if unit's are affected by the “Blood Chalice” in the assault phase?" and add another question about the other phases (with the very simple RaW answer of "Check whenever models in a unit take a wound".

#4) Yes, it should

Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

KillMaimBurn wrote:Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

it does say any roll you have made

I have read through the posts and the FAQ and I think my questions aren't answered specifically.

DC Tycho. On page 41, after the fluff it gives stats. One line for Captain Tycho and one for Death Company Tycho. Then it has a note on the stats where in it states the line for DC Tycho is, "…following his induction into the Death Company." Because this note clarifies his stat line would this be considered a clarification and not fluff. In other words, is DC Tycho in the Death Company? Is he part of the Death Company like Lemartes? He is no longer Independent Character and he has rage and relentless so it would make sense that he rolls with the Death Company. Is GW being lazy and not placing his DC info in the DC section.

He is no longer a Captain…it does not say DC Captain Tycho. Does he fill the HQ FOC? I am thinking the answer is yes but my gut is telling me the restrictions on the graphic design/layout and copy count issues are why this is not made explicit as opposed to intent.

Blood Talons. Can I construe, "…follows the same rules as lightning claws." to mean they are Strength 6 LCs? It isn't clear to me that they are Power Weapons. It isn't explicit.

And thanks for the FAQ efforts. At least your FAQ provides ANSWERS. I can highlight anything I don't agree with and hash it out with my opponent before the game regardless but is an awesome starting point. I wish GW would get a clue about what an answer is. Can you imagine a poker rule that said, "…if you and your opponent cannot agree on whether a full house beats two pair, draw a card, and the high card chooses." GW acts as if clarity ruins a game. To me arguing ruins a game.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

In a word, yes.

More specifically, Gwar's FAQ isn't 'right'... it's simply Gwar's FAQ.

Which basically just means that Gwar's rulings are 'correct' if you are choosing to use his FAQ. Whether or not his rulings over-ride those made in GW FAQ's is entirely up to you, the player choosing (or not) to use a home-brewed FAQ in your own games.

KillMaimBurn wrote:Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

Yes, you can re-roll any dice. It's quite clear.

Teeef wrote:I have read through the posts and the FAQ and I think my questions aren't answered specifically.

DC Tycho. On page 41, after the fluff it gives stats. One line for Captain Tycho and one for Death Company Tycho. Then it has a note on the stats where in it states the line for DC Tycho is, "…following his induction into the Death Company." Because this note clarifies his stat line would this be considered a clarification and not fluff. In other words, is DC Tycho in the Death Company? Is he part of the Death Company like Lemartes? He is no longer Independent Character and he has rage and relentless so it would make sense that he rolls with the Death Company. Is GW being lazy and not placing his DC info in the DC section.

It really does not matter what the fluff says, the rules are clear. He is a Non-IC HQ Choice "Death Company Tycho" model. He does NOT join the Death Company.

He is no longer a Captain…it does not say DC Captain Tycho. Does he fill the HQ FOC? I am thinking the answer is yes but my gut is telling me the restrictions on the graphic design/layout and copy count issues are why this is not made explicit as opposed to intent.

Again, it is VERY explicit. He is an HQ in the Army List, he has no rule saying he does not take up the FoC Slot, so he does.

Blood Talons. Can I construe, "…follows the same rules as lightning claws." to mean they are Strength 6 LCs? It isn't clear to me that they are Power Weapons. It isn't explicit.

... How is "They are lightning Claws" not Explicit? The rules for LC themselves say they are PW, so Blood Talons also are.

And thanks for the FAQ efforts. At least your FAQ provides ANSWERS. I can highlight anything I don't agree with and hash it out with my opponent before the game regardless but is an awesome starting point. I wish GW would get a clue about what an answer is. Can you imagine a poker rule that said, "…if you and your opponent cannot agree on whether a full house beats two pair, draw a card, and the high card chooses." GW acts as if clarity ruins a game. To me arguing ruins a game.

I agree, which is part of the reason why I work at these FAQs

Hey. It's frequently asked questions...not frequently asked good questions!

Thanks. I was pretty sure Blood Talons would be PWs as otherwise they would be not so good. Tycho, also as I expected, however I am finding that "answer" to beg the question, "Why bother putting DC Tycho on the board?" He is dead to me. Sniff.

How bout this for brother corbulo... in random game length.. can you reroll the dice to end the game?

Twalks wrote:How bout this for brother corbulo... in random game length.. can you reroll the dice to end the game?

... This was just asked. Yes, you can re-roll ANY ROLL you want.

Consider this added to 1.2

Meh sorry guess I missed it reading through the pages.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

In a word, yes.

More specifically, Gwar's FAQ isn't 'right'... it's simply Gwar's FAQ.

Which basically just means that Gwar's rulings are 'correct' if you are choosing to use his FAQ. Whether or not his rulings over-ride those made in GW FAQ's is entirely up to you, the player choosing (or not) to use a home-brewed FAQ in your own games.

I see, so specifically, when gwar says the Games Workshop FAQ is wrong, by that same reasoning, it's just wrong for him because he reads the caveat at the beginning of the FAQ which makes it clear they can be disregarded in your own games if you or your group agree to disregard them, despite the obvious contradiction of then going on to maintain a fastidious and some might suggest, suffocating devotion to the contents of the rulebook, despite 'The Most Important Rule' holding an entirely parallel position as caveat there.

I'm glad you've decided to weigh in as a moderator here and provide some clarity, since gwar's comments on things being right and wrong, posted repeatedly in a public forum, could certainly be read as being from the stance of believing himself 'in possession of the truth'. Perhaps starting all his sentences with 'in my opinion', we can agree this would go a good way to not sounding quite like the self proclaimed prophet come down off the mountain...

With regard use of the word 'ruling' as a noun; 'an authoritative decision, as one by a judge on a debated point of law.' gwar is not an appointed judge, he does not write the rules nor does he adjudicate in any recognised capacity to the extent where he can be said to be recognised as an authority. He is not therefore 'ruling' on something with his homegrown faq, he is giving his opinion.

I also agree the term 'home-brewed' is appropriate, perhaps this could be included in the title of the thread somewhere?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I also agree the term 'home-brewed' is appropriate, perhaps this could be included in the title of the thread somewhere?

It already says that it's an unofficial FAQ in the thread title.

Please stop de-railing the thread. If you have legitimate questions for the FAQ, feel free to ask them. If you have no interest in using it, please just leave it for those who do.

Can a Stormraven Gunship fire one weapon via PotMS after moving Flat Out?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Can a Stormraven Gunship fire one weapon via PotMS after moving Flat Out?

You know, this is a really, really good question. The first half of the rule seems to indicate you can, but then it goes to give a specific list of instances when PotMS comes into play, which does not include moving flat out, but does Include Cruising Speed.

My answer would be Yes, however, as the rule is very clearly stating you can fire "one more weapon than would normally be permitted" and then goes on to state that "therefore" you are able to fire one weapon at Cruising Speed, which would indicate that it applies to both being unable to fire and being able to fire no weapons. Consider this added

And here is one I found with the Stormraven. The Storm Ravens version of the "Assault Vehicle" rule says that when a unit disembarks, it "can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not Deep Strike)." It does not say "can launch an assault on the turn they do so (providing the Stormraven did not Deep Strike that turn)." which means that if the Stormraven Deep Strikes at all, it's Assault Vehicle rule does not work. This doesn't affect the Land Raiders rule luckily as it is written in such a way that the unit inside itself is forbidden from assaulting at all that turn.

I'm getting a 404 error when I try to download the faq. Though I am at work on my blackberry and that may cause weirdness.

Xxanmorph wrote:I'm getting a 404 error when I try to download the faq. Though I am at work on my blackberry and that may cause weirdness.

It's working fine on my end, so it might be something on yours.

Thanks, I'll try from home later.

Gwar! wrote:

KillMaimBurn wrote:Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

Yes, you can re-roll any dice. It's quite clear.

Quite clear. Until you encounter the wave of people saying they will no longer allow you to be the "A player rolls a dice"(p90) So in terms of more than one shot wonder.. does the end game mechanic need a; player A see if there is a turn 6 Player B turn 7, A roll off for who is allowed to roll the dice?, friendly discussion pre game?, actually a pelt of the doppelganger and in real terms useless..as an aside the battle missions book stipulates which player must roll the end of game dice.

Gwar! wrote:Consider this added to 1.2

KillMaimBurn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

KillMaimBurn wrote:Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

Yes, you can re-roll any dice. It's quite clear.

Quite clear. Until you encounter the wave of people saying they will no longer allow you to be the "A player rolls a dice"(p90) So in terms of more than one shot wonder.. does the end game mechanic need a; player A see if there is a turn 6 Player B turn 7, A roll off for who is allowed to roll the dice?, friendly discussion pre game?, actually a pelt of the doppelganger and in real terms useless..as an aside the battle missions book stipulates which player must roll the end of game dice.

Gwar! wrote:Consider this added to 1.2

...

El Facepalm. I did not notice that! Ok, well in that case, you can re-roll it if YOU are the one rolling it Who rolls it is up for the players to decide.

v1.2 available for Download.

So i had a question On Mephiston, he does not have the IC special rule, so he can not join another unit, however it also says that any HQ unit in the BA codex can take Honor Guard, does that mean he can have an Honor guard even though he does not have IC (the sanguinan host also does not have IC Special rule)

Sorry if this seems a simple question, i just am not 100% sure on how it would be ruled...

He is still an HQ so he still can take an honor guard (same applies to Sanguinor and DC Tycho).

Jack

Nightrave wrote:So i had a question On Mephiston, he does not have the IC special rule, so he can not join another unit, however it also says that any HQ unit in the BA codex can take Honor Guard, does that mean he can have an Honor guard even though he does not have IC (the sanguinan host also does not have IC Special rule)

Sorry if this seems a simple question, i just am not 100% sure on how it would be ruled...

Yes he can still take one, he just cannot ever join it.

Can Tactical squads and Assault squads (without jump packs) take a Land Raider as a Dedicated Transport?

airmang wrote:Can Tactical squads and Assault squads (without jump packs) take a Land Raider as a Dedicated Transport?

This is clearly covered in their respective entries. It says they may select ANY Dedicated Transport.

thanks! there was some question about it because it only references the one page of dedicated transports.

Gwar! wrote:

Nightrave wrote:So i had a question On Mephiston, he does not have the IC special rule, so he can not join another unit, however it also says that any HQ unit in the BA codex can take Honor Guard, does that mean he can have an Honor guard even though he does not have IC (the sanguinan host also does not have IC Special rule)

Sorry if this seems a simple question, i just am not 100% sure on how it would be ruled...

Yes he can still take one, he just cannot ever join it.

Curious about this (maybe this might be considered as a "rules change" or "clarification" if you decide to adopt it.

Since any HQ can "take" an Honor Guard, could Mephiston take one and become sort of like the Iron Priest + doggies unit from the SW codex? Not an IC with a retinue, but merely a multiple model unit? In this case, Mephiston hasn't "joined" the unit, but merely been purchased upon list building with the extra models as part of the total unit....

airmang wrote:thanks! there was some question about it because it only references the one page of dedicated transports.

Yeah, I see that now I suspect it refers to the first page as it spreads over 2 pages, but the rule is very clear, it says ANY, not "Any of the three on page 90" I'll stick this into 1.3 for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:Curious about this (maybe this might be considered as a "rules change" or "clarification" if you decide to adopt it.

Since any HQ can "take" an Honor Guard, could Mephiston take one and become sort of like the Iron Priest + doggies unit from the SW codex? Not an IC with a retinue, but merely a multiple model unit? In this case, Mephiston hasn't "joined" the unit, but merely been purchased upon list building with the extra models as part of the total unit....

No. There is absolutely no indication he becomes part of the Honour Guard Unit, nor is there any indication that an IC would form a Retinue with them. RaW, it clear and not unreasonable (Like Dreadnoughts with The Red Thirst never being affected by it), so as RaW it stays until GW issue an Errata.

so DC have rage... if corbulo joins them or another ic does do they lose it?

kitsunez wrote:so DC have rage... if corbulo joins them or another ic does do they lose it?

No. Nothing in the Rage USR says adding an IC stops it.

Gwar! wrote:

kitsunez wrote:so DC have rage... if corbulo joins them or another ic does do they lose it?

No. Nothing in the Rage USR says adding an IC stops it.

so giving those guys any sort of pistol besides what they start out with is silly since they can't fire it?

kitsunez wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

kitsunez wrote:so DC have rage... if corbulo joins them or another ic does do they lose it?

No. Nothing in the Rage USR says adding an IC stops it.

so giving those guys any sort of pistol besides what they start out with is silly since they can't fire it?

Huh? Rage doesn't affect shooting at all.

Gwar! wrote:

kitsunez wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

kitsunez wrote:so DC have rage... if corbulo joins them or another ic does do they lose it?

No. Nothing in the Rage USR says adding an IC stops it.

so giving those guys any sort of pistol besides what they start out with is silly since they can't fire it?

Huh? Rage doesn't affect shooting at all.

Sorry I re-re-reread it and I saw move towards closest enemy and was reminded of a something i saw elsewhere

Furious Charge adds +1 to the initiative and str.

Seth's chainsword makes him strike @ s8.

How would these two rules interact? Does he get s9 on the charge? Or is the weapon's str fixed at 8 regardless of other rules?

Valhallan42nd wrote:Furious Charge adds +1 to the initiative and str.

Seth's chainsword makes him strike @ s8.

How would these two rules interact? Does he get s9 on the charge? Or is the weapon's str fixed at 8 regardless of other rules?

It would make him strike at S8. The weapon does not Double his strength, it strikes at S8. So even with FC, he would strike at S8, but get +1 I as normal. It's the same as Relic Blades, who strike at S6 with FC as well.

How many Bloodstrike missiles can a Raven fire per turn?

G

I just noticed under the stormraven's army list entry it says, "May replace Twin linked Assault cannon with twin linked lascannons"

How many lascannons do i get?

The wording seems odd as just one entry down the Predator stats "With a twin linked lascannon" note how it is not plural. Nor is the plasma cannon option plural.

Does this mean that a stormraven replaces its AC with 2 twin linked lascannons? Or is it just another typo?

Red_Lives wrote:I just noticed under the stormraven's army list entry it says, "May replace Twin linked Assault cannon with twin linked lascannons"

How many lascannons do i get?

The wording seems odd as just one entry down the Predator stats "With a twin linked lascannon" note how it is not plural. Nor is the plasma cannon option plural.

Does this mean that a stormraven replaces its AC with 2 twin linked lascannons? Or is it just another typo?

It's a Typo. I guess it's called Twin Linked Lascannons as there are 2 barrels.

But the dreadnought entry above has it listed as "Twin linked lascannon" as well. I'm fairly sure its a typo but as it stands now by RAW does it temporarly get a free lascannon? Since its literally the only entry listed as "lascannons"

Red_Lives wrote:But the dreadnought entry above has it listed as "Twin linked lascannon" as well. I'm fairly sure its a typo but as it stands now by RAW does it temporarly get a free lascannon? Since its literally the only entry listed as "lascannons"

RaW you don't get any, as it doesn't state how many you get.

Touche

How many Bloodstrike missiles can a Storm Raven fire per shooting phase? It comes with 8 missiles, states the S, AP & range but does not specify how many it can fire per shooting phase.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:How many Bloodstrike missiles can a Storm Raven fire per shooting phase? It comes with 8 missiles, states the S, AP & range but does not specify how many it can fire per shooting phase.

G

I already answered this:

BA.38.09 – Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship which does not move or moves at Combat Speed fire multiple Bloodstrike Missiles?
A: Yes. [R.a.W]

They are not Ordnance, and there is no rule saying they cannot fire more than 1, so they can fire as many as they want, so long as they do not move or move only combat speed.

Does multiple mean all of them or just a portion? What is your basis for your answer?

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Does multiple mean all of them or just a portion? What is your basis for your answer?

G

Multiple means just that. Multiple. As in they can fire more than 1.

My basis is the rules, specifcially the one that says a Vehicle that does not move (or a fast vehicle that moves combat speed) can fire all its weapons.

Would you prefer if the question was "Can the Storm Raven fire more than 1 Bloodstrike Missile"?

Why does that mean you can fire all of them one turn? Could fire four at one enemy unit then use PotMS to fire four more at another unit?

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Why does that mean you can fire all of them one turn? Could fire four at one enemy unit then use PotMS to fire four more at another unit?

G

No. You can fire 7 at one enemy and 1 at another with PotMS. They may be one use, but they are each individual Weapons.

That doesn't make sense to me. The problem being the rules don't state the rate of fire. We do know it has 8 missiles and normally a game can only go 7 turns.

Just throwing that out there.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:That doesn't make sense to me. The problem being the rules don't state the rate of fire. We do know it has 8 missiles and normally a game can only go 7 turns.

Just throwing that out there.

G

What do you mean the rules don't state rate of fire? They do. They are Heavy 1, one use. A Vehicle that doesn't move (or a fast vehicle that moves combat speed) can fire all it's weapons, so it can fire 8 Heavy 1, one use weapons if it wants.

The rules are blindingly clear in this instance.

So wouldn't Heavy 1 indicate you only fire one per shooting phase not considering PotMS? I don't think it's all that clear really.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:So wouldn't Heavy 1 indicate you only fire one per shooting phase not considering PotMS? I don't think it's all that clear really.

G

Except it is. You don't have 1 Weapon that is Heavy 1, 8 uses. You have 8 Heavy 1, one use weapons. Yes, that means a Weapon Destoyed only kills 1 missile, not 8.

I'll add this to 1.3 with a better explanation if it is such an issue.

And on an unrelated note, why the name change GBF?

How does a raven get 8 missiles? It's entry says it comes with 4 and I don't see an option to buy more.

Arschbombe wrote:How does a raven get 8 missiles? It's entry says it comes with 4 and I don't see an option to buy more.

Ya, that's what I was thinking too, but I didn't have my codex on me to check! xD

Still, 4 or 8 the same still applies.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Furious Charge adds +1 to the initiative and str.

Seth's chainsword makes him strike @ s8.

How would these two rules interact? Does he get s9 on the charge? Or is the weapon's str fixed at 8 regardless of other rules?

And the same for Astorath the Grim. His weapons "strikes at strength 6".

Imo the R.a.W. explanation would be that the gains 1S and 1I because of Furious Charge but will still hit at S6. If he'd be required to take some Strength check during that assault fase, he'd take it at S5.

Inat rules it differently however:

Inat 3.2 wrote:IG.44.02  -­-­  Q:  Do  Rough  Rider  Hunting  Lance  Attacks benefit  from  the  Furious  Charge  special  rule (effectively  making  them  Strength  and  Initiative  6)? A:  Yes  they  do  [clarification].

Edit: Oops, I missed a page of discussion, sorry
Edit 2: Well, that didn't matter. Gwar takes the raw approach (orly?) but it conficts with inat. The Rough Rider hunting lance also "strikes at S5" and with FC, inat says it becomes S6.

Shrubs wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Furious Charge adds +1 to the initiative and str.

Seth's chainsword makes him strike @ s8.

How would these two rules interact? Does he get s9 on the charge? Or is the weapon's str fixed at 8 regardless of other rules?

And the same for Astorath the Grim. His weapons "strikes at strength 6".

Imo the R.a.W. explanation would be that the gains 1S and 1I because of Furious Charge but will still hit at S6. If he'd be required to take some Strength check during that assault fase, he'd take it at S5.

Inat rules it differently however:

Inat 3.2 wrote:IG.44.02  -­-­  Q:  Do  Rough  Rider  Hunting  Lance  Attacks benefit  from  the  Furious  Charge  special  rule (effectively  making  them  Strength  and  Initiative  6)? A:  Yes  they  do  [clarification].

Edit: Oops, I missed a page of discussion, sorry
Edit 2: Well, that didn't matter. Gwar takes the raw approach (orly?) but it conficts with inat. The Rough Rider hunting lance also "strikes at S5" and with FC, inat says it becomes S6.

You are correct on the Astorath situation.

As for Inat, It is one of their Multiple "Clarifications" that are actually rules changes. As for my "raw" only, that's not strictly true. I analyze the rules to determine what the RaW is, and then, if the RaW is beyond idiotic (example: Dreadnoughts with "The Red Thirst" never benefit/suffer from it or Frag Assault Launchers don't work) then I advise that you change the rule to make the game more enjoyable, and clearly indicate as such.

Where the RaW is clear and not idiotically broken, such in this case where Astorath, Seth etc striking at Fixed Strengths, I tend to suggest that you play it by the rules.

Gwar! wrote:You are correct on the Astorath situation.

As for Inat, It is one of their Multiple "Clarifications" that are actually rules changes.

I'm inclined to agree with their Rough Riders ruling. There's an upgrade character for Rough Riders that gives them FC, and without the S bonus it would become rather meager. I also agree on ruling Asorath and Seth on staying at their strength of 6 and 8, since you don't pay for the FC upgrade, it's something that happens to them. I know this line of reasoning is flawed though

My ideal solution would be to rewrite the entries to "adds 2 to the wielders strength" since it simply makes more sense to have them benefit from FC.

Gwar! wrote:As for my "raw" only, that's not strictly true.

I was pulling your leg

I've got two.

Q: Does Brother Corbulo upgrade a regular Sanguinary Priest, (So, Sang. Priest cost + Brother Corbulo cost) or is he just bought bought at his list price?

So far for 5th Ed MEQ books, we've got Telion in C:SM who clearly says who he's meant to replace, Corbulo, in C:BA who says he is 'included' and Arjac Rockfist and Lukas the Trickster in C:SW who say diddly squat but were later FAQ'ed into being bought in addition to the cost of the unit they upgrade with. I think it should be fairly easy to see from whence my confusion stems.

Q: What weapon type does Captain Tycho's "Dead Man's Hand" count as? Is it a normal close combat weapon with special properties, or does he simply run about punching folks?

I ask this for two reasons. One, The Dead Man's Hand is listed under his Wargear, which implies that it is, in fact, a weapon of some sort. Secondly, I'm trying to figure out how to represent the thing on a 'counts as' model.

Commander Endova wrote:I've got two.

Q: Does Brother Corbulo upgrade a regular Sanguinary Priest, (So, Sang. Priest cost + Brother Corbulo cost) or is he just bought bought at his list price?

So far for 5th Ed MEQ books, we've got Telion in C:SM who clearly says who he's meant to replace, Corbulo, in C:BA who says he is 'included' and Arjac Rockfist and Lukas the Trickster in C:SW who say diddly squat but were later FAQ'ed into being bought in addition to the cost of the unit they upgrade with. I think it should be fairly easy to see from whence my confusion stems.

Q: What weapon type does Captain Tycho's "Dead Man's Hand" count as? Is it a normal close combat weapon with special properties, or does he simply run about punching folks?

I ask this for two reasons. One, The Dead Man's Hand is listed under his Wargear, which implies that it is, in fact, a weapon of some sort. Secondly, I'm trying to figure out how to represent the thing on a 'counts as' model.

1) I already covered this
BA.87.02 – Q: Is Brother Corbulo's points cost instead of those for a Sanguinary Priest or in addition to?
A: It is instead of. [R.a.W]

2) It's a Special Close Combat Weapon, as it is a close combat weapon with special rules But yeah, he just goes around Nutting people really. Ignore that. It's not a CCW at all. It's a bit of Wargear that makes his Close Combat Attacks have a different effect.

Commander Endova wrote:I've got two.

Q: Does Brother Corbulo upgrade a regular Sanguinary Priest, (So, Sang. Priest cost + Brother Corbulo cost) or is he just bought bought at his list price?

It says "take him AS one of your priests" which imo means that you do the latter, just pay the list price.

Commander Endova wrote:Q: What weapon type does Captain Tycho's "Dead Man's Hand" count as? Is it a normal close combat weapon with special properties, or does he simply run about punching folks?

Looking at the pictures in the back, he punches folks....

1) Gah. Can't believe I missed that. I read over the FAQ before I posted. Guess that's what i get for staying p until nearly 4AM.

2) Hmm. I Guess I'll just do my "counts as" model flippin' the bird. Seems effective enough.

Thanks for the quick response, you two.

v1.3 available for download.

Key word about this whole thing unaficial you can use these as house rules but don't use them in a pick up game. I'll just wait for the official one that GW will put out in 10 years at there rate

Hah. You obviously weren't around for the SW FAQ debacle. Guarantee you that 99% of Gwar!'s ruling will be the same as in the "official" house rules.

Commander Endova wrote:Hah. You obviously weren't around for the SW FAQ debacle. Guarantee you that 99% of Gwar!'s ruling will be the same as in the "official" house rules.

The 1% will be the font they use.

Q: Since a walker can move and shoot all of it's weapons, can a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought move, shoot a weapon, and make a psychic shooting attack?

ok finally got to look at your FAQ my question has been answered

@ Gwar - I changed my username to reflect my new financial status.

back to topic on bloodstrike missiles... I'd like to be able to fire any number of them available during a shooting so I am with you in spirit however I would like to know if there is any precedence you might be aware of to support your FAQ ruling. I can see this possibly being actual issue where I play at from time to time. Thanks!

G

Commander Endova wrote:Q: Since a walker can move and shoot all of it's weapons, can a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought move, shoot a weapon, and make a psychic shooting attack?

Yes. It can, in fact, shoot ALL it's weapons AND make a Psychic Shooting Attack.

Black Blow Fly wrote:@ Gwar - I changed my username to reflect my new financial status.

back to topic on bloodstrike missiles... I'd like to be able to fire any number of them available during a shooting so I am with you in spirit however I would like to know if there is any precedence you might be aware of to support your FAQ ruling. I can see this possibly being actual issue where I play at from time to time. Thanks!

Seeker Missiles can also fire multiples a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nightwatch wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:Hah. You obviously weren't around for the SW FAQ debacle. Guarantee you that 99% of Gwar!'s ruling will be the same as in the "official" house rules.

The 1% will be the font they use.

Now to be fair, I'll go with 80%, since it's GW, they have to piss all over RaW at some point or completely mess up how, say, the Fearless USR works or something.

Here's a query - Can Librarian Dreadnoughts take the Magna-grapple? I've had some people think that they cannot, because of the wording in their entry that says "ALL wargear is exchanged for ..". So by that logic then Librarian Dreads cannot have Extra Armor or Searchlights.

But then by the same thought, I don't think that Librarian Dreads can take Blood Talons, since the entry says the Librarian Dreadnought has a Force Weapon...

Thoughts?

GrimTeef wrote:Here's a query - Can Librarian Dreadnoughts take the Magna-grapple? I've had some people think that they cannot, because of the wording in their entry that says "ALL wargear is exchanged for ..". So by that logic then Librarian Dreads cannot have Extra Armor or Searchlights.

But then by the same thought, I don't think that Librarian Dreads can take Blood Talons, since the entry says the Librarian Dreadnought has a Force Weapon...

Thoughts?

Already covered my good sir!

BA.85.01 – Q: Can a Furioso Librarian purchase weapons and wargear from the options list??
A: Yes. These may be Purchased “after” the Upgrade to a Furioso Librarian. The only option unavailable is the Blood Talon option, as you no longer have the wargear to exchange for them. [Clarification]
• It can, however, be interpreted that you lose any purchased wargear and may not purchase them at all.

Thanks Gwar!, for being quick with the response. I think I'll model one up now and see how it goes.

For some reason when I dl the FAQ nothing shows up when i try to open it.

On a side note do you think that BA troops actually do get access to a landraider?

I think they do but it would seem that pure RAW says they don't.

Daggermaw wrote:For some reason when I dl the FAQ nothing shows up when i try to open it.

On a side note do you think that BA troops actually do get access to a landraider?

I think they do but it would seem that pure RAW says they don't.

What do you mean nothing shows up? What OS/Program are you using? Have you remembered to get the latest version of whatever PDF program you are using?

And actually, from Pure RaW, they do. It says they can select ANY Dedicated transport.

I use mac OSX my PDF is up to date.

RAW it says they can use any dedicated transport (see page 90) I think that can be construed to me only rhinos, razors and DP.

I think its arguable that they can't use landraiders.

Aside from the lifted verbiage issue with the SW FAQ, the answers really ought to be the same, unless GW is actually providing an errata.

Its not as if most of Gwar!'s FAQ answers aren't readily apparent in most cases, Frequently Asked does not mean hard to answer

Jack

P.S. Keep at it Gwar! some folks need the help more then others

P.P.S. I always need to retype you name so I don't ALL CAPS it like the band.

Daggermaw wrote:I use mac OSX my PDF is up to date.

RAW it says they can use any dedicated transport (see page 90) I think that can be construed to me only rhinos, razors and DP.

I think its arguable that they can't use landraiders.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=8000031a&start=4

GWs got them up on thier site as using a raider... I know its not the codex but its a step in thier direction.

Gwar! wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Can a Stormraven Gunship fire one weapon via PotMS after moving Flat Out?

You know, this is a really, really good question. The first half of the rule seems to indicate you can, but then it goes to give a specific list of instances when PotMS comes into play, which does not include moving flat out, but does Include Cruising Speed.

My answer would be Yes, however, as the rule is very clearly stating you can fire "one more weapon than would normally be permitted" and then goes on to state that "therefore" you are able to fire one weapon at Cruising Speed, which would indicate that it applies to both being unable to fire and being able to fire no weapons. Consider this added

Someone today pointed out to me that under the rules for fast vehicles, it says that "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons." Would you agree with me that this is the same situation as PotMS and popping smoke?

On the Immobilized Librarian Dread, wouldn't the codex take prescidence? If it fails its psy test, its still immobilized. If it makes it, it may use its wings and "fly" which would be a different form of movement than the usual walker movement.

Anyways, thanks for the FAQ..

Gwar! wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:Q: Since a walker can move and shoot all of it's weapons, can a Furioso Librarian Dreadnought move, shoot a weapon, and make a psychic shooting attack?

Yes. It can, in fact, shoot ALL it's weapons AND make a Psychic Shooting Attack.

I think this is incorrect, A Walker fires as a stationary vehicle, and a stationary vehicle "may fire all of [its] weapons" which is to say, number of weapons allowed to fire is equal to number of weapons on the vehicle. It is not given permission to fire an infinite number of weapons.

Meanwhile the psychic shooting attack rules say "if he is allowed to fire more than one ranged weapon per turn, he can replace the firing of any of the weapons he is allowed to fire with a psychic shooting attack".

so a Dreadnought who uses a psychic shooting attack will have to pick a single ranged weapon per psychic shooting attack to not be fired.

Drunkspleen wrote:I think this is incorrect, A Walker fires as a stationary vehicle, and a stationary vehicle "may fire all of [its] weapons" which is to say, number of weapons allowed to fire is equal to number of weapons on the vehicle. It is not given permission to fire an infinite number of weapons.

Meanwhile the psychic shooting attack rules say "if he is allowed to fire more than one ranged weapon per turn, he can replace the firing of any of the weapons he is allowed to fire with a psychic shooting attack".

so a Dreadnought who uses a psychic shooting attack will have to pick a single ranged weapon per psychic shooting attack to not be fired.

You know, you are correct Damn GW and their crazy Vehicle Psykers. What's next, a Land Raider that can make Close Combat attacks?

Sorry for the mistake and I'll fix it asap!

Edit: I actually forgot to add this to the FAQ in the first place (>.< ) I'll add it now

Actually, does this mean if the Furioso Librarian has no more ranged Weapons Left, it cannot use a Psychic Shooting attack any more?

Camarodragon wrote:On the Immobilized Librarian Dread, wouldn't the codex take prescidence? If it fails its psy test, its still immobilized. If it makes it, it may use its wings and "fly" which would be a different form of movement than the usual walker movement.

Anyways, thanks for the FAQ..

No, it won't. All the codex does is add a rule saying "Moves as if he had a Jump Pack". It does not say "Move as if he had a Jump Pack AND HE CAN ALWAYS MOVE SO HELP YOU IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!". So you will have a rule saying "he can move as if he had a jump pack" and a Rule saying "He cannot move". Since you are not allowed to break any rules in 40k unless explicitly given permission, he cannot move.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Someone today pointed out to me that under the rules for fast vehicles, it says that "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons." Would you agree with me that this is the same situation as PotMS and popping smoke?

Yes, the wording is the same, and like the PotMS and Smoke Launcher interaction, the answer is unclear. However, I guess that if you disallow shooting from a Smoked vehicle with PotMS , you should disalow shooting from a Flat Out vehicle with PotMS as the wording is exactly the same.

I'll be sure to update this as well

And once again, a big thank you to all you Dakka nerds for proofreading and Nitpicking


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Version 1.4 is now available for download!

Dang... that is interesting. Only the Termi units say see page 91. All other infantry say see page 90. I suppose you could argue that those referencing only page 90 are limited to basic transport choices. I hope GW errata's this one for their entries to say see pages 90-91.

Homer

Homer S wrote:Dang... that is interesting. Only the Termi units say see page 91. All other infantry say see page 90. I suppose you could argue that those referencing only page 90 are limited to basic transport choices. I hope GW errata's this one for their entries to say see pages 90-91.

Homer

I disagree. It says ANY Dedicated Transport (See Page 90), because Page 90 is where the Dedicated Transport rules start. It says 91 for Termies because it says you may select a Land Raider, not ANY Dedicated Transport.

It does not say "Any Dedicated Transport from page 90". If it did, it would be 100% Clear.

It does not say "Any Dedicated Transport from page 90". If it did, it would be 100% Clear.

Or if it said they may choose any dedicated transport (see page 90 & 91)

As it is right now, it's not 100% clear.

At the very least Gwar, it could be a clarification.

Daggermaw wrote:

It does not say "Any Dedicated Transport from page 90". If it did, it would be 100% Clear.

Or if it said they may choose any dedicated transport (see page 90 & 91)

As it is right now, it's not 100% clear.

At the very least Gwar, it could be a clarification.

I do not feel that it is unclear from a rules standpoint. It says ANY Dedicated transport. If it was not meant to be ANY of them, it would say so.

Is it unclear from a General Standpoint? Yes, that's why it's in the FAQ, but rulewise it is Iron Clad.

I agree ALL means all... I was just pointing out that since the Dedicated Transport section spills onto two pages it complicates the reference. Maybe they should have made it "... any Dedicated Transport (starting on page 90)."

Homer

Homer S wrote:I agree ALL means all... I was just pointing out that since the Dedicated Transport section spills onto two pages it complicates the reference. Maybe they should have made it "... any Dedicated Transport (starting on page 90)."

Homer

I agree, they SHOULD have. If they did, it would be completely clear, and wouldn't be in my FAQ. As it is, it is a bit unclear at first glance, but it has a very clear (imo) RaW answer

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:I think this is incorrect, A Walker fires as a stationary vehicle, and a stationary vehicle "may fire all of [its] weapons" which is to say, number of weapons allowed to fire is equal to number of weapons on the vehicle. It is not given permission to fire an infinite number of weapons.

Meanwhile the psychic shooting attack rules say "if he is allowed to fire more than one ranged weapon per turn, he can replace the firing of any of the weapons he is allowed to fire with a psychic shooting attack".

so a Dreadnought who uses a psychic shooting attack will have to pick a single ranged weapon per psychic shooting attack to not be fired.

You know, you are correct Damn GW and their crazy Vehicle Psykers. What's next, a Land Raider that can make Close Combat attacks?

Sorry for the mistake and I'll fix it asap!

Edit: I actually forgot to add this to the FAQ in the first place (>.< ) I'll add it now

Actually, does this mean if the Furioso Librarian has no more ranged Weapons Left, it cannot use a Psychic Shooting attack any more?

I've been mulling this over for a bit now, and I think my earlier RAW applies equally here as well, the issue of course is that, once you get down to only being allowed to fire 1 or 0 weapons, the phrase in the psychic shooting attack rules about replacing the firing is no longer applied since it only kicks in with models allowed to fire more than 1 weapon, however, even in light of that, the Psychic Shooting attack is not a weapon in and of itself but rather "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon". So, once you get the dreadnought down to a single ranged weapon, it is still only equipped with that single ranged weapon and thus, is allowed to fire one weapon in the shooting phase, since using a Psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon, if the psychic shooting attack is used, the remaining ranged weapon cannot be fired and vice versa.

Similarly, once a dreadnought is no longer armed with ranged weapons, he is given permission to fire 0 ranged weapons in the shooting phase, leaving him, unfortunately, unable to use his psychic shooting attacks since they count as firing a ranged weapon.

What was catching me up though, was when I shifted my focus across to Monstrous Creatures and how this could affect them, notably Hive Tyrants with no ranged weapons but who have Psychic Shooting Attacks. Here I may be incorrect, but I think given the way GW tend to use the term "instead of" to simply mean, "if you do/have x, you may not do/have y" you would apply a similar concept to the idea of replacing the firing of a ranged weapon you are allowed to fire, so even without the ranged weapons, it's simply the allowance you are foregoing to be able to use the Psychic Shooting Attack, and a Monstrous Creature is always allowed to fire 2 ranged weapons, no matter how many he may be armed with.

Stormraven > Embarked dreadnought > Disembarking dreadnought 2" within any of the access points > Dreadnought makes a 6" assault move.

Correct?

Razerous wrote:Stormraven > Embarked dreadnought > Disembarking dreadnought 2" within any of the access points > Dreadnought makes a 6" assault move.

Correct?

As long as it hasn't moved Flat Out, then yes.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:I think this is incorrect, A Walker fires as a stationary vehicle, and a stationary vehicle "may fire all of [its] weapons" which is to say, number of weapons allowed to fire is equal to number of weapons on the vehicle. It is not given permission to fire an infinite number of weapons.

Meanwhile the psychic shooting attack rules say "if he is allowed to fire more than one ranged weapon per turn, he can replace the firing of any of the weapons he is allowed to fire with a psychic shooting attack".

so a Dreadnought who uses a psychic shooting attack will have to pick a single ranged weapon per psychic shooting attack to not be fired.

You know, you are correct Damn GW and their crazy Vehicle Psykers. What's next, a Land Raider that can make Close Combat attacks?

Sorry for the mistake and I'll fix it asap!

Edit: I actually forgot to add this to the FAQ in the first place (>.< ) I'll add it now

Actually, does this mean if the Furioso Librarian has no more ranged Weapons Left, it cannot use a Psychic Shooting attack any more?

I've been mulling this over for a bit now, and I think my earlier RAW applies equally here as well, the issue of course is that, once you get down to only being allowed to fire 1 or 0 weapons, the phrase in the psychic shooting attack rules about replacing the firing is no longer applied since it only kicks in with models allowed to fire more than 1 weapon, however, even in light of that, the Psychic Shooting attack is not a weapon in and of itself but rather "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon". So, once you get the dreadnought down to a single ranged weapon, it is still only equipped with that single ranged weapon and thus, is allowed to fire one weapon in the shooting phase, since using a Psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon, if the psychic shooting attack is used, the remaining ranged weapon cannot be fired and vice versa.

Similarly, once a dreadnought is no longer armed with ranged weapons, he is given permission to fire 0 ranged weapons in the shooting phase, leaving him, unfortunately, unable to use his psychic shooting attacks since they count as firing a ranged weapon.

What was catching me up though, was when I shifted my focus across to Monstrous Creatures and how this could affect them, notably Hive Tyrants with no ranged weapons but who have Psychic Shooting Attacks. Here I may be incorrect, but I think given the way GW tend to use the term "instead of" to simply mean, "if you do/have x, you may not do/have y" you would apply a similar concept to the idea of replacing the firing of a ranged weapon you are allowed to fire, so even without the ranged weapons, it's simply the allowance you are foregoing to be able to use the Psychic Shooting Attack, and a Monstrous Creature is always allowed to fire 2 ranged weapons, no matter how many he may be armed with.

Would this mean that a pyscher that is not given a weapon is not allowed to use a shooting attack power? In the same vain, how about units being able to fleet if the have no weapons or are not allowed to shoot?

Clarification on that one, 2" from the base of the model for disembarking as per it's entry.

Hi Gwar! I need your help!!! I posted a batrep over in the 40k Batrep forum and some unenlightened posters are giving me grief about firing multiple rockets one turn. Can you please go over & straighten them out?

Thanks!!
G

jbunny wrote:Would this mean that a pyscher that is not given a weapon is not allowed to use a shooting attack power? In the same vain, how about units being able to fleet if the have no weapons or are not allowed to shoot?

This is what I was dealing with at the end when discussing Monstrous Creatures. Much like even a model who has no ranged weapon and cannot shoot is still able to sacrifice his shooting to run, so to can a normal model or an MC simply sacrifice the allowance of shooting to use the psychic shooting attack, however, with regards to walkers specifically, once they have no ranged weapons, they are allowed to fire no ranged weapons, unlike a normal infantry model who is always allowed to fire 1 ranged weapon, even when not equipped with one.

Drunkspleen, thank you very much for typing all that out. I would have been far too lazy and would not have been able to put it as well

So, if I may ask you, do you agree with my ruling regarding this in my FAQ? That is, a [Rules Change] to allow the Libby to use a Psychic Shooting even with no weapons left?

Gwar! wrote:So, if I may ask you, do you agree with my ruling regarding this in my FAQ? That is, a [Rules Change] to allow the Libby to use a Psychic Shooting even with no weapons left?

I don;t know if that question was directed just at Drunkenspleen, but for what it's worth, I like that ruling. It makes sense that even a mighty librarian would have to concentrate on his spellwork, rather than shooting ballistic weaponry. It doesn't make sense that losing an exterior weapon would disrupt abilities activated from the mind of the psyker. It's not like Smite is fired from the Storm bolter.

EDIT: Also, another question. Since you can opt to fire more than one Bloodstrike missile from a single Stormraven per shooting phase, when do you declare how many missiles you're going to fire? Can I shoot a missile, have it fail to do anything, and then shoot another one?

@ Gwar!:

Can you include in your FAQ a clarification of Mephiston's psychic prowess. Is it true he can use psychic powers in every PLAYER TURN which would include the opponents?

Commander Endova wrote:EDIT: Also, another question. Since you can opt to fire more than one Bloodstrike missile from a single Stormraven per shooting phase, when do you declare how many missiles you're going to fire? Can I shoot a missile, have it fail to do anything, and then shoot another one?

That should be a straight RaW: All weapon fire must be declared before any dice or measurement takes place. So if any rockets are to be fired, the number of rockets must be declared at the same time any other shooting is declared. (Unless the weapon or unit specifically says otherwise.)

Can cover saves be taken against a magna grapple' grapple effect if the grapple does not damage the unit?

I'd assume no.

What happens if a hit is scored from a magna grapple, and the grapple damages the opposing unit, but a cover save is made?

Also, are there any ill effects from a vehicle that is part of a squadron that is magna-grappled out of a squadron?

I'm thinking no ill effects, as there is nothing mentioned in the BRB, but coherency must be reestablished next turn.

What happens when a squad of sentinels, Killa Kans or war walkers has a member pulled 10 inches out of coherency, and that model is charged by the dread in question?

As per the RAW, I 'm assuming charge reactions are taken, the other vehicles move as close as possible, and hit are allocated as per the standard rules for squadrons.

To complicate matters, what happens if the one opposing squad member is charged as in the example above, and the others in the squadron are charged by separate BA unit?

Can I deep strike the sanguinary guard even though their giant wings prevent the models from being placed in base contact with each other?

Do the best you can. I'd also suggest asking if you can move slightly out of order and run them immediately after they land to make it easier - unless you actually plan to shoot, of course.

Does a jump infantry squad deepstriking in a Storm Raven benefit from hte DoA special rule?

G

Are they deep striking out of it? Yes.

Is the Storm Raven deep striking? Then no.

I think the intent is no based upon the fluff preceding the actual rule itself.

G

Re Magna grapple questions

1) If no wounds are taken, no cover save can be used to "prevent" the effects - same as Lash
2) All that is requires is that you score a penetrating hit - a sucessful cover save ignores the penetrating hit whcih suggests you would lose the chance to magnagrapple
3) no ill effects, treat like any other unit that moves out of coherency
4) Pile in as normal
5) If no mopdels can pile in, nothing moves and no ill effects.

And what I can tell that magna-grapple doesn't replace any other weapon correct? -- it's just an additional weapon?

Yes, you "take" a magna gerapple, you are not replacing it with anything

Gwar! wrote:Drunkspleen, thank you very much for typing all that out. I would have been far too lazy and would not have been able to put it as well

So, if I may ask you, do you agree with my ruling regarding this in my FAQ? That is, a [Rules Change] to allow the Libby to use a Psychic Shooting even with no weapons left?

I think it's probably the best solution, it certainly seems a bit silly that the destruction of the Dreads weapons prevents the Librarian from using psychic abilities, however the way your FAQ is worded currently doesn't really deal with the possibility of a Dreadnought having multiple psychic shooting attacks, and how this would effect it with either 0 ranged weapons remaining, or 1 ranged weapon remaining.

Basically I think BA.29.04 needs to say something along the lines of "The Furioso Librarian may always use each psychic shooting attack he has up to once per shooting phase, however, if the number of psychic shooting attacks being used is equal to or greater than the number of ranged weapons the Dreadnought is equipped with, then no ranged weapons may be used".

There's probably a better way to word it, but that is what I think is the best ruling on how to handle it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Re Magna grapple questions

1) If no wounds are taken, no cover save can be used to "prevent" the effects - same as Lash
2) All that is requires is that you score a penetrating hit - a sucessful cover save ignores the penetrating hit whcih suggests you would lose the chance to magnagrapple

Actually, the Magna-Grapple roll is entirely separate to the penetration roll, because the Magna-Grapple roll doesn't occur until after you know that the shot did not destroy the target, additionally the Grapple rule is triggered by a hit, which is the result of a to-hit roll.

The order would be:

Dreadnought rolls to hit and scores a hit
(Grapple rule is now triggered, if vehicle does not die as a result of this hit, you will roll to try to reel it in)
Dreadnought rolls D6+8 to penetrate and scores a penetrating hit
Target vehicle rolls a successful cover save, negating penetrating hit
Dreadnought rolls D6+8 to see if the grapple succeeds in moving the vehicle

Black Blow Fly wrote:Does a jump infantry squad deepstriking in a Storm Raven benefit from hte DoA special rule?

Black Blow Fly wrote:I think the intent is no based upon the fluff preceding the actual rule itself.

G

The matter has nothing to do with ignoring the fluff. The rule clearly states that the unit with Descent of Angels scatters D6 inches less when that unit is deep striking. Unfortunately, the transport is the one doing the scattering while the embarked unit is deep striking and the transport doesn't have Descent of Angels.

Or are you referring to the case of a unit using Skies of Blood to disembark from a Stormraven Gunship? In that, case it's clearly spelled out in the rules for that vehicle.

GWAR, you're what would happen if we removed the elitist Jackassery from the GW team. TYSM for reasonable(IMO) rulings.

I finally had a chance to look at the rules in peace, and tripped over Whirlwind of Gore's "...a single automatic hit on all enemy models in base contact".

So are the wounds allocated and armor saves taken as normal? I know I've seen fan-codices written with that wording in which the author has expected the models which were hit to take the wounds, despite the fact that hits from close combat are distributed according to the rule book's wound allocation rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Drunkspleen, thank you very much for typing all that out. I would have been far too lazy and would not have been able to put it as well

So, if I may ask you, do you agree with my ruling regarding this in my FAQ? That is, a [Rules Change] to allow the Libby to use a Psychic Shooting even with no weapons left?

I think it's probably the best solution, it certainly seems a bit silly that the destruction of the Dreads weapons prevents the Librarian from using psychic abilities, however the way your FAQ is worded currently doesn't really deal with the possibility of a Dreadnought having multiple psychic shooting attacks, and how this would effect it with either 0 ranged weapons remaining, or 1 ranged weapon remaining.

Basically I think BA.29.04 needs to say something along the lines of "The Furioso Librarian may always use each psychic shooting attack he has up to once per shooting phase, however, if the number of psychic shooting attacks being used is equal to or greater than the number of ranged weapons the Dreadnought is equipped with, then no ranged weapons may be used".

There's probably a better way to word it, but that is what I think is the best ruling on how to handle it.

Note that a Furisio Librarian can only use one psychic power per turn despite being able to take two psychic shootng powers, so could only actually use one psychic shooting power per turn in any case. So be careful of FAQ wordings which accidentally change that limit.

solkan wrote:Note that a Furisio Librarian can only use one psychic power per turn despite being able to take two psychic shootng powers, so could only actually use one psychic shooting power per turn in any case. So be careful of FAQ wordings which accidentally change that limit.

*facepalm* got caught up in all the psychic shooting attack and vehicle rules and forgot a psyker can only use 1 psychic power per turn by default, in that case Gwar your FAQ is fine as is.

Commander Endova wrote:EDIT: Also, another question. Since you can opt to fire more than one Bloodstrike missile from a single Stormraven per shooting phase, when do you declare how many missiles you're going to fire? Can I shoot a missile, have it fail to do anything, and then shoot another one?

Deuce11 wrote:Can you include in your FAQ a clarification of Mephiston's psychic prowess. Is it true he can use psychic powers in every PLAYER TURN which would include the opponents?

Both of these are very clear RaW. You have to declare all shooting at once. As for the powers, all the BA Non-Shooting powers (including the Force Weapon Powers) can be cast on the enemies turn, which means that a normal librarian can cast 1 on the enemies turn, a Upgraded one can cast 2 and Mepheston can cast 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:I finally had a chance to look at the rules in peace, and tripped over Whirlwind of Gore's "...a single automatic hit on all enemy models in base contact".

So are the wounds allocated and armor saves taken as normal? I know I've seen fan-codices written with that wording in which the author has expected the models which were hit to take the wounds, despite the fact that hits from close combat are distributed according to the rule book's wound allocation rules.

Wounds are allocated as normal. All that happens is he gets automatic hits equal to the number of people in base contact.

As for the Magna Grapple Questions, Nos and Drunkspleen have answered them correctly.

Thank you again guys and keep an eye out for 1.5 Soon™


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike Leon wrote:Can I deep strike the sanguinary guard even though their giant wings prevent the models from being placed in base contact with each other?

I have not actually had the chance to touch these models, but is it ABSOLUTELY impossible or just really really hard, considering they have to be 5 models strong? If someone would be so kind as to send me pictures I would be much obliged!

Gwar what about my question regarding DoA and a deepstriking Storm Raven?

Thanks!
G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Gwar what about my question regarding DoA and a deepstriking Storm Raven?

Thanks!
G

BA.23.04 – Q: Does a Transport Vehicle that arrives from Reserves via “Deep Strike” with a unit with the “Descent of Angels” embarked upon it benefit from the “Descent of Angels” special rule?
A: No. Only units that are Deep Striking themselves and have the “Descent of Angels” Special Rule benefit. [Clarification]
• It can, however, be interpreted that the transport does benefit from the “Descent of Angels” special rule despite not having it itself.

Drunkspleen wrote:

jbunny wrote:Would this mean that a pyscher that is not given a weapon is not allowed to use a shooting attack power? In the same vain, how about units being able to fleet if the have no weapons or are not allowed to shoot?

This is what I was dealing with at the end when discussing Monstrous Creatures. Much like even a model who has no ranged weapon and cannot shoot is still able to sacrifice his shooting to run, so to can a normal model or an MC simply sacrifice the allowance of shooting to use the psychic shooting attack, however, with regards to walkers specifically, once they have no ranged weapons, they are allowed to fire no ranged weapons, unlike a normal infantry model who is always allowed to fire 1 ranged weapon, even when not equipped with one.

Playing Devils Advocate for a sec here. Can a Dread that has no weapons run or fleet in the shooting phase? It is not allowed to shoot after all.

Yes it can - this is why Drunkspleen had the "hmm" reaction.

Ok, I read through the FAQ and through a few pages of this thread, so forgive me for missing this question if it was asked already:

As Sanguinary priests are ICs, can they join a single-model infantry unit like Mephiston? Can other units that are ICs (like dante) join Mephiston as a unit? Did I miss something that specifically says Mephiston can never form a unit with any ICs?

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Ok, I read through the FAQ and through a few pages of this thread, so forgive me for missing this question if it was asked already:

As Sanguinary priests are ICs, can they join a single-model infantry unit like Mephiston? Can other units that are ICs (like dante) join Mephiston as a unit? Did I miss something that specifically says Mephiston can never form a unit with any ICs?

You are missing the IC rules themselves, which prohibit IC's joining units that are always of a single model.

Ah thanks. I knew I was missing something.

v1.5 available for download.

Aw man, I literally just got done printing 1.4.

What is in 1.5?

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Aw man, I literally just got done printing 1.4.

What is in 1.5?

xD sorry!

I added a Question about Librarians, 2 about Mephiston, 1 About Sanguninary Guard Deep Striking, 2 About Demolisher Cannons and 2 About the Magna Grapple :(

If it makes you feel any better, you'd only have to print out, perhaps 5 new pages with the new content on it, though it will have mismatched numbers

Awesome, Thanks Gwar!

Didn't mean to sound unappreciative, BTW.

Vanguard Veterans & Stormraven query...
Can VV equipped with jump packs use Heroic Intervention when using the Skies of Blood rules?

Dozer blades...
No restriction on how far hte vehicle moves, so a tank can move at full speed and the dozer blades still work?

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Vanguard Veterans & Stormraven query...
Can VV equipped with jump packs use Heroic Intervention when using the Skies of Blood rules?

Dozer blades...
No restriction on how far hte vehicle moves, so a tank can move at full speed and the dozer blades still work?

G

#1) BA.27.04
#2) Yes, it works

What is the answer in BA 24.07? I cannot access the document via my iPhone.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:What is the answer in BA 24.07? I cannot access the document via my iPhone.

No. Heroic Intervention can only be used when they arrive from Reserves.

Thanks. : )

G

What is it with loner's in the BA codex? DC Tycho is a loner and so is The Sanguinor.

BTW: for purposes of including a DC dread should DC Tycho and/or Lemartes count in the total? I thinking RAW no but RAI I'm not so sure...?

Homer

Homer S wrote:What is it with loner's in the BA codex? DC Tycho is a loner and so is The Sanguinor.

No Idea. GW must have decided that Mephiston having 10 or 11 extra 3+ FNP Wounds vs Shooting was Unbalanced or something!

BTW: for purposes of including a DC dread should DC Tycho and/or Lemartes count in the total? I thinking RAW no but RAI I'm not so sure...?

Nope.Only Models called "Death Company" count towards it.

I don't disagree with some of them, like Mephy, I was just wondering about those two. Both of them seem like naturals to hook up with their respective squads.

Homer

so, gwar, i'm guessing you consider tycho to be an independent unit like mephiston even in death company form?

i'd argue otherwise given that the paragraph on his page listed after the stat block (so they're rules, not fluff as is true above the stat block) says "following his induction into the death company". the death company is a specific unit in the game so per RAW he is a part of it (which is why he is lacking the IC rule in his death co list since he's not supposed to leave it). would that mean (if you agree) that per RAW he can't be fielded in death co version without a death co, sure...

He's a member of the Death Company in the fluff - that doesn't mean that he's a part of the Death Company unit.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:He's a member of the Death Company in the fluff - that doesn't mean that he's a part of the Death Company unit.

yes, he is in the fluff as well as in the RULES which is what i said above (and pointed out the specific area). it's separate from the fluff. if you consider what is listed under the stat block to only be fluff and not rules, then tycho technically has BOTH profiles as that same paragraph is where is says you have to choose one or the other. that same paragraph says he is "inducted into the death company" and the "death company" is a unit in the game.

He is a Single Model unit like Mephiston.

It does not say "He is part of the Death Company unit", so he isn't.

They arent rules - they are in italics and are not game rules. You can tell, because *every other sentence* in that block has nothing to do with in game rules. In fact, it simply explains the differences and *why* he is different.

I think you've tried arguiing they are rules previously - it was shot down then as unsupported, I'm not sure why you're expecting something different now....

actually, this is the first time i've brought this up (or anything similar) but nice try. so, the sentance about picking one profile for tycho isn't the rules either? it's also in italics. you might as well be consistent. either the paragraph is rules or not. you can't cherry pick which are rules and which aren't.

It isnt rules, as it has no in game rule. It is fluff, pure and simple - well, explanation of the two profiles, but nothing more.

You are restricted from picking more than one profile as he is Unique, so you couldnt pick both profiles even if the italics were saying you could.

I am being consistent, you want to pick one line out of the middle of an italicised paragraph and claim it is "rules", despite the rest not being.

Hey, Gwar!, I don't know if you've addressed this in your FAQ, but it appears that the RAW for the BA Vindicator indicates that it does not use large blast...or any blast marker for that matter.

The profile says it's "Ordnance 1," with no mention of a blast marker.

Thread on that subject from another site here:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253730

It has the same typo as the one in the SM Codex.

I just figured that Gwar! wold probably want to address this in his FAQ if he has not already done so.

calypso2ts wrote:It has the same typo as the one in the SM Codex.

Yep, although it lacked the fun mistake of listing it in the Summary as Barrage (same as the Whirlwind).

Jack

Actually, I have covered it already (under the vehicle equipment). There was a thread on Dakka too which, of course, got locked.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288679.page

Can a dreadnaught coupled on a Stormraven shoot?

G

warboss wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:He's a member of the Death Company in the fluff - that doesn't mean that he's a part of the Death Company unit.

yes, he is in the fluff as well as in the RULES which is what i said above (and pointed out the specific area). it's separate from the fluff. if you consider what is listed under the stat block to only be fluff and not rules, then tycho technically has BOTH profiles as that same paragraph is where is says you have to choose one or the other. that same paragraph says he is "inducted into the death company" and the "death company" is a unit in the game.

The problem is that "inducted" isn't a real game term, and I don't think it's anywhere near appropriate to say a non-defined term can simply equate entirely to a defined game term like "joined" or "attached to".

While I agree that it's probably a GW screwup with regards to DC Tycho, the way it currently stands he has no rule saying he becomes a member of the Death Company, he is inducted, but we don't know what that really means, it might simply be that, it gives him permission to be painted in their colour scheme, who knows.

My feeling is that DC Tycho is there for the eye candy. I don't think it was a mistake on the part of GW.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Can a dreadnaught coupled on a Stormraven shoot?

Nope. Not open topped and has no Fire Points.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Can a dreadnaught coupled on a Stormraven shoot?

G

I just got a really funny picture of Robot from Lost in Space on the clamps waving it's arms and shouting Danger DANGER!

Homer

Thanks Homer, you owe me a new Keyboard. This one is Rum Damaged :(

In any case, I shall make you pay... by having to download the FAQ again!

Version 1.6 is ready for download!

I am going to model my Stormraven such that the dreadnaught is aiming his lascannon over the top.

G

In the Honour Guard, can the Sanguinary Novitiate upgrade his weapons/wargear?

Gunzhard wrote:In the Honour Guard, can the Sanguinary Novitiate upgrade his weapons/wargear?

Does the codex say he can?

I do not see a single option on page 84 that would affect the Sanguinary Novitiate bar the Jump Pack option. So the answer is No.

Hm just had a quick flick through, looking nice and thorough as you always are Gwar! suprise suprise

Along those same lines, does the Blood Champion lose his BP and grenades? Does that mean if when charging he goes across cover he is I1? and does not have +1A from 2 CCWs?

Homer

Homer S wrote:Along those same lines, does the Blood Champion lose his BP and grenades? Does that mean if when charging he goes across cover he is I1? and does not have +1A from 2 CCWs?

Homer

No. The whole unit has the Wargear listed. One Honour Guard can be Upgraded and will get the wargear specified. Nothing says he loses his original Wargear, so he doesn't.

Also, Sorry for the fast update, but v1.7 is up for download