gungo wrote: I think the grenade change is good for the meta a bit. Things like dreads get ambit better. I know this screws over a handful of units. But those units tended to be the stronger units in thier codex.
Still waiting to hear the new codex rulings too.
Good stuff all around
Ork players thank you for your understanding, I'm glad our codex is now more internally balanced.
It's actually an entirely reasonable question: Scout moves occur before the battle as a redeployment, and the majority of fortifications are prefabricated buildings erected for a given battle.
There's nothing unfluffy about having set up your bunker a bit further into no-man's land. It only gets silly if you imagine it physically waddling into place just before everyone engages.
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment? A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment? A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’? A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Speaking of Scout moves and allied transports, could Skitarii use their Scout move to embark onto allied Rhinos after deployment but before the first player turn?
Gus_Papas wrote: Speaking of Scout moves and allied transports, could Skitarii use their Scout move to embark onto allied Rhinos after deployment but before the first player turn?
So I think embarkation only happens during your movement phase... so in this case you could start next to a bunch of empty rhinos and then on turn 1 embark into them and then start driving up the field.. OR you can just come from reserves as my argument above states =)
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Gus_Papas wrote: Speaking of Scout moves and allied transports, could Skitarii use their Scout move to embark onto allied Rhinos after deployment but before the first player turn?
So I think embarkation only happens during your movement phase... so in this case you could start next to a bunch of empty rhinos and then on turn 1 embark into them and then start driving up the field.. OR you can just come from reserves as my argument above states =)
I read your comment a few times and I agree that RAW that approach definitely works, but it seems to violate RAI. It seems weird to me that they'd forbid starting inside allied transports during deployment but still let you drive on/drop pod on from reserves in an allied transport.
I have a feeling the writers also see moving on from reserves as 'deployment', since "'Deploy' - is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on..." ie, deploying units via reserves is the same action as deploying in the deployment phase, therefore the same restrictions apply. Does that make sense?
Regarding starting outside transports and then embarking during movement, obviously that works but then if one doesn't have first turn their little spindly T3 dudes have to weather a round of shooting before they can embark, making coming on from reserves like you suggested an appealing option but, as above, one I'm not sure really works. This FAQ might need a FAQ
Hi all. I am new here, but I have 2 questions after reading these FAQs.
First, what happens when a unit disembarks from a transport that chose to jink in the previous turn. Do they forced to snap-shot? According to the FAQ, yes :(
Second, what happens, if psyker, that is forced to do snap-shots want to cast a witchfire, that does not roll to hit? Cause after this FAQ, you can't cast shriek from a jinking transport, or if you disembark from one (or if you fail a leadership test after crew shaken/stunned, etc.)
Overall I am happy about the answers, but these 2 had me scratching my head.
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Cheers!
That's not how I see it. Their intention is clear - no sharing transports during deployment. You need to name what goes inside a Drop pod during deployment, not when it's deployed in the game - the same way you need to declare what's going to reserves and how it'll enter the field of battle during deployment. You don't declare, at turn 3, that your units in reserve will suddenly Outflank; you already told that to your opponent during the deployment, before the game started.
skoffs wrote: Sounds like something that should be asked on the FB page (on one of the pages in question) so they can clarify.
We did ask for further clarification. =)
Vector Strike wrote:
That's not how I see it. Their intention is clear - no sharing transports during deployment. You need to name what goes inside a Drop pod during deployment, not when it's deployed in the game - the same way you need to declare what's going to reserves and how it'll enter the field of battle during deployment. You don't declare, at turn 3, that your units in reserve will suddenly Outflank; you already told that to your opponent during the deployment, before the game started.
That is fine. One reason we asked GW for clarification and I wanted to post on here. "Different Eyes" etc etc.
I posted this in YMDC and someone posted a similar response on what you stated. We did read that during our discussion. Initially it seemed to be fine with *my argument above*, however after reading it again and again and having you guys state it.. I am questioning myself.
So here's a question: if a unit with multiple factions gains both factions, can it then use EITHER faction's dedicated transports, or NEITHER (with the rule about deploying in BB transports)?
the_scotsman wrote: So here's a question: if a unit with multiple factions gains both factions, can it then use EITHER faction's dedicated transports, or NEITHER (with the rule about deploying in BB transports)?
I was thinking about this as well... So lets give an easy example and not space marines.. simpler then that.
Eldar guardians in a wave serpant. Is a Dark eldar Archon not allowed to join this unit and be embarked in that units transport?
IC rule states that when joined to a unit it is part of that unit for all rule purposes.. However as you stated, that unit retains it's faction status'.. in this example both Eldar and Deldar. And they are battle brothers... so would it be the case even that the gaurdians with an archon can't even embark on their own transport then?
Vector Strike wrote: This is the kind of questions we should post there, so they can notice this stuff
Already did this as well =)
So I think it is safe to say that (and i am not directing this at you... its happened all over) if someone asks a question here... the replies really shouldn't be .. "ask GW".. because in most cases through these 11 pages.. people are asking GW, but they just want another set of eyes to look at it or bring it up so others who have not thought about it can go and comment/like the FB post to get GW to see its importance.
Your interpretation makes a lot of sense, thanks for bringing up more points/articulating your argument better than I could. I think it's fair to say that GW only wants allies embarking on each other's transports once the models have already hit the table.
edit
I also rechecked my BRB and embarking is explicitly forbidden during a Scout redeployment so it looks like Skitarii players are SOL until they get their own dedicated transports, as their units will always start the game disembarked, ouch.
gery81 wrote: Hi all. I am new here, but I have 2 questions after reading these FAQs.
First, what happens when a unit disembarks from a transport that chose to jink in the previous turn. Do they forced to snap-shot? According to the FAQ, yes :(
Second, what happens, if psyker, that is forced to do snap-shots want to cast a witchfire, that does not roll to hit? Cause after this FAQ, you can't cast shriek from a jinking transport, or if you disembark from one (or if you fail a leadership test after crew shaken/stunned, etc.)
Overall I am happy about the answers, but these 2 had me scratching my head.
These are great questions, it seems that you are correct but it might not be what they intended. you should ask them on the FB page so they can include them in the final versions in case they didn't think about it.
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
And they've clarified that, no, really, Shrike can't join non-infiltrating units during deployment, the scallywag!
So this is a clarification I asked for on that page... under ICs they basically make it seem this way... however, in the infiltrate FAQ they say...
Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes
So does that mean that I can choose to deploy normally and have shrike be with his jump buddies?
And this is why we have to have a 41 page faq just on the brb. People STILL trying to force what they want into the rules. The intention is clear....If you have to start using "timing" to justify the result you want....you're wrong.
And this is why we have to have a 41 page faq just on the brb. People STILL trying to force what they want into the rules. The intention is clear....If you have to start using "timing" to justify the result you want....you're wrong.
I could use the same argument in why this was on the FAQ to begin with? was it ever not clear that you could use each others transports? And it is not for me to gain.. I play Tau and Eldar as my mains.. I actually feel really bad for all the Skittari players who don't have transports of their own.. =/
gery81 wrote: Hi all. I am new here, but I have 2 questions after reading these FAQs.
First, what happens when a unit disembarks from a transport that chose to jink in the previous turn. Do they forced to snap-shot? According to the FAQ, yes :(
Second, what happens, if psyker, that is forced to do snap-shots want to cast a witchfire, that does not roll to hit? Cause after this FAQ, you can't cast shriek from a jinking transport, or if you disembark from one (or if you fail a leadership test after crew shaken/stunned, etc.)
Overall I am happy about the answers, but these 2 had me scratching my head.
These are great questions, it seems that you are correct but it might not be what they intended. you should ask them on the FB page so they can include them in the final versions in case they didn't think about it.
So what is preventing you from using any witchfire that does not roll to hit, from being used on a jinked transport?
I feel this is the same argument for or against a non skyfire model using shreik against a FMC.
Gamerely wrote: My poor Dark Eldar... I see no way for them to survive at this point. The whole lore is about lightning quick strikes and they can't shoot better than a jinking ork. It hurts so bad. This pretty much makes turn 1 a disaster unless I go first or deep strike all my raiders. Otherwise the opponent can just shoot at each individually and force a jink.
Hey, look on the bright side: Dark Eldar like it rough, and it doesnt get rougher than after this FAQ!
Well, I suppose invalidating Quantum Shielding is a slight buff against a specific army. Of course, we can also spam Darklight weapons, or Haywire/Melta with Scourges so the Grenade change doesn't affect us as much.
The name of the game is now spamming as many reaver jetbikes and Razorwing jetfighters as possible, with the minimum number of pathetic kabalites.
jink vs overwatch and the slight buffs to the razorwing with DFTS is the only thing they have going for them now...
"Q: How many shots do Salvo weapons get when firing Snap Shots in Overwatch, if the unit moved in their previous player turn?
A: When determining if the unit moved for the purposes of firing Salvo weapons, only the previous Movement phase is considered. In the case of firing Overwatch, this will have been your opponent’s Movement phase, and therefore the unit firing Overwatch is very unlikely to have moved. As a consequence, it counts as having not moved, and can fire the higher number of shots with its weapons that have the Salvo type. "
I thought Salvo weapons could not snap fire at all?
IMO there is so mush wrong with this FAQ that it destroys its credibility. We have people liking and agreeing with certain answers. We have people vehemently disagreeing with other answers and even proving that some FAQ answers are out to lunch - myself included.
We're all arguing this steaming hot mess of a FAQ in exactly the same manner as we argue the actual rules. We're no further along then where we started without a FAQ.
WTFGW? Is this an attempt to muddy the waters so badly that we all feel compelled to purchase the new 7.5 ed. rules in August?
Sautek Supreme wrote: "Q: How many shots do Salvo weapons get when firing Snap Shots in Overwatch, if the unit moved in their previous player turn?
A: When determining if the unit moved for the purposes of firing Salvo weapons, only the previous Movement phase is considered. In the case of firing Overwatch, this will have been your opponent’s Movement phase, and therefore the unit firing Overwatch is very unlikely to have moved. As a consequence, it counts as having not moved, and can fire the higher number of shots with its weapons that have the Salvo type. "
I thought Salvo weapons could not snap fire at all?
oni wrote: Seriously... This FAQ is making my head hurt.
IMO there is so mush wrong with this FAQ that it destroys its credibility. We have people liking and agreeing with certain answers. We have people vehemently disagreeing with other answers and even proving that some FAQ answers are out to lunch - myself included.
We're all arguing this steaming hot mess of a FAQ in exactly the same manner as we argue the actual rules. We're no further along then where we started without a FAQ.
WTFGW? Is this an attempt to muddy the waters so badly that we all feel compelled to purchase the new 7.5 ed. rules in August?
Relax, this is a rough draft. GW is doing exactly what they said they would.. answer the 2000+ replies as best they could in a relatively short time. Put them out for the community to hash out.. and then will take those comments and write the final rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sautek Supreme wrote: "Q: How many shots do Salvo weapons get when firing Snap Shots in Overwatch, if the unit moved in their previous player turn?
A: When determining if the unit moved for the purposes of firing Salvo weapons, only the previous Movement phase is considered. In the case of firing Overwatch, this will have been your opponent’s Movement phase, and therefore the unit firing Overwatch is very unlikely to have moved. As a consequence, it counts as having not moved, and can fire the higher number of shots with its weapons that have the Salvo type. "
I thought Salvo weapons could not snap fire at all?
This FAQ could leave out "snap fire" entirely. the true question is during overwatch, does the unit count as having moved if it did so during my turn? The answer is then, your turn is not the preceding movement phase, therefore your unit is treated as not having moved for purpose of which shot count profile to use.
gungo wrote: I think the grenade change is good for the meta a bit. Things like dreads get ambit better. I know this screws over a handful of units. But those units tended to be the stronger units in thier codex.
Still waiting to hear the new codex rulings too.
Good stuff all around
Ork players thank you for your understanding, I'm glad our codex is now more internally balanced.
I'm an ork ( and guard) player as well and I agree with you.
Tabkbustas went down but not a lot because still have rokkits, still have squig bombs, still have melta bombs and they are still a small unit. And they still have access to tankhammers.
And half the ork codex just got better. Seriously half our book is walkers and vehicles. Deff dreads, killa kans, mork/gorkanaut, stompa, trukks, battle wagons, buggies/trakks, 4 flyers.
Sadly however most dreads die just as easily to range as they did assault. Now assault is a bit safer.
Sautek Supreme wrote: "Q: How many shots do Salvo weapons get when firing Snap Shots in Overwatch, if the unit moved in their previous player turn?
A: When determining if the unit moved for the purposes of firing Salvo weapons, only the previous Movement phase is considered. In the case of firing Overwatch, this will have been your opponent’s Movement phase, and therefore the unit firing Overwatch is very unlikely to have moved. As a consequence, it counts as having not moved, and can fire the higher number of shots with its weapons that have the Salvo type. "
I thought Salvo weapons could not snap fire at all?
Couple things I really like with this FAQ: (or find interesting)
-being able to jink after a blast scatters onto you if you weren't the intended target is awesome (especially for rerolling jink ravenwing)
-MCs get 'toe in cover' but FMCs dont - this is interesting, could make summoning a daemon prince with no wings more worth it if you need to put him in cover. Also LOVE that GMCs don't get toe in cover anymore.
-Bloodthirsters (whether conjured or summoned from blood tithe) get to choose if they are swooping or gliding - awesome. This just made KDK bloodthirster spam armies amazing.
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything)
-a single jump pack IC can give a whole unit reroll on the charge? - this is interesting...surprised noone is talking about this (gonna try this in my Daemonkin army) Jumpack Lord with Axe of Korlath
-mixed unit types can run and turboboost in the same unit - yay for putting biker lords in with chaos hounds (or with jump pack infantry)
-no part of a vehicle can move more than its movement allowance - this is exactly how age of sigmar works (if noone noticed)
-putting the blood angel taxi service out of business (seriously someone show me one written piece of fluff ever that had someone else using blood angel drop pods)
-skyfire nexus plus blast/template weapons = can target flyers now? interesting
-lvl1 psykers can only cast 1 power? going to be big choices made if you want to cast force now...
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Cheers!
You are blatently ignoring this line I highlighted for you. If arriving from reserves count as deployment, and you are not allowed to deploy inside a BB transport, then you cannot arrive from reserve embarked on a BB transport. It's very clear.
chaosmarauder wrote: Couple things I really like with this FAQ: (or find interesting) -MCs get 'toe in cover' but FMCs dont - this is interesting, could make summoning a daemon prince with no wings more worth it if you need to put him in cover. Also LOVE that GMCs don't get toe in cover anymore.
I like this change.. I question the FMC portion. Maybe no toe in cover if he is swooping? I mean if the guy is on the ground (and a normal MC can get cover) why couldn't he?
-a single jump pack IC can give a whole unit reroll on the charge? - this is interesting...surprised noone is talking about this (gonna try this in my Daemonkin army) Jumpack Lord with Axe of Korlath
I asked for clarification on their page.. this makes no sense at all to me.
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment? A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment? A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’? A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Cheers!
You are blatently ignoring this line I highlighted for you. If arriving from reserves count as deployment, and you are not allowed to deploy inside a BB transport, then you cannot arrive from reserve embarked on a BB transport. It's very clear.
Actually that red highlight is not under "Deployment" it is under "Deploy" which is it's own thing..
Its like "eating" it happens at "lunch" and "dinner" but it itself is not "lunch" nor "dinner" => "Deploy" happens during "Deployment" and "Reserves and so on", but it itself is neither those things.
*EDIT* to clarify as I don't want to get in an argument, I agree with points made here that I am actually wrong..
@grizz-You are arguing tenses of the same thing though. Which I think is a stretch at best. Your basically arguing over timing. Both are deployments, but you are suggesting that because one tense is used at the start and another later, that they must different stipulations.
Edit: Either way the best route here is asking for further clarification. I am 99% sure what the intent and outcome will be however.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Call this wishful thinking, at the extreme, but.......
Are melta bombs grenades? They aren't called grenades, though they are in the grenade section of the book.
A few pages back. They're in the grenade section. They're grenades, IMHO, HIWPI, YMMV, OMG, BBQ.
I think looking at the grenade listings is instructive, though. Note that those listings use consistent "throw a grenade" language only under the SHOOTING headers. There is no reference to "throwing" under the ASSAULTS headers. It seems fairly clear that "throwing" is a shooting action based on the individual grenade listings.
But I guess we'll see the final ruling in a week or so.
Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
Thought of the day - you know they aren't lawyers writing these rules right? There is a reason that legal documents are written the way they are. They have to be horribly long and detailed aka 'lawyer speak' to actually be ironclad. There is a way to think yourself around every rule especially with how complicated 40k is. I think some of us need to not look too far into a rule sometimes and just see it for what it is. Because none of us want the BRB to be rewritten by a lawyer to make it 'ironclad'.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
But how could they possibly intend for models to purchase wargear that was mathematically impossible for them to ever use?
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
But how could they possibly intend for models to purchase wargear that was mathematically impossible for them to ever use?
Ask them haha, they're the ones saying that's what they meant. But that question is part of why nobody thought it worked the way they're now saying it does.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
I don't really get all the fuss. BRB says very specifically that only one grenade can be thrown by a unit per phase. Personally, I have always though that it's a dumb rule for all sorts of reasons (why is it a 10 man squad can throw twice as many grenades if you split the squad into two 5's? Why can't a commander throw his own grenade if he ponies up? If 5 people have 5 grenades, why can't 4 of them huck theirs?) -- but it's not like this is new.
Im stunned people actually played the grenade rule differently then in the BRB. I agree it doesn't make sense though.
So glad they clarified the drop pods. I don't know how anyone would of played it differently. I thought it said you could only embark on BB transports at the start of the game anyway. All in all a good faq.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
I don't really get all the fuss. BRB says very specifically that only one grenade can be thrown by a unit per phase. Personally, I have always though that it's a dumb rule for all sorts of reasons (why is it a 10 man squad can throw twice as many grenades if you split the squad into two 5's? Why can't a commander throw his own grenade if he ponies up? If 5 people have 5 grenades, why can't 4 of them huck theirs?) -- but it's not like this is new.
Have you seen how to throw a grenade? Imagine trying to do that without covering fire to keep the enemy's heads down while you're winding you for the throw
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
But how could they possibly intend for models to purchase wargear that was mathematically impossible for them to ever use?
Because they didn't. This is either an intentional rules change (my bet) or the FAQ team getting spun around on a line that didn't really apply. The fact remains that the word "throwing" is only used in one context (and consistently so) in the grenade profiles -- shooting attacks. And if we're going to create fluff around what's "really happening" during an assault, then where does that leave melta bombs?
The likely reason that "per Shooting Phase" became "per phase" in the transition from 6th to 7th was to account for the possibility of using grenades as overwatch shooting.
You cannot charge a second target unless the model cannot make it in to BTB with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target. The initial charger must move the closest distance to the primary target - if he can't reach the charge fails.
Therefore its impossible to be able to contact a secondary target with the initial charger.
Why is it impossible to move an Imperial Knight, for example, in base contact with the primary target so that the base also touches another unit?
It's not impossible at all.
The rules (in the rulebook, notwithstanding the FAQ) specifically prohibit it.
Rulebook wrote:...find the initial charger for the primary assault (the model in the charging unit closest to the primary target) and attempt to move it into base contact with the primary target, just as you would against a single target. If his charge fails, the charging unit doesn’t move at all.
...a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
He MUST move in to btb with the closest enemy model in the primary target.
If he can move in to BTB with the closest model in the primary target, he's prohibited from moving in to BTB with a model in the secondary target.
If he can't move in to BTB with the closest enemy model, the charge fails.
Its possible to orient long bases so that you can contact multiple units... but it's prohibited.
Specific trumps general. If they say "a single model can only hit one unit at a time, except SHVs", then it's clear that it's supposed to be able to charge multiple targets by itself.
TedNugent wrote:
MrFlutterPie wrote: I think the grenade thing could be good as it ups vehicle and dred survivability quite a bit.
Specific units like like Tankbustas could be potentially addressed in codex to only buff certain units.
Great news. Knights and other superheavies certainly needed the buff. Tankbustas and Tactical squads needed the nerf. Gods be praised.
Because Knights and other SHVs were never brought, constantly citing "those darn Tankbustas and Tacticals killing them all the time with grenades in assault, why even bother"
chaosmarauder wrote: Couple things I really like with this FAQ: (or find interesting)
-MCs get 'toe in cover' but FMCs dont - this is interesting, could make summoning a daemon prince with no wings more worth it if you need to put him in cover. Also LOVE that GMCs don't get toe in cover anymore.
yep, only when swooping. gliding FMCs get cover as normal
chaosmarauder wrote: Couple things I really like with this FAQ: (or find interesting)
-MCs get 'toe in cover' but FMCs dont - this is interesting, could make summoning a daemon prince with no wings more worth it if you need to put him in cover. Also LOVE that GMCs don't get toe in cover anymore.
I like this change.. I question the FMC portion. Maybe no toe in cover if he is swooping? I mean if the guy is on the ground (and a normal MC can get cover) why couldn't he?
-a single jump pack IC can give a whole unit reroll on the charge? - this is interesting...surprised noone is talking about this (gonna try this in my Daemonkin army) Jumpack Lord with Axe of Korlath
I asked for clarification on their page.. this makes no sense at all to me.
Mr Morden wrote:Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
No more Drop pod fun then???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Cheers!
You are blatently ignoring this line I highlighted for you. If arriving from reserves count as deployment, and you are not allowed to deploy inside a BB transport, then you cannot arrive from reserve embarked on a BB transport. It's very clear.
Actually that red highlight is not under "Deployment" it is under "Deploy" which is it's own thing..
Its like "eating" it happens at "lunch" and "dinner" but it itself is not "lunch" nor "dinner" => "Deploy" happens during "Deployment" and "Reserves and so on", but it itself is neither those things.
*EDIT* to clarify as I don't want to get in an argument, I agree with points made here that I am actually wrong..
Stop that right now. That is not how the internet works. You must argue your original point with blatant disregard for other people's opinions, interpretations, and feelings!
mhelm01 wrote: Stop that right now. That is not how the internet works. You must argue your original point with blatant disregard for other people's opinions, interpretations, and feelings!
Stop that right now. That is not how the internet works. You must argue your original point with blatant disregard for other people's opinions, interpretations, and feelings!
oni wrote: Seriously... This FAQ is making my head hurt.
IMO there is so mush wrong with this FAQ that it destroys its credibility. We have people liking and agreeing with certain answers. We have people vehemently disagreeing with other answers and even proving that some FAQ answers are out to lunch - myself included.
We're all arguing this steaming hot mess of a FAQ in exactly the same manner as we argue the actual rules. We're no further along then where we started without a FAQ.
WTFGW? Is this an attempt to muddy the waters so badly that we all feel compelled to purchase the new 7.5 ed. rules in August?
Relax, this is a rough draft. GW is doing exactly what they said they would.. answer the 2000+ replies as best they could in a relatively short time. Put them out for the community to hash out.. and then will take those comments and write the final rules.
I get what you're saying, but a few of the answers are horribly erroneous and if put into a final FAQ could be a bit of a catastrophe. I'm a little on edge about having core game mechanics change because of a FAQ (that will ultimately be taken as sacrosanct) that contradicts irrefutable RAW.
I cannot break through the wall of a crumbling ruin, but I can scale a 20 ft. wall to assault you on the battlements of your fortification?
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything).
Templates in ruins are still limited by the requirement to touch the small end of the template to the firing model's base. Unless he's standing on the top floor of the ruin, that drastically limits how many different floors you can hit.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
Not quite. It makes it a clarification of how whoever wrote this FAQ thinks it is meant to be.
Whether that's RAI, different to RAI but how they've decided it should be played instead, or simply how that guy reads the rule without having any idea what the guy who wrote the rulebook actually intended, we have no way of knowing.
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything).
Templates in ruins are still limited by the requirement to touch the small end of the template to the firing model's base. Unless he's standing on the top floor of the ruin, that drastically limits how many different floors you can hit.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
Not quite. It makes it a clarification of how whoever wrote this FAQ thinks it is meant to be.
Whether that's RAI, different to RAI but how they've decided it should be played instead, or simply how that guy reads the rule without having any idea what the guy who wrote the rulebook actually intended, we have no way of knowing.
i never seen anyone refuse to believe they where wrong so badly in my life lol. I am not wrong the guy who wrote the faq is wrong . The guy who wrote the rules thinks like me lol.
On a side note these all make perfect sence to me. I never seen anyone say everyone can punch as many gernades into people they want in assault before seems dumb. I punch someone with a gernade best I can hope for is to hurt them and blow me up.
Actually grenades shouldn't be allowed in assault at all since you would absolutely hurt your own guys - especially if everyone in the squad used one at the same time while in a hand to hand fight.
OgreChubbs wrote: i never seen anyone refuse to believe they where wrong so badly in my life lol. I am not wrong the guy who wrote the faq is wrong . The guy who wrote the rules thinks like me lol.
What on earth are you talking about?
On a side note these all make perfect sence to me. I never seen anyone say everyone can punch as many gernades into people they want in assault before seems dumb. I punch someone with a gernade best I can hope for is to hurt them and blow me up.
Nobody is suggesting that you can punch people with grenades. Grenades are only used against MCs and vehicles in assault.
on reading the BRB and the FAQ ruling, I don't think the current thought on the distance 'travelled' while pivoting counts for the "no model may move more than X inches" part of the FAQ.
Here's why, from BRB ("VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE"):
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot
even pivot on the spot).
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
There is a handful of people stubbornly holding onto thier opinion and saying the rules team, (who were the people who wrote all these books because the same rules team has been writing all the rules books together the last 8+ years.) are wrong and they changed the rule even though nearly every one of these arguments have been cited in ymdc on this board already. But these people just refuse to admit they were wrong in anyway. It's kinda sad. These are faqs not errata. They added a page with two errata that makes this separation abundantly clear. It's ok to admit your wrong. I was wrong with PE and blasts.
chaosmarauder wrote: Actually grenades shouldn't be allowed in assault at all since you would absolutely hurt your own guys - especially if everyone in the squad used one at the same time while in a hand to hand fight.
Marines and Sisters would drop frag granades in amongst a melee especially if the oppoent was Cultists, renegade guard etc..............its unlikely to hurt them but will kill the enemy
Orks would do it coz its a larf aint it
Imperial Guard would sacrice themselves and their comrades for the Emperor
Chaos woud because they can....
Dark Eldar would - especially if a rival was in the melee - plus they grow back so who cares
on reading the BRB and the FAQ ruling, I don't think the current thought on the distance 'travelled' while pivoting counts for the "no model may move more than X inches" part of the FAQ.
Here's why, from BRB ("VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE"):
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot
even pivot on the spot).
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
Thoughts?
I kinda figure they threw this in for the purposes of "only" pivoting, as the example makes abundantly clear.
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything).
Templates in ruins are still limited by the requirement to touch the small end of the template to the firing model's base. Unless he's standing on the top floor of the ruin, that drastically limits how many different floors you can hit.
ing.
They're also limited by the fact that you need to see a model to allocate wounds to it, so while technically you could hit several levels of a ruin, realistically you'll only be able to hit the people just below and just above you... Just like most people think it should work.
Can I ask a really nooby question about this one...
Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
Does this only count if they are a different faction, or if they are in different detachments?
Let's say I take something like this...
Inquisitorial Detachment
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
including units like
5 sternguard in a drop pod
9 man squad in a rhino
Space Marines Formation Detachment (Librarius Conclave)
including librarians who want to go with the above units - one in the pod, one in the rhino.
I understand that now the inquisitor & warband (battle brothers with Space Marines) can't go in the marine vehicles and vice versa... but are the librarians now forbidden from going with the vets etc, because they are in a different detachment? Or are they fine to do this because they are the exact same faction?
Silentz wrote: Can I ask a really nooby question about this one...
Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
Does this only count if they are a different faction, or if they are in different detachments?
Let's say I take something like this...
Inquisitorial Detachment
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
including units like
5 sternguard in a drop pod
9 man squad in a rhino
Space Marines Formation Detachment (Librarius Conclave)
including librarians who want to go with the above units - one in the pod, one in the rhino.
I understand that now the inquisitor & warband (battle brothers with Space Marines) can't go in the marine vehicles and vice versa... but are the librarians now forbidden from going with the vets etc, because they are in a different detachment? Or are they fine to do this because they are the exact same faction?
I do not believe we have enough information to answer this definitively, at the current time. The FAQ question is written in such a way that the answer only applies RAW (FAQAW?) to units that are of different factions to each other, and the BRB is contradictory on this issue. The Matrix shows factions as Battle Brothers to themselves, however the preceding sentences states that the Matrix shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions (which two detachments that both have the Faction Codex: Space Marines, for example, would not). I believe this is a case where RAI each detachment is meant to be its own Faction (and thus is Battle Brothers with other detachments from its Faction), but RAW it is unclear.
chaosmarauder wrote: Actually grenades shouldn't be allowed in assault at all since you would absolutely hurt your own guys - especially if everyone in the squad used one at the same time while in a hand to hand fight.
there are 2 basic types of grenade
'assault' types relying mainly on blast shock to kill (like wwii german stick grenades) which can be thrown much further than their lethal radius so the are useful in assault (but not while standing right in front of somebody hitting them with a sword obviously)
'defensive' types relying on both blast shock and shrapnel to kill (like the wwii british mills bomb) which have a much lethal radius so are much more throw and duck back into a foxhole, no following up until the bang has happened (some this type are an assault type with an extra fragmenting shell added to them too)
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
Thoughts?
That's how it's worked for the last 15 years or so, but 7th edition has tried to do away with it to close down the 'loophole' where long vehicles can gain extra movement distance through free pivots. So they're trying to say that you have to factor any extra distance gained by the pivot into your total movement distance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: There is a handful of people stubbornly holding onto thier opinion and saying the rules team, (who were the people who wrote all these books because the same rules team has been writing all the rules books together the last 8+ years.) are wrong and they changed the rule even though nearly every one of these arguments have been cited in ymdc on this board already. But these people just refuse to admit they were wrong in anyway. It's kinda sad. These are faqs not errata. They added a page with two errata that makes this separation abundantly clear. It's ok to admit your wrong. I was wrong with PE and blasts.
Which might be a valid argument if there weren'tFAQ responses here that contradict very, very clear rules as written, like the single-model multi-assault, or the walls on ruins.
The rules guys at GW aren't perfect. As evidenced by the fact that they've just released a draft FAQ that has 40 pages of entries...
There are rulings here that I agree with. There are rulings that I don't personally agree with, but that make sense. And there are rulings that I think are either a mistake or a deliberate change to the rules (we have no way of knowing which without further clarification from the guy who wrote them). I'm not really sure why this is such a big deal. Disagreeing with an FAQ response doesn't change its validity.
gungo wrote: There is a handful of people stubbornly holding onto thier opinion and saying the rules team, (who were the people who wrote all these books because the same rules team has been writing all the rules books together the last 8+ years.) are wrong and they changed the rule even though nearly every one of these arguments have been cited in ymdc on this board already. But these people just refuse to admit they were wrong in anyway. It's kinda sad. These are faqs not errata. They added a page with two errata that makes this separation abundantly clear. It's ok to admit your wrong. I was wrong with PE and blasts.
Ok, I admit it. I was wrong. I was wrong about literally every single question in the FAQ (even the ones that contradict each other). Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?
For all practical purposes, that's not actually possible.
The rulebook (the written rule) is all that we actually have to go on when determining how to play the game. You can guess that what the book says in some particular situation isn't actually what they meant, but you're never going to do better than a guess based on your own idea of what makes sense...
What most people refer to as 'Rules as Intended' is actually more like 'Rules as I Think They Should Be Played'. RAI is a much more nebulous concept, and not actually particularly relevant since GW quite often make rulings based on what the rules wound up saying instead, even when this goes against their original intention, or will change a rule from what they originally intended in favour of something that works better.
RA(probably)I is a useful guide where a rule is unclear. But there would have been, for example, absolutely no way for players to have guessed that the intention of the rule that says that you can move freely through the walls of a ruin was for models to not be able to move through the walls of a ruin... if that was the intention, and not simply a ruling that has been made off the cuff for this FAQ.
The problem is you are likely taking the walls of the ruin out of context.
RAI seems to me the rules team was saying in that specific question you can't walk through solid walls such as the walls of a shrine of Aquila However you can go over them.
The actual movement rules doesn't say you are allowed to go through all terrain. It says you can move through OR over it.
In other words why would anyone chose to go over terrain when you are allowed to completely ignore it and walk through walls.
Formosa wrote: I like the people saying "it directly contradicts RAW" like Raw was a rule haha, let it go people.
Er... What is the rulebook, if it's not a book of rules...?
Playing by the rules and RAW are two separate things, RAW, for far too long, is used to abuse the ruleset, exploit loopholes and generally "legally" cheat, people treated it as if it was the ONLY way to resolve a rules issue, even when the RAI is crystal clear, they will claim nonsense like "you aint the dev bro, you cant know" just to defend there use of an exploit or loophole.
in short, RAW has a bad name due to TFG's
A lot of these answers fit with the RAI and the RAWTFG's (note, by using RAW, you are not TFG, but I'm specifically talking about the Exploiters) are STILL trying to pick holes or complain because there exploit or loophole has been closed.
gungo wrote: The problem is you are likely taking the walls of the ruin out of context.
RAI seems to me the rules team was saying in that specific question you can't walk through solid walls such as the walls of a shrine of Aquila However you can go over them.
The actual movement rules doesn't say you are allowed to go through all terrain. It says you can move through OR over it.
In other words why would anyone chose to go over terrain when you are allowed to completely ignore it and walk through walls.
Difficult terrain has always been played as essentially just a 'marker' for a type of terrain. A base with three trees on it doesn't literally represent a group of three trees... it represents a part of forest or wood, with undergrowth and any number of actual plants on it. As such, the individual elements of the terrain are largely irrelevant to movement. Trees, rocks, walls, whatever that makes up the difficult terrain, have always been no impediment to movement beyond the difficult terrain roll. Previous editions have explained this in the case of ruins as models forcing their way through dilapidated walls as necessary.
The current detail doesn't really go into detail on movement through difficult terrain, so it is admittedly a little strong to call this particular ruling a clear contradiction of RAW. It is certainly a change from how it's commonly been played, though.
Playing by the rules and RAW are two separate things,
They're really not.
All of the rules in the rulebook are Rules as Written. A space marine having a 3+ save is RAW. A rapid fire weapon firing 2 shots at half range is RAW. A BS4 model hitting on a 3+ is RAW.
The term gets a 'bad name' because people try to associate it with rule-bending arguments... but where a rule is unclear, the 'abusive' interpretation is no more or less 'RAW' than any other valid interpretation of the rules as they appear in the book.
on reading the BRB and the FAQ ruling, I don't think the current thought on the distance 'travelled' while pivoting counts for the "no model may move more than X inches" part of the FAQ.
Here's why, from BRB ("VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE"):
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot
even pivot on the spot).
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
Thoughts?
Nope. FAQ is, thankfully, more clever than that.
If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase.
It does not matter if it counts as "movement" or not, as the measurement is calculated using it's position at the start of the movement phase, no matter how it got there. I think this ruling is absolutely bulletproof. "It" is the part of the model, not the model. All parts must remain within the distance as it was from the beginning of the phase.
Eldarain wrote: Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.
The FB guys started to respond to some questions.
Well, sort of. Right now they are telling people to type their question in the relevant image's page, so that it would be easier for the rules guys can find and answer them.
I asked if MCs and vehicles benefit from being partially in cover, of if they need to be 25% obscured like the big guys.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Those who are saying you can still use more than one grenade in cc, or that you can target but not hit on Skyfire blasts or who still think you can deploy in a BBs transport;
I'm willing to bet that if you suggested the above interpretation to GW, they'd flat out say no.
I mean really, who would intend to say yeah you can target but not hit.
In fact, it would probably be more helpful to suggest a more accurate phrasing than insist that the phrase be interpreted in a way that makes no sense. Small nuance but big difference.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Do remember that as of may 7th Heldrake likely will not have skyfire anymore.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Do remember that as of may 7th Heldrake likely will not have skyfire anymore.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Do remember that as of may 7th Heldrake likely will not have skyfire anymore.
Dont all flyers have sky fire?
Not anymore. Only Fighter class Flyers do. Attack and Bomber Flyers do not have Skyfire anymore. Heldrakes are Attack Flyers.
1.Mmmm so far '1's being re rolled can't save plasma users...even more reason for me to take meltas then...
2. Thought beating a walker counted as beating a unit in CC and would let a unit consolidate.
3. Ha so being in a reallllly tall building can stop jump pack troops from charging as they have to move 'up' to get you.
4. More reasons to use meltas...blow up the enemy transport, charge the unit getting out of it.
5. If your a flyer or flying monstrous creature hide behind tall buildings.
6. "Q: If both players have models in base contact with a gun emplacement, which player controls it?
A: They both do." WHHHHHHAAAAT?! "My quad gun!" "No my quad gun!"
7. I'm liking how 'if x does y' and 'y prevents x' they just cancel each other out.
8. Stronghold Assault is now officially obsolete
9. "Q: Do allies who are not Battle Bothers contest objectives?
A: Yes." Soooo does this mean my allies can LOOSE me a battle or just contest against an opponent?
10. "Q: Can I use Apocalypse Formations in non-Apocalypse games?
A: No. " HA! Thank you!
11. "Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No. " Welp so much for my plan of putting Repentia in an allied LR Redeemer. Maybe they can deploy behind it and get in on the first turn. Guess this does stop some Drop Pod hijinks though...still T-T.
Eldarain wrote: Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.
/sigh
The Rules p. 73 wrote:
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling around. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always down from the cenre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicle cannot move over friendly models.
That is the full quote from the rule book, emphasized exactly as it appears. Now, let me highlight the pertinent portion:
The Rule p. 73 wrote:Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
This combined with the FAQ paints a pretty clear picture and is in no way contradictory. If all you do is pivot on the spot, you don't count as having moved. If you pivot and then move, no point on the model may move further than the vehicle's movement speed from its original spot.
Eldarain wrote: Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.
/sigh
The Rules p. 73 wrote:
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling around. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always down from the cenre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicle cannot move over friendly models.
That is the full quote from the rule book, emphasized exactly as it appears. Now, let me highlight the pertinent portion:
The Rule p. 73 wrote:Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
This combined with the FAQ paints a pretty clear picture and is in no way contradictory. If all you do is pivot on the spot, you don't count as having moved. If you pivot and then move, no point on the model may move further than the vehicle's movement speed from its original spot.
Spoiler:
That's not what anyone's worried about(pivoting on the spot and not moving). It's pivoting and then moving now costs you movement.
For example- a Dark Eldar Raider is 6" long. It pivots 180°, and then moves forward 6". Before the FAQ the model had only moved 6". Using the new FAQ, after turning 180° the Dark Lance on the prow has moved 6" due to the pivot, then a further 6", for a total of 12" from its original position.
EDIT: Looking again, you're saying that was how it was supposed to be played to begin with, and the FAQ just clarified it. I'm stuck in an older edition I guess. I was wrong.
Wow. I really hope they don't screw this up. It's doing my head in trying to go through this. All the stupid questions. And the people arguing just because a ruling nerfs their army (of particular note is the limit on psychic powers cast effect on Librarius conclave). The bad rulings. The contradictory rulings. Two different rulings that are essentially answering the same question. This FAQ is going to be 20+ pages long.
For all practical purposes, that's not actually possible.
The rulebook (the written rule) is all that we actually have to go on when determining how to play the game. You can guess that what the book says in some particular situation isn't actually what they meant, but you're never going to do better than a guess based on your own idea of what makes sense...
What most people refer to as 'Rules as Intended' is actually more like 'Rules as I Think They Should Be Played'. RAI is a much more nebulous concept, and not actually particularly relevant since GW quite often make rulings based on what the rules wound up saying instead, even when this goes against their original intention, or will change a rule from what they originally intended in favour of something that works better.
RA(probably)I is a useful guide where a rule is unclear. But there would have been, for example, absolutely no way for players to have guessed that the intention of the rule that says that you can move freely through the walls of a ruin was for models to not be able to move through the walls of a ruin... if that was the intention, and not simply a ruling that has been made off the cuff for this FAQ.
Hey by any chance did you use to have a signature pic of a slann mage priest giving the middle finger?
I would have like to have been in the room as whomever was assigned to do this FAQ read some of these questions - the collective eye roles alone probably caused 'an orbital wobble'.
gungo wrote: The problem is you are likely taking the walls of the ruin out of context.
RAI seems to me the rules team was saying in that specific question you can't walk through solid walls such as the walls of a shrine of Aquila However you can go over them.
The actual movement rules doesn't say you are allowed to go through all terrain. It says you can move through OR over it.
In other words why would anyone chose to go over terrain when you are allowed to completely ignore it and walk through walls.
Difficult terrain has always been played as essentially just a 'marker' for a type of terrain. A base with three trees on it doesn't literally represent a group of three trees... it represents a part of forest or wood, with undergrowth and any number of actual plants on it. As such, the individual elements of the terrain are largely irrelevant to movement. Trees, rocks, walls, whatever that makes up the difficult terrain, have always been no impediment to movement beyond the difficult terrain roll. Previous editions have explained this in the case of ruins as models forcing their way through dilapidated walls as necessary.
The current detail doesn't really go into detail on movement through difficult terrain, so it is admittedly a little strong to call this particular ruling a clear contradiction of RAW. It is certainly a change from how it's commonly been played, though.
Playing by the rules and RAW are two separate things,
They're really not.
All of the rules in the rulebook are Rules as Written. A space marine having a 3+ save is RAW. A rapid fire weapon firing 2 shots at half range is RAW. A BS4 model hitting on a 3+ is RAW.
The term gets a 'bad name' because people try to associate it with rule-bending arguments... but where a rule is unclear, the 'abusive' interpretation is no more or less 'RAW' than any other valid interpretation of the rules as they appear in the book.
Case in point right here, whatever its original meaning, the Term RAW is seen as a synonym for rules abuse, if the rule is clearly being abused, its clearly not what was intended, or do you believe, as badly as the rules are written by the designers, that they wanted the rule abused, don't get me wrong, I have seen people try to abuse RAI, but nowhere near the extent as RAW, a lot of the new rulings seem to be RAI, even as some have commented, directly conflicting with RAW, this is a clear sign to me that the designers want people to try and garner intent, rather than doggedly following RAW.
chaosmarauder wrote: Thought of the day - you know they aren't lawyers writing these rules right? There is a reason that legal documents are written the way they are. They have to be horribly long and detailed aka 'lawyer speak' to actually be ironclad. There is a way to think yourself around every rule especially with how complicated 40k is. I think some of us need to not look too far into a rule sometimes and just see it for what it is. Because none of us want the BRB to be rewritten by a lawyer to make it 'ironclad'.
No, they're a group of writers writing professionally for a multi million pound company...
Other companies can write tighter rules. What makes GW so special?
I am going to be overly pedantic and say that because the Relics of the Phalanx says "Units in Imperial Fists Detachments that can normally take items from the Chapter Relics list...", that I can take two relics on my Librarian. He is a unit, and he can take itemS. And it isn't like I am going to take something insane. I am giving him the Bones of Osrak (okay, this one is a bit potent for five melta bombs) and the Spartean (a frickin' bolt pistol for the price of a melta bomb). It isn't like I am giving him the BoO and Shield Eternal.
CoteazRox wrote: Ok, didn't know the new rules yet. How will the Eldar Hemlock be classed?
It is an attack flyer. I am going to open a thread if no one has about the new flyer rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Different note.. did anyone catch this?
Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.
And the precedence this sets. Is it safe to assume that this applies to all special rules that would happen simul?
As a quick example a debate over culexus assassin and seer council (success on 3+ / success on 6+)
If it is indeed the case that they just cancel out and have no effect that means the seer council is effectively acting as normal. Similarly if a librarious does emperic channeling, it can bypass the culexus and cast normally.
Granted there is still the warp charge penalty to deal with regardless... but just saying this would knock out a few more YMDC debates.
Formosa wrote: , this is a clear sign to me that the designers want people to try and garner intent, rather than doggedly following RAW.
If that were actually the case, there would be little point publishing an FAQ...
All it actually shows is that there were some rules that people found unclear or that didn't say what they were supposed to say.
Which is likely why they didn't bother with faqs before as their contstant refrain weas talk it through - or what seems right, rollla dice.
Maybe they just dont play with people who analise every specific phrase and bit of grammar, sometimes looking specificially for an exploit. We have all seen the latter.
Now we have FAQ - finally - but there are still people twisting and turning to make the words say what they want....
Maybe they just dont play with people who analise every specific phrase and bit of grammar, sometimes looking specificially for an exploit. We have all seen the latter..
You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?
This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...
Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.
Maybe they just dont play with people who analise every specific phrase and bit of grammar, sometimes looking specificially for an exploit. We have all seen the latter..
You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?
This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...
Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.
insa, did you use to have a slann mage priest from lizardmen in you avatar pic giving the middle finger?
Maybe they just dont play with people who analise every specific phrase and bit of grammar, sometimes looking specificially for an exploit. We have all seen the latter..
You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?
This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...
Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.
Yes and no - they are employed to make a enjoyable game that sells itself and models - emphasis on the sell stuff. The car analogy only works if you are talking about how understandable is the car manual.
You don't get into a car and say - ah right if I turn the wheel I go right - "now does that mean that I can go left as well as the manual on page 34, subsection 45, paragraph 7, word s 9-24 does not say I can't or upwards as it does not say I can't. So therefore I must be able to go upwards...................
Now should the rules be better written - hell yeah - but I am just saying I don't think that the instruction to the workers creating the rules system is make it a full legal document and watertight. Its more like -
"Here are some new model, and a page of background - make a game that we can sell these models for. You have two weeks to make it playable by your average person....... GO"
Even if someone notices a sloppy bit of grammar and flags it up - with "you realise that a person could do X or Y" they will probably be told - why would they? Its just a game with some toy models, Why would they want to do that to their friends?
I really think that's how they work.................
Silentz wrote: Can I ask a really nooby question about this one...
Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
Does this only count if they are a different faction, or if they are in different detachments?
Let's say I take something like this...
Inquisitorial Detachment
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
including units like
5 sternguard in a drop pod
9 man squad in a rhino
Space Marines Formation Detachment (Librarius Conclave)
DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.
Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.
In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.
This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment
Spoiler:
“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”
This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex
Spoiler:
“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.
As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.
DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.
Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.
In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.
This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment
Spoiler:
“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”
This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex
Spoiler:
“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.
As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.
What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.
ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?
DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.
Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.
In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.
This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment. From BRB Allied Detachment
Spoiler:
“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”
This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex
Spoiler:
“Allied Detachments If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.
As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.
What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.
yes, this all day long. You can take as many detachments as you want from the same codex, allied detachments can not be taken from the same codex as per the rules. This prevents the ally FOC from being abused. They are the same faction.
It does though. If models are from different detachments, but are from the same factions they are not Battle Brothers. They are the same faction. AM and SM are Battle Brothers; not the same faction. Ultramarines and Ultramarines are the same faction and therefore not Battle Brothers. They can deploy in each others transports. I have added the quote DarknessEternal was replying to in my original post.
mhelm01 wrote: It does though. If models are from different detachments, but are from the same factions they are not Battle Brothers. They are the same faction. AM and SM are Battle Brothers; not the same faction. Ultramarines and Ultramarines are the same faction and therefore not Battle Brothers. They can deploy in each others transports. I have added the quote DarknessEternal was replying to in my original post.
Look at the Allies Matrix. The same faction are indeed Battle Brothers.
redleger wrote: ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?
DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.
Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.
In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.
This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment
Spoiler:
“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”
This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex
Spoiler:
“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.
As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.
What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.
yes, this all day long. You can take as many detachments as you want from the same codex, allied detachments can not be taken from the same codex as per the rules. This prevents the ally FOC from being abused. They are the same faction.
Scout redeployment has the models move up to their movement value, which is why it always counted as moving.
Maybe they just dont play with people who analise every specific phrase and bit of grammar, sometimes looking specificially for an exploit. We have all seen the latter..
You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?
This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...
Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.
Yes and no - they are employed to make a enjoyable game that sells itself and models - emphasis on the sell stuff. The car analogy only works if you are talking about how understandable is the car manual.
You don't get into a car and say - ah right if I turn the wheel I go right - "now does that mean that I can go left as well as the manual on page 34, subsection 45, paragraph 7, word s 9-24 does not say I can't or upwards as it does not say I can't. So therefore I must be able to go upwards...................
Now should the rules be better written - hell yeah - but I am just saying I don't think that the instruction to the workers creating the rules system is make it a full legal document and watertight. Its more like -
"Here are some new model, and a page of background - make a game that we can sell these models for. You have two weeks to make it playable by your average person....... GO"
Even if someone notices a sloppy bit of grammar and flags it up - with "you realise that a person could do X or Y" they will probably be told - why would they? Its just a game with some toy models, Why would they want to do that to their friends?
I really think that's how they work.................
I agree with you.
Also, as a guy who plays and enjoys tabletop games, I have never really understood the need to judge tabletop games by how airtight the wording of their rules are. It's just a game....
Incidentally, lots of legal documents written by lawyers, including the vast majority of laws including a good chunk of the US constitution, have ambiguity, and sometimes purposely so, so as to allow the executors of the laws the benefit of executing them based on their interpretation. Billions of dollars are spent every year to try to argue the interpretation of those words. But... again... 40k is just a game, and the prize for winning is not millions of dollars or the right to express oneself in a certain way
Incidentally, lots of legal documents written by lawyers, including the vast majority of laws including a good chunk of the US constitution, have ambiguity, and sometimes purposely so, so as to allow the executors of the laws the benefit of executing them based on their interpretation. Billions of dollars are spent every year to try to argue the interpretation of those words. But... again... 40k is just a game, and the prize for winning is not millions of dollars or the right to express oneself in a certain way
For 90% of players yes...but...there are many who treat the game competitively and don't play against just their friends. The people who try really hard to win at local/bigger tourneys. To them you have to imagine as is if there is money on the line, as if they gambled $10 grand on the game (who knows think of it as the amount of time/money they spent on their army).
Imagine if someone bet on a football or baseball game 10 grand...and the ref made a bad call or got a rule wrong and they lost the game. And their 10 grand.
That is how competitive players feel about the game (passionately) and why they want the rules to be clear.
And I think all of us have a little competitive spirit in us. Even in a friendly game there are moments where I get frustrated when things aren't going according to plan and people are double checking rules.
redleger wrote: ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?
DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.
Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.
In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.
This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment
Spoiler:
“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”
This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex
Spoiler:
“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.
As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.
What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.
yes, this all day long. You can take as many detachments as you want from the same codex, allied detachments can not be taken from the same codex as per the rules. This prevents the ally FOC from being abused. They are the same faction.
Scout redeployment has the models move up to their movement value, which is why it always counted as moving.
Deployment does not have that happen.
Actually no it doesnt. It says if X unit type redeploy this distance, otherwise redeploy this distance. It has zero to do with the units actual movement speed.
Big change I noticed is that now you dont HAVE to infiltrate if you have the infiltrate rule. Means that people like strike are not screwed lol.
ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?
hmm so lets look at the two FAQs that I think are relevant.
Q: Does a unit that is embarked in a Scout vehicle count as having made a Scout move? A: Yes.
Ok so this guy first. Scout is a redeploy and is not movement as per the brb as it stands prior to the FAQ. So this I don't even know how could be abused.. maybe scout vehicle.. guys inside scout the vehicle again? that seems ridiculous.. but in either case this just clarifies that if the vehicle makes the scout redeploy, that the men inside also count as having done that.
Q: If you Infiltrate a unit of Pathfinders from a Ranged Support Cadre and then move them via their Scout special rule, does the unit count as having moved from their starting loc A: yes
Interesting, so this pertains to the text summarized by "if the pathfinders move from there starting position for any reason or fire markerlights they lose shrouding". So this FAQ is clarifying that scout counts as having the model move from it's original position, but not necessarily 'move' as it counts in the movement phase. meaning scout removes shrouding.
So to summarize, in either case this is clarifying not an errata changing the text "redeploy" to "move (counts as having moved in the movement phase) ".
Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.
Shrike is good to go!
*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!
Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:
Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.
A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.
Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.
Shrike is good to go!
*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!
Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:
Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.
A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.
Isn't that the other way around? They're talking about an Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule.
I thiught the problem with Shrike is that he has the Infiltrate special rule but can only join jump infantry. SM don't have jump infantry with Infiltrate.
Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.
Shrike is good to go!
*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!
Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:
Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.
A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.
Except Shrike is the one with Infiltrate, not the VV. It doesn't limit ICs WITH Infiltrate in any way.
I don't believe their intention was to change the previous FAQ forbidding a unit without the Infiltrate special rule from being joined by an Independent Character with the rule. I see it more as a clarification that they can't join even if the Infiltrate special rule is not being used.
Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:
Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.
A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.
As others have stated; This is specifying a one way relationship... HOWEVER you were CORRECT to bring it up... it does make the FAQ that I posted kind of an eye brow raiser. Hopefully in the final draft they clean up these somewhat conflicting FAQs.
For 90% of players yes...but...there are many who treat the game competitively and don't play against just their friends. The people who try really hard to win at local/bigger tourneys. To them you have to imagine as is if there is money on the line, as if they gambled $10 grand on the game (who knows think of it as the amount of time/money they spent on their army).
Imagine if someone bet on a football or baseball game 10 grand...and the ref made a bad call or got a rule wrong and they lost the game. And their 10 grand.
That is how competitive players feel about the game (passionately) and why they want the rules to be clear.
And I think all of us have a little competitive spirit in us. Even in a friendly game there are moments where I get frustrated when things aren't going according to plan and people are double checking rules.
It's not about there being something on the line... For me, it's just irritating having to stop in the middle of the game to figure out how something is supposed to work, That's valuable game time a-wasting.
That doesn't necessarily require rules to be written like a legal document, but if they're written the way GW writes rules, then they at least need to be supported and clarified. Hence why the lack of FAQ support from GW for so long has been so annoying for so many players.
ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?
hmm so lets look at the two FAQs that I think are relevant.
Q: Does a unit that is embarked in a Scout vehicle count as having made a Scout move? A: Yes.
Ok so this guy first. Scout is a redeploy and is not movement as per the brb as it stands prior to the FAQ. So this I don't even know how could be abused.. maybe scout vehicle.. guys inside scout the vehicle again? that seems ridiculous.. but in either case this just clarifies that if the vehicle makes the scout redeploy, that the men inside also count as having done that.
Q: If you Infiltrate a unit of Pathfinders from a Ranged Support Cadre and then move them via their Scout special rule, does the unit count as having moved from their starting loc A: yes
Interesting, so this pertains to the text summarized by "if the pathfinders move from there starting position for any reason or fire markerlights they lose shrouding". So this FAQ is clarifying that scout counts as having the model move from it's original position, but not necessarily 'move' as it counts in the movement phase. meaning scout removes shrouding.
So to summarize, in either case this is clarifying not an errata changing the text "redeploy" to "move (counts as having moved in the movement phase) ".
Big change I noticed is that now you dont HAVE to infiltrate if you have the infiltrate rule. Means that people like strike are not screwed lol.
Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn? A: Yes.
Shrike is good to go!
*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!
Excellent, you make sense, and now that I re-read it I 100% agree. Not a movement, just counts as not being in its original location, thus losing shrouded bonus. Glad you pointed that out.
SonsofVulkan wrote: Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"
I would say no based on the FAQ.
They haven't stated 100% yet but this question has been asked and they are still going to do book specific stuff separately over the next few months.
Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.
morganfreeman wrote: A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/
Yup, but seeing as how these are the reference used for the rulebook, I see no reason to pretend they 'forgot' about the rulebook. More likely than not, this is them going back and saying "oops, that wasn't worded how we'd like, let's just kill this argument definitively here and now."
morganfreeman wrote: A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/
Yup, but seeing as how these are the reference used for the rulebook, I see no reason to pretend they 'forgot' about the rulebook. More likely than not, this is them going back and saying "oops, that wasn't worded how we'd like, let's just kill this argument definitively here and now."
I wish they would admit their mistakes. If the BRBis wrong, according to their original intent, just say so, and release an errata. This whole bs of writing an FAQ that is the exact opposite of what the BRB says, and then pretending they were right all along, just sucks.
Well, it won't be long now, hopefully. I wonder how far they will comb through the grenade rants before they just give up and do it our way. Or will they just give up and say "screw you, grenade users! Buy 10 and use 1!" We'll know soon.
For 90% of players yes...but...there are many who treat the game competitively and don't play against just their friends. The people who try really hard to win at local/bigger tourneys. To them you have to imagine as is if there is money on the line, as if they gambled $10 grand on the game (who knows think of it as the amount of time/money they spent on their army).
Imagine if someone bet on a football or baseball game 10 grand...and the ref made a bad call or got a rule wrong and they lost the game. And their 10 grand.
That is how competitive players feel about the game (passionately) and why they want the rules to be clear.
And I think all of us have a little competitive spirit in us. Even in a friendly game there are moments where I get frustrated when things aren't going according to plan and people are double checking rules.
It's not about there being something on the line... For me, it's just irritating having to stop in the middle of the game to figure out how something is supposed to work, That's valuable game time a-wasting.
That doesn't necessarily require rules to be written like a legal document, but if they're written the way GW writes rules, then they at least need to be supported and clarified. Hence why the lack of FAQ support from GW for so long has been so annoying for so many players.
Again yes and no - GW was remiss to a huge extent in not releasing faqs - but as soon as they do - people immediately look at the exact word structure and tense to see if they can twist and exploit................ Look at all the stuff about what is or is not movement on this thread,,,,,,,,,,
They would be better off but from just my experience the folks that try to exploit also argue why they are right to death as if by arguing why makes it any better. That's just what I've run ijto and thankfully it been maybe three people over the course of 10+ years.
Back to the FAQ though, I've snagged most of the contested or unclear things that people are debating condensed them down with examples and posted them in the corresponding FAQ pages. Hopefully this gets things straightened out and we can all spend more time playing than pouring over text.
morganfreeman wrote: A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/
Yup, but seeing as how these are the reference used for the rulebook, I see no reason to pretend they 'forgot' about the rulebook. More likely than not, this is them going back and saying "oops, that wasn't worded how we'd like, let's just kill this argument definitively here and now."
I wish they would admit their mistakes. If the BRBis wrong, according to their original intent, just say so, and release an errata. This whole bs of writing an FAQ that is the exact opposite of what the BRB says, and then pretending they were right all along, just sucks.
Well, it won't be long now, hopefully. I wonder how far they will comb through the grenade rants before they just give up and do it our way. Or will they just give up and say "screw you, grenade users! Buy 10 and use 1!" We'll know soon.
UHH....
WHAT?
They have never said/claimed to be right all along, or anything else you've said. Furthermore, why do they need to say they are wrong? Why is that important to you? We have the FAq - we know what we can and can't do.
That's all we've wanted. But now you want to come along and 'rules-shame' them for clarifying intent or grammar structure?
That really sounds like your problem, and I think it should stay that way. After all, why the hell would they reverse the grenade change just because we all have been playing it wrong? What kind of crazy entitlement is that? If that is what they originally meant, so be it. Eat your cereal and be a big kid. My main army is Blood Angels, I also play normal marines and Tempestus Scions. If anybody was shafted by this clarification it was me but you don't hear me crying do you?
Play the game. Have fun.
Neronoxx wrote: Furthermore, why do they need to say they are wrong?
Clarity, mostly.
When they change a rule in an FAQ without any explanation for the change, we're all left wondering if the FAQ answer is a mistake, if the original rule was a mistake, or if the rule was written as originally intended but some reason had cropped up since then for changing how it worked.
SonsofVulkan wrote: Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"
I would say no based on the FAQ.
They haven't stated 100% yet but this question has been asked and they are still going to do book specific stuff separately over the next few months.
Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.
This and the spyder model versus the spyder unit rule.
Aside from the fact that the FAQ actually agrees with me on a lot of things (only 1 grenade per phase, including assault phase), no rerolling blast templates because of PE, etc. (though I am still dumbfounded by the Gets Hot! ruling), I also wish to note:
In answer to one of the questions, they actually prefaced the answer with: "Ok, we actually have to use a little common sense here."
So, for the people who frequent the You Make Da Call subforum:
GW agrees with me. They are assuming that you are using basic common sense when you interpret the rules.
Traditio wrote: Aside from the fact that the FAQ actually agrees with me on a lot of things (only 1 grenade per phase, including assault phase), no rerolling blast templates because of PE, etc. (though I am still dumbfounded by the Gets Hot! ruling), I also wish to note:
In answer to one of the questions, they actually prefaced the answer with: "Ok, we actually have to use a little common sense here."
So, for the people who frequent the You Make Da Call subforum:
GW agrees with me. They are assuming that you are using basic common sense when you interpret the rules.
Cool. Broken clocks are right at least twice a day too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.
That's how I was playing it even before the FAQ. That's why I don't like playing against armored lists. "But tactical marines all have krak grenades!" rings hollow when you can only use one per assault phase.
I think that's part of the disparity between my opinion of armored lists and other peoples' opinions. LRBT probably don't seem tough when 5 marines can krak them per assault phase. They seem much tougher when only 1 can.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.
That's how I was playing it even before the FAQ. That's why I don't like playing against armored lists. "But tactical marines all have krak grenades!" rings hollow when you can only use one per assault phase.
I think that's part of the disparity between my opinion of armored lists and other peoples' opinions. LRBT probably don't seem tough when 5 marines can krak them per assault phase. They seem much tougher when only 1 can.
also makes that melta bomb a much more tempting offer eh
Formosa wrote:also makes that melta bomb a much more tempting offer eh
Yes. Even with meltabombs, though. What's the likelihood of charging that LRBT, getting sarge in unharmed, rolling a 3 to hit, a cumulative 2 to pen and then a 5+ on the vehicle damage table?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.
That's how I was playing it even before the FAQ. That's why I don't like playing against armored lists. "But tactical marines all have krak grenades!" rings hollow when you can only use one per assault phase.
You would literally be the only person I've ever heard of playing it that way before this FAQ, from 3E's release in 1998 all the way up through May 2016.
I think that's part of the disparity between my opinion of armored lists and other peoples' opinions. LRBT probably don't seem tough when 5 marines can krak them per assault phase. They seem much tougher when only 1 can.
Absolutely, though to be fair, the HP system made them wayyyyy too easy to kill, though I don't think that's the reason for this change.
Formosa wrote:also makes that melta bomb a much more tempting offer eh
Yes. Even with meltabombs, though. What's the likelihood of charging that LRBT, getting sarge in unharmed, rolling a 3 to hit, a cumulative 2 to pen and then a 5+ on the vehicle damage table?
Vaktathi wrote:You would literally be the only person I've ever heard of playing it that way before this FAQ, from 3E's release in 1998 all the way up through May 2016.
I think I played it the common way once or twice, a few times at most, because my opponents claimed that this is the way that it worked.
I then checked the rulebook, saw the "throw one grenade per phase" rule, thought "Oh, this clearly applies to the assault phase too," and then proceeded to use one grenade per phase in all subsequent games That's why my assault squads and my non-stationary tactical squads have meltabombs. Because 1 krak grenade just doesn't cut it.
A little better than one in five.
That's just rolling to hit, pen and explode.
2/3 X 35/36 X 1/3 = 70/324 = 35/162
That's a little better than 1 in 5.
My concern is getting sarge there in the first place.
Vaktathi wrote:You would literally be the only person I've ever heard of playing it that way before this FAQ, from 3E's release in 1998 all the way up through May 2016.
I think I played it the common way once or twice, a few times at most, because my opponents claimed that this is the way that it worked.
I then checked the rulebook, saw the "throw one grenade per phase" rule, thought "Oh, this clearly applies to the assault phase too," and then proceeded to use one grenade per phase in all subsequent games That's why my assault squads and my non-stationary tactical squads have meltabombs. Because 1 krak grenade just doesn't cut it.
I think the big thing here was "throw", people didn't really think of using Krak grenades as "throwing" them, it didn't make sense within the context of the assault phase, and every previous edition allowed full use of grenades in the assault phase.
niv-mizzet wrote: Iirc, it also said "may throw as a shooting attack," making at least me think that the throwing part was only relevant to shooting them.
It never said anything about "throwing" in the melee part.
I think this one might be reconsidered in the final draft. We'll have to see.
I'm hoping that they reconsider the Gets Hot FAQ. The BRB clearly allows you to use PE and other things like that to let you reroll gets hot. And it makes sense for it to do so. Normally, Gets Hot and the to-hit roll are the same thing. Blast weapons don't roll to hit; that's why you roll for Gets Hot separately. But that would normally be your to hit roll.
Why should I be able to reroll gets hot for plasma guns, but not for plasma cannons, if I am using, say, the tactical or devastator doctrines?
niv-mizzet wrote: Iirc, it also said "may throw as a shooting attack," making at least me think that the throwing part was only relevant to shooting them.
It never said anything about "throwing" in the melee part.
I think this one might be reconsidered in the final draft. We'll have to see.
I'm hoping that they reconsider the Gets Hot FAQ. The BRB clearly allows you to use PE and other things like that to let you reroll gets hot. And it makes sense for it to do so. Normally, Gets Hot and the to-hit roll are the same thing. Blast weapons don't roll to hit; that's why you roll for Gets Hot separately. But that would normally be your to hit roll.
Why should I be able to reroll gets hot for plasma guns, but not for plasma cannons, if I am using, say, the tactical or devastator doctrines?
Indeed, it was answers like that one that make me think they had "all hands on deck" and some of the questions were handled by "the new guy" or something. You know, like the rules writer that was just hired a month or two ago. The one that if we were given the opportunity to talk to his manager in a different business, we'd get a "sorry he's new, let me fix that for you" correction.
Thus why I'm assuming that some of these might change in the final draft.
So, for the people who frequent the You Make Da Call subforum:
GW agrees with me. They are assuming that you are using basic common sense when you interpret the rules.
I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.
It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.
insaniak wrote:I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.
It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.
It would be a massive revelation to at least some people. At least some rules interpretations ultimately originate from grammar nazis trying to find loopholes.
Don't be a grammar nazi trying to exploit loopholes.
Play fair. Use common sense. Read the italics.
Try to get at the general sense of the passage as opposed to the minutiae of the wording.
That would probably put people more in the mindset of GW.
insaniak wrote:I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.
It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.
It would be a massive revelation to at least some people. At least some rules interpretations ultimately originate from grammar nazis trying to find loopholes.
Don't be a grammar nazi trying to exploit loopholes.
Play fair. Use common sense. Read the italics.
That would probably put people more in the mindset of GW.
The problem then is that sometimes GW turns around and rules that the RAW stands, no matter how silly or in direct contradiction to similar rules. They're so monstrously inconsistent that there's no good way to anticipate something much of the time.
Except common sense, despite its name, isn't a commonly shared thing. Different groups of people have different common sense.
To many, common sense would dictate you play by the rules how they are written and not to try and think if GW intended the exact opposite, unless the rules don't function as they are written.
Plus as can be seen in many of the FaQsGW will change rules that worked perfectly fine in the first place and say they actually intended it to be done differently.
Vaktathi wrote:The problem then is that sometimes GW turns around and rules that the RAW stands, no matter how silly or in direct contradiction to similar rules. They're so monstrously inconsistent that there's no good way to anticipate something much of the time.
I'm talking about RAW. RAW, there was nothing which specifically permitted blasts to reroll because of PE. You could try to read that into it, but it certainly wasn't obvious from the texts.
However, if you think about what PE is supposed to do, what the mechanics for a blast are, etc. and apply simple common sense, it's pretty obvious that you don't get a reroll. It would probably most likely occur to you that you would if you are a grammar nazi trying to rules lawyer a victory at a tournament. Why? Because a result of 1 can't show up on a scatter die. In order to pull off the opposite interpretation, the grammar naziism must begin.
And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Except common sense, despite its name, isn't a commonly shared thing. Different groups of people have different common sense.
To many, common sense would dictate you play by the rules how they are written and not to try and think if GW intended the exact opposite, unless the rules don't function as they are written.
Plus as can be seen in many of the FaQsGW will change rules that worked perfectly fine in the first place and say they actually intended it to be done differently.
Here's a criterion of common sense:
What if you had a week to read the rulebook (or just enough time to give it a thorough, fair reading, but not enough time to scrutinize every line and their interrelations) and then, all of a sudden, all of the rulebooks were burned.
Everyone has to play from their general understanding of how the game works and the justifications presented in italics.
That's probably how GW employees themselves play.
And again, I wish to reiterate:
For the most part, GW agreed with me. Common sense, as I understand it, basically prevailed throughout most of the FAQ.
insaniak wrote:I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.
It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.
It would be a massive revelation to at least some people. At least some rules interpretations ultimately originate from grammar nazis trying to find loopholes.
Don't be a grammar nazi trying to exploit loopholes.
Play fair. Use common sense. Read the italics.
Try to get at the general sense of the passage as opposed to the minutiae of the wording.
That would probably put people more in the mindset of GW.
Common sense would dictate that one army codex wouldn't be monstrously better than the rest, or that they knew what they were saying when they said preferred enemy lets you reroll gets hot on blasts in the rulebook.
niv-mizzet wrote:Common sense would dictate that one army codex wouldn't be monstrously better than the rest, or that they knew what they were saying when they said preferred enemy lets you reroll gets hot on blasts in the rulebook.
And again, common sense is different among different groups of people.
And in that instance common sense would be to not play the game as you can't use a rulebook to check. Play on memory is hard enough as it is after 2 years of this edition, let alone only having a week to learn the rules.
Also note the FaQ isn't done yet and is still a draft (and as we've seen the draft itself had some major changes before it was released with whole answers being given the 180 treatment) so your common sense hasn't technically prevailed.
For the most part a lot of the changes are in line with what people thought, but many go against the rules, like the grenade thing. Just because you misread a section and happened to be 'right' doesn't mean you're some superior god-being.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.
The one I've always remembered was from way back at the beginning of 5th edition - the Deff Rolla (an Ork vehicle upgrade that inflicted D6 S10 AP- hits to a unit that it tank shocked). Someone asked YMDC whether Deff Rolla's bonus could be used against a vehicle that was rammed, since ramming was listed part and parcel of the tank shocking rules.
Oh boy was it contentious. There was a poll I recall being almost 50/50 split on the issue. There was much name calling and shouts of "rules lawyer!" and "WAAC jerk!" and "TFG! TFG! TFG!"
This carried on for a while. Both sides argued that the other side wasn't employing common sense. On the "Allow" side, it was common sense that ramming and tank shock were the same action, so that it was only natural that the Deff Rolla would be used during a Ramming attempt. On the "Prevent" side, it was common sense that the combination was never intended by the authors because giving a unit multiple S10 attacks was unheard of and obviously unfair and un-fun.
Both sides used rules-arguments, fluff-argument, and everything in between to try to prove their point. In the end, no consensus was ever reached (with both sides walking away feeling that the other side was a bunch of cheating losers trying to twist the rules to their own advantage) until finally GW released an FAQ coming down on the Allow side.
Took a while for the dust to settle on that one, believe me.
Point being, "common sense" is not some universal truth that everyone instinctively knows, and not everyone who disagrees with "your" (not directed at anyone) interpretation of something is out to deceive and defraud you.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And again, common sense is different among different groups of people.
And in that instance common sense would be to not play the game as you can't use a rulebook to check. Play on memory is hard enough as it is after 2 years of this edition, let alone only having a week to learn the rules.
Also note the FaQ isn't done yet and is still a draft (and as we've seen the draft itself had some major changes before it was released with whole answers being given the 180 treatment) so your common sense hasn't technically prevailed.
For the most part a lot of the changes are in line with what people thought, but many go against the rules, like the grenade thing. Just because you misread a section and happened to be 'right' doesn't mean you're some superior god-being.
I suppose we have no choice but to wait until the official FAQ is out.
I strongly suspect that common sense will prevail, at least, for the most part.
What if you had a week to read the rulebook (or just enough time to give it a thorough, fair reading, but not enough time to scrutinize every line and their interrelations) and then, all of a sudden, all of the rulebooks were burned.
Everyone has to play from their general understanding of how the game works and the justifications presented in italics.
That isn't "common sense" it's "try to play a ridiculously complicated game with half-remembered rules and make up most of it as you go along because you can't remember what the rule was supposed to be." Or "it worked that way back in 4th edition, and I forgot we changed the rule in 6th". Or a great many alternatives that have nothing to do with any conventional definition of "common sense".
That's probably how GW employees themselves play.
Of course they do, but this is not a good thing. It's yet another example of GW's incompetence at writing and developing rules.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And again, common sense is different among different groups of people.
And in that instance common sense would be to not play the game as you can't use a rulebook to check. Play on memory is hard enough as it is after 2 years of this edition, let alone only having a week to learn the rules.
Also note the FaQ isn't done yet and is still a draft (and as we've seen the draft itself had some major changes before it was released with whole answers being given the 180 treatment) so your common sense hasn't technically prevailed.
For the most part a lot of the changes are in line with what people thought, but many go against the rules, like the grenade thing. Just because you misread a section and happened to be 'right' doesn't mean you're some superior god-being.
I suppose we have no choice but to wait until the official FAQ is out.
I strongly suspect that common sense will prevail, at least, for the most part.
And for the nth time common sense isn't common, different groups have different common sense.
So saying common sense will prevail is like saying the sky is blue. No matter the out come, common sense will win. It might not be your or mine though, but rather that of an underpaid intern who has no idea what they are doing.
Peregrine wrote:That isn't "common sense" it's "try to play a ridiculously complicated game with half-remembered rules and make up most of it as you go along because you can't remember what the rule was supposed to be."
For the most part, it's not that complicated, if you make the following assumption:
The rules are basically supposed to make sense.
It makes absolutely no sense that someone driving a skimmer can make fancy dodge moves when his skimmer can't move.
It makes absolutely no sense that you can reroll a 1 on a die that doesn't even have a 1 on it.
It makes absolutely no sense that cover be granted to an MC because it has its big toe at the very edge of a forest.
If you combine the "it's supposed to make sense" rule with the "read the italics rule" with "no grammar naziism," the rules become a lot more simple.
Of course they do, but this is not a good thing. It's yet another example of GW's incompetence at writing and developing rules.
Or maybe it's symptomatic of the variance between the product that GW is intending to sell and their intended target audience, on the one hand, and the product that at least some customers are expecting to receive.
But this is a dead horse that I've already beaten enough.
As I said before: I await eagerly the official FAQ, which, I strongly suspect, will vindicate many of my expressed opinions and provide me with all the bragging rights and smug satisfaction that comes with it.
Neronoxx wrote: Furthermore, why do they need to say they are wrong?
Clarity, mostly.
When they change a rule in an FAQ without any explanation for the change, we're all left wondering if the FAQ answer is a mistake, if the original rule was a mistake, or if the rule was written as originally intended but some reason had cropped up since then for changing how it worked.
This exactly. If the BRB says YES, and the FAQ says NO, which is it? If an ERRATA said NO, we would have an unambiguous answer.
Traditio wrote: For the most part, it's not that complicated, if you make the following assumption:
No, 40k is incredibly complicated. Have you seen the 40k rulebook lately? In sheer page count it's way beyond what most games have.
The rules are basically supposed to make sense.
Except when they don't make sense. Why does a model with one fingertip poking out from a behind a wall get the same cover save as a model that is visible from the waist up? It doesn't make sense, but that's indisputably what the rule is.
But besides that you're missing the point. You suggested writing FAQs as if you read the rulebook once and then threw it away, I pointed out that the inevitable outcome of that is forgotten rules, not "common sense" rules. Trying to play 40k from memory like that is inevitably going to result in mistakes about things that are not controversial at all: forgetting how many attacks a model has on its profile, using the old 5th edition vehicle damage table instead of the 7th edition table, etc. You definition of "common sense" is the exact opposite of common sense!
Or maybe it's symptomatic of the variance between the product that GW is intending to sell and their intended target audience, on the one hand, and the product that at least some customers are expecting to receive.
Nope. GW's rules are garbage no matter what the target audience is, unless you assume that the target audience is "billionaire masochists who love wasting money on badly-designed products". It's incompetent game design no matter how you look at it.
As I said before: I await eagerly the official FAQ, which, I strongly suspect, will vindicate many of my expressed opinions and provide me with all the bragging rights and smug satisfaction that comes with it.
I have no doubt that it will make you smug about your opinions, but that doesn't make them right. It just means that GW issued a bad ruling, like many bad rulings before it.
Yes, and no. The rules are supposed to simulate a battle using static models. As such, many things are represented by abstracts that don't actually make a lot of real world sense.
For example, it makes no sense that the guy closest to the enemy is always the first guy to catch a bullet. It makes no sense that no other squadmember can pick up the melta gun when the guy holding it dies. It makes no sense that a guy counts as being in cover for having a toe on a terrain piece (and less sense that this would apply to some models and not others...).
And yet all of those things are played exactly as written, regardless of the fact that common sense would tell us to play them otherwise.
Looking at which interpretation of an unclear rule makes the most sense is a handy way for players to pick one or the other for their own games. It's absolutely useless for determining which one is 'correct'.
Yes, and no. The rules are supposed to simulate a battle using static models. As such, many things are represented by abstracts that don't actually make a lot of real world sense.
For example, it makes no sense that the guy closest to the enemy is always the first guy to catch a bullet. It makes no sense that no other squadmember can pick up the melta gun when the guy holding it dies. It makes no sense that a guy counts as being in cover for having a toe on a terrain piece (and less sense that this would apply to some models and not others...).
And yet all of those things are played exactly as written, regardless of the fact that common sense would tell us to play them otherwise.
Looking at which interpretation of an unclear rule makes the most sense is a handy way for players to pick one or the other for their own games. It's absolutely useless for determining which one is 'correct'.
Or the biggie, it makes no sense that my army stands around with their thumbs up their rear ends letting the entire enemy army unload on them until half of them are dead before returning fire.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.
The one I've always remembered was from way back at the beginning of 5th edition - the Deff Rolla (an Ork vehicle upgrade that inflicted D6 S10 AP- hits to a unit that it tank shocked). Someone asked YMDC whether Deff Rolla's bonus could be used against a vehicle that was rammed, since ramming was listed part and parcel of the tank shocking rules.
Oh boy was it contentious. There was a poll I recall being almost 50/50 split on the issue. There was much name calling and shouts of "rules lawyer!" and "WAAC jerk!" and "TFG! TFG! TFG!"
This carried on for a while. Both sides argued that the other side wasn't employing common sense. On the "Allow" side, it was common sense that ramming and tank shock were the same action, so that it was only natural that the Deff Rolla would be used during a Ramming attempt. On the "Prevent" side, it was common sense that the combination was never intended by the authors because giving a unit multiple S10 attacks was unheard of and obviously unfair and un-fun.
Both sides used rules-arguments, fluff-argument, and everything in between to try to prove their point. In the end, no consensus was ever reached (with both sides walking away feeling that the other side was a bunch of cheating losers trying to twist the rules to their own advantage) until finally GW released an FAQ coming down on the Allow side.
Took a while for the dust to settle on that one, believe me.
Point being, "common sense" is not some universal truth that everyone instinctively knows, and not everyone who disagrees with "your" (not directed at anyone) interpretation of something is out to deceive and defraud you.
I remember that well and in the end my faction easily won out. Even the FAQ mocked the people who didn't think a Ram was a type of Tank Shock in wording and tone. But the deniers were still heard since the biggest Nerf in the current codex is the current Deff Rolla which exactly 0.00% of people use now so I guess the naysayers won out after all. Because Orks are so OP. And as far as the one grenade per assault phase, that also hurts Orks more than any other army. It's 2016. There should be a constant open dialogue between consumer and creator and monthly or bi-monthly updates. That would only help GW sales in the end.
GW makes so many bizarre decisions though. How is a Gorkanaught a non-SHV and the Wraithknight is a GMC?!? They're practically the same cost!
SonsofVulkan wrote: Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"
Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.
This and the spyder model versus the spyder unit rule.
hi there, could someone clarify what this exactly means? i neither play necrons nor space marines, so what you guys just wrote could have been in chinese for all i care
however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no
so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation
We'll have to see if it's in the codex-specific FAQs, but I don't really think upgrading a captain to a chapter master is the same as exchanging a tank commander for Pask. That would be more like exchanging a captain for Pedro Kantor. Chapter Master is an upgrade available to the Captain. Pedro Kantor is a completely separate model with completely different rules.
however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no
so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation
I absolutely disagree.
Pask is a named, unique character upgrade.
The Chaptermaster is more like an Apothecary - he's a generic guy replacing the Captain model in a Captain unit, just like the Apothecary does with a Veteran model in a Command Squad unit.
The entire argument whether or not a Chaptermaster is a valid choice or not was entirely based on balance concerns, the rules as written never supported anything but "yeah take him"
Q: Can I upgrade an HQ choice to a Unique character in a specific Formation? For example, the ‘Emperor’s Fist’ Armoured Company Formation mentions you must take a Tank Commander; can that Tank Commander be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask?
A: No.
however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no
so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation
I absolutely disagree.
Pask is a named, unique character upgrade.
The Chaptermaster is more like an Apothecary - he's a generic guy replacing the Captain model in a Captain unit, just like the Apothecary does with a Veteran model in a Command Squad unit.
The entire argument whether or not a Chaptermaster is a valid choice or not was entirely based on balance concerns, the rules as written never supported anything but "yeah take him"
Q: Can I upgrade an HQ choice to a Unique character in a specific Formation? For example, the ‘Emperor’s Fist’ Armoured Company Formation mentions you must take a Tank Commander; can that Tank Commander be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask?
A: No.
You do realize pask is not a seperate special character datasheet.
He is literally an upgrade option for the tank commander on the tank commanders datasheet.
The chapter master is a completely different datasheet.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: No, Chapter Masters and Captains share the same Datasheet/Army List Entry.
They are an upgrade to Captains.
The problems stem from the fact that when GW say "1 Captain" they could mean "1 Captain (Datasheet)" or "1 Captain (Model)"
Well if you saw the Skitt and Mech FAQ, they said "1 Dunecrawler" was not a unit.. it was specifically the model. So I am thinking that they mean the Captain model there as well.. We will see soon though!
SonsofVulkan wrote: Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"
Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.
This and the spyder model versus the spyder unit rule.
hi there, could someone clarify what this exactly means? i neither play necrons nor space marines, so what you guys just wrote could have been in chinese for all i care
There was a debate on the Canoptek Harvest Formation where it says 1 Spyder, 1 unit of Wraiths, 1 unit of scarabs. Some people were claiming that the Spyder was able to be upgraded to 3 spyders since Formations only list "units" and purchasing additional Spyders is part of that unit options. The FAQ states that formations can also list "models", so the Harvest can only have 1 Spyder.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: No, Chapter Masters and Captains share the same Datasheet/Army List Entry.
They are an upgrade to Captains.
The problems stem from the fact that when GW say "1 Captain" they could mean "1 Captain (Datasheet)" or "1 Captain (Model)"
Well if you saw the Skitt and Mech FAQ, they said "1 Dunecrawler" was not a unit.. it was specifically the model. So I am thinking that they mean the Captain model there as well.. We will see soon though!
That's not what was said in the Skitarii and Mechanicus FAQ.
Cult Mechanicus FAQ First Draft wrote:Q: The Dominus Maniple Formation lists ‘1 Onager Dunecrawler’ as part of the Formation. Does this mean one unit or one model? For example, can I have a full unit of 3 Onager Dunecrawlers in this formation?
A: It means one Onager Dunecrawler model.
Skitarii FAQ First Draft wrote:Q: The Dominus Maniple Formation lists ‘1 Onager Dunecrawler’ as part of the Formation. Can additional Onager Dunecrawlers be purchased for this unit?
A: No. The Formation entry is not for a unit of Onager Dunecrawlers, but a single model.
The Dominus Maniple Formation lists "One(1) Onager Dunecrawler".
This is what should be common sense, but people have been arguing the ridiculous "A model can be upgraded to a unit, thus 1 becomes multiples" line for a long time because of the Necron Tomb Spyder nonsense.
however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no
so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation
I absolutely disagree.
Pask is a named, unique character upgrade.
The Chaptermaster is more like an Apothecary - he's a generic guy replacing the Captain model in a Captain unit, just like the Apothecary does with a Veteran model in a Command Squad unit.
The entire argument whether or not a Chaptermaster is a valid choice or not was entirely based on balance concerns, the rules as written never supported anything but "yeah take him"
Q: Can I upgrade an HQ choice to a Unique character in a specific Formation? For example, the ‘Emperor’s Fist’ Armoured Company Formation mentions you must take a Tank Commander; can that Tank Commander be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask?
A: No.
You do realize pask is not a seperate special character datasheet.
He is literally an upgrade option for the tank commander on the tank commanders datasheet.
One Tank Commander may be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask for 40pts.
KC Pask has his very own Datasheet in the current Codex: Astra Militarum, and that Datasheet tells you that he is a Character and Unique. A "unique character", therefore - and that's what the FAQ entry is all about.
The chapter master is a completely different datasheet.
I'm not happy at all about Jinking transports causing their units to fire Snap Shots. It's a major kick in the nads to my Raider-based DE army. Oh well, I'll really have to stick to cover now.
Other than that, I'm all for clarifications. I'll do the DE thing and draw some satisfaction from the fact that some other things were nerfed as well.
Requizen wrote: Only really WAAC jerks played it as a unit. Everyone basically unanimously agreed it was supposed to be 1 model. Harvests were still good anyway.
Nah, the optimised way to play a Canoptek Harvest is to MSU spam it. Adding more Spyders is mostly good for fluffier lists with Scarab farms.
Requizen wrote: Only really WAAC jerks played it as a unit. Everyone basically unanimously agreed it was supposed to be 1 model. Harvests were still good anyway.
Nah, the optimised way to play a Canoptek Harvest is to MSU spam it. Adding more Spyders is mostly good for fluffier lists with Scarab farms.
Eh, I've never really been on that page. MSU is great and all, but Scarabs start to become a bit of a liability when you have that many min units, they're pretty expensive all things considered.
ShaneTB wrote:FWFAQs will come after the next IA book is out and done.
Requizen wrote: Only really WAAC jerks played it as a unit. Everyone basically unanimously agreed it was supposed to be 1 model. Harvests were still good anyway.
Nah, the optimised way to play a Canoptek Harvest is to MSU spam it. Adding more Spyders is mostly good for fluffier lists with Scarab farms.
Eh, I've never really been on that page. MSU is great and all, but Scarabs start to become a bit of a liability when you have that many min units, they're pretty expensive all things considered.
ShaneTB wrote:FWFAQs will come after the next IA book is out and done.
Yes. They were asked at the seminar. They said they have to be project focused. So once this next IA book is done, they'll need to make the FAQs a project.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, to clarify, what did they say their FAQs will cover? IA12 is still broken since Necron update, will they FAQ it or just leave until new version?
dan2026 wrote: Did people really play every model in a unit can throw a grenade? Even though the rulebook already states only one model can throw one.
No, people played that one model could throw a grenade, but everyone in the unit could use them in close combat.
Because for some reason, there's a difference.
If it helps explain things, the 6th ed rulebook specified only one per shooting phase, where the 7th says in any phase.
So those of use who were using everyone in the squad in CC might have just been on cruise control from previous editions. It’s those subtle rules changes that are the hardest on older players.
Edit: I was having this same discussion over e-mail with some friends and actually copied the relevant rules, thought I’d c/p them here.
I did a little historical research on the grenade issue. In the 6th edition rulebook, pg 61, it states:
Some grenades can be used in both the Shooting phase and the Assault phase, albeit to different effect. Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per Shooting phase.
(Bolding theirs)
The 7th edition rulebook states on pg, 180:
Some grenades can be used to make shooting attacks or attacks in the Fight sub-phase, albeit to different effect. Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase.
(Bolding, again, theirs)
It looks like we may have been playing it wrong for the duration of 7th. The 6th edition clearly states the restriction is only in the shooting phase, but the 7th wording seems to cover all the time. You could make arguments that in CC you are not throwing, but clamping them onto the hulls of tanks, etc. But I think the FAQ is the proper one, regarding the RAW.
I think the rule should be reset back to 6th, as it is silly for the whole squad to take a smoke break while Bob chucks the krack grenade, when they all have them. But that would be errata, not a FAQ.
dan2026 wrote: Did people really play every model in a unit can throw a grenade?
Even though the rulebook already states only one model can throw one.
No, people played that one model could throw a grenade, but everyone in the unit could use them in close combat.
Because for some reason, there's a difference.
because in cc they are punching meachines and people with them and not throwing them, world of dofference lol. A couple pages back people aaid that they stuck them in tanks holes then stood there well they went off.
pretre wrote: New Draft FAQS up for Adepta, Inq, Assassins and MT.
Culexus just got a boost against stuff like the Seer Council or Librarius Conclave. Glad I decided to pick one up. Overall, nothing I have many objections to here.
zerosignal wrote: The 'once per phase' clarification is to allow you to throw a grenade in overwatch.
Hmm, they didn't mention overwatch in the faq, I think it was mostly to clarify using them in the assault phase:
Q: Using grenades in the Assault phase. Can every model replace their close combat attacks with a single grenade attack or just one model in the unit? Like in the Shooting phase e.g. a unit of 5 Tau Pathfinders charge a Knight. Do 5 Pathfinders make close combat haywire grenade attacks?
A: Only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the Assault phase. Per Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, ‘Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase’.
Kanluwen wrote: Really not too pleased with the whole "A character can only have one Relic" decision.
That wrecks my Raptor Captain with Ex Tenebris and Armour of Shadows or the other Captain with Raven's Fury and Swiftstrike and Murder.
Yeah, Murderwings being gone sucks a lot. I didn't get hit by it, but I would actually like to give the Spartean to my Librarian with the Bones of Osrak. Nothing broken at all, I just have some extra points and the Spartean is a neat relic for 5 pts.
pretre wrote: New Draft FAQS up for Adepta, Inq, Assassins and MT.
What is funny is that the team asks for questions to be CONSICES and English. Funny why should we concise when they can't do it themselves? LOL double standard eh?
Kanluwen wrote: Really not too pleased with the whole "A character can only have one Relic" decision.
That wrecks my Raptor Captain with Ex Tenebris and Armour of Shadows or the other Captain with Raven's Fury and Swiftstrike and Murder.
I am. Orks are specifically prohibited from taking 2 by their codex. It's nice there every else gets limited the same way we are.
Necrons were the same way, though I think Mephrit Dynasty specifically allows one from each least. I always assumed all codices limited you to one artifact.
pretre wrote: New Draft FAQS up for Adepta, Inq, Assassins and MT.
What is funny is that the team asks for questions to be CONSICES and English. Funny why should we concise when they can't do it themselves? LOL double standard eh?
pretre wrote: New Draft FAQS up for Adepta, Inq, Assassins and MT.
Culexus just got a boost against stuff like the Seer Council or Librarius Conclave. Glad I decided to pick one up. Overall, nothing I have many objections to here.
I think he lost a lot more by his aura not being able to be projected from inside a transport or from being able to affect units in transports.
pretre wrote: New Draft FAQS up for Adepta, Inq, Assassins and MT.
Culexus just got a boost against stuff like the Seer Council or Librarius Conclave. Glad I decided to pick one up. Overall, nothing I have many objections to here.
I think he lost a lot more by his aura not being able to be projected from inside a transport or from being able to affect units in transports.
Probably never should have been able to in the first place. I never played it as such.
Funny, there was a heated debate when gsc came out with the 2 sides saying they were either battle brothers or co.d the apocalypse. Apparently games workshop just split the difference.
It is still a draft, so if people leave feedback (properly, do it constructively, don't be a dick about it like I've already seen on there) on the Facebook page it might be changed in the final FAQ. I don't see any reason they shouldn't be BB.
Maybe the idea is that the cult isn't an integral part of the Hive Organism and has no effective means of communicating with, or being directed by the Hive Mind or any of the creatures from the Hivefleet proper? Haven't read much Tyranid or GSC fluff in a dog's age, so maybe I'm wrong on that.
Why is everyone so broken up about it? Sure, it sucks that you can't pull some of the BB shenanigans, but Nids finally have an Ally with useful stuff that doesn't have to worry about deployment crap and can be used at events that don't allow CtA. I love bringing AoC allies with my Necrons. And the Cult units aren't that bad at all, those cheap troops with half range Lascannons are pretty solid.
The only thing that realy bother is the part about the psyhic power who could not be cast on tyranids or tyranids power who will not be able to cast on the genestealer cult, it's weird they could not help each other.... and don't help to play them rather than only tyranids.
To my mind i don't think it was gw first intend.
gigasnail wrote: yeah and SW and DA and GK and the inquisition are all battle brothers. don't try to justify this with fluff.
All those chapters are loyal members of the imperium who would die for it. What's your point?
The fact of the matter is that GSC are not tyranids. The very fact that you CAN ally should be reassuring alone, but no, you want to eat the cake too.
If GSC were to be Battle Brothers with Tyranids, it could potentially kill a great many future options for us. For example, we would know that they weren't getting Dedicated Transports, because GW obviously doesnt believe nids can drive.
Instead we got AoC, which in my opinion works just fine without having weird things like Tyranid Primes leading cultist squads. Cuz, you know that would happen.
gigasnail wrote: yeah and SW and DA and GK and the inquisition are all battle brothers. don't try to justify this with fluff.
All those chapters are loyal members of the imperium who would die for it. What's your point?
The fact of the matter is that GSC are not tyranids. The very fact that you CAN ally should be reassuring alone, but no, you want to eat the cake too.
If GSC were to be Battle Brothers with Tyranids, it could potentially kill a great many future options for us. For example, we would know that they weren't getting Dedicated Transports, because GW obviously doesnt believe nids can drive.
Instead we got AoC, which in my opinion works just fine without having weird things like Tyranid Primes leading cultist squads. Cuz, you know that would happen.
But that would happen, the cults destabilise the government's etc. Then when the hive arrives they come out of hiding to attack. The patriarchs are there purely to summon hive tendrils.
They even have some of the exact same units in both lists, there's little reason they shouldn't function as battle brothers, fluff or rules wise.
gigasnail wrote: yeah and SW and DA and GK and the inquisition are all battle brothers. don't try to justify this with fluff.
All those chapters are loyal members of the imperium who would die for it. What's your point?
The fact of the matter is that GSC are not tyranids. The very fact that you CAN ally should be reassuring alone, but no, you want to eat the cake too.
If GSC were to be Battle Brothers with Tyranids, it could potentially kill a great many future options for us. For example, we would know that they weren't getting Dedicated Transports, because GW obviously doesnt believe nids can drive.
Instead we got AoC, which in my opinion works just fine without having weird things like Tyranid Primes leading cultist squads. Cuz, you know that would happen.
annnd all of the factions i listed have long standing grudges and hate each other and realllly don't work together well but are still BB is my point. but w/e.
So for two months GW led Tyranid players to believe they could BB with Genestealer Cult, as per the wording in the White Dwarf would suggest. People bought the crap (and the models). Now we're suddenly AoC, can't cast Invisibility on Tyranid units (nerf) can't join GSC characters to Tyranid units (big nerf) and GSC can't infiltrate close to Tyranids as they counts as enemy models (HUGE nerf).
And from how it's worded, it seems 3pt Servo Skulls will continue to shut down the 600pts Ghosar formation. You get to keep your Infiltrate special rule (and the others). But you don't get a special permission to Infiltrate within 12" of Servo Skulls. Seeing how now you can't infiltrate within 18" from your own Tyranids either, I guess you're not infiltrating at all. What was the point of the formation again?
If I were trying to intentionally piss off and troll my customers, I could not do a better job than GW does with Tyranid players.
N.I.B. wrote: So for two months GW led Tyranid players to believe they could BB with Genestealer Cult, as per the wording in the White Dwarf would suggest. People bought the crap (and the models). Now we're suddenly AoC, can't cast Invisibility on Tyranid units (nerf) can't join GSC characters to Tyranid units (big nerf) and GSC can't infiltrate close to Tyranids as they counts as enemy models (HUGE nerf).
And from how it's worded, it seems 3pt Servo Skulls will continue to shut down the 600pts Ghosar formation. You get to keep your Infiltrate special rule (and the others). But you don't get a special permission to Infiltrate within 12" of Servo Skulls. Seeing how now you can't infiltrate within 18" from your own Tyranids either, I guess you're not infiltrating at all. What was the point of the formation again?
If I were trying to intentionally piss off and troll my customers, I could not do a better job than GW does with Tyranid players.
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
Yes apparently, because Tyranids are 'weak' and need it.
That's not even relevant. Like, really don't bring that up in the disguise of balance. GSC were not the 'fix' to the Tyranid codex and were never intended to be. Trying to blame GW for that seems irresponsible and childish, as if people need to find something to be mad at them for.
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
As per the FAQ, it asks whether the infiltration rule is negated by servo-skulls and the like.
The answer is a resounding "no." Not sure where people got the idea that was any different, but hey, reading comprehension isn't a requirement to posting.
Nevermind the fact people seemingly didn't partake at all in the original thread for DW where this was all discussed painstakingly and we already discovered AoC was what the fluff supported.
Nevermind the fact that people seem to (mistakenly) believe that a large number of people bought the game for any other reason than the fact the models were cool.
Nevermind the fact that 40k is a game about fluff. This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.'
TLDR Power Gamers are sad, Read the fluff, don't try and play the victim.
/rant
edited to not hurt feelings.
^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
N.I.B. wrote: So for two months GW led Tyranid players to believe they could BB with Genestealer Cult, as per the wording in the White Dwarf would suggest. People bought the crap (and the models). Now we're suddenly AoC, can't cast Invisibility on Tyranid units (nerf) can't join GSC characters to Tyranid units (big nerf) and GSC can't infiltrate close to Tyranids as they counts as enemy models (HUGE nerf).
And from how it's worded, it seems 3pt Servo Skulls will continue to shut down the 600pts Ghosar formation. You get to keep your Infiltrate special rule (and the others). But you don't get a special permission to Infiltrate within 12" of Servo Skulls. Seeing how now you can't infiltrate within 18" from your own Tyranids either, I guess you're not infiltrating at all. What was the point of the formation again?
If I were trying to intentionally piss off and troll my customers, I could not do a better job than GW does with Tyranid players.
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
Yes apparently, because Tyranids are 'weak' and need it.
That's not even relevant. Like, really don't bring that up in the disguise of balance. GSC were not the 'fix' to the Tyranid codex and were never intended to be. Trying to blame GW for that seems irresponsible and childish, as if you need to find something to be mad at them for.
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
As per the FAQ, it asks whether the infiltration rule is negated by servo-skulls and the like.
The answer is a resounding "no." Not sure where you got the idea that was any different, but hey, reading comprehension isn't a requirement to posting.
Nevermind the fact you seemingly didn't partake at all in the original thread for DW where this was all discussed painstakingly and we already discovered AoC was what the fluff supported.
Nevermind the fact that you seem to (mistakenly) believe that a large number of people bought the game for any other reason than the fact the models were cool.
Nevermind the fact that 40k is a game about fluff. This is a pparent the day you walk into the hobby. The runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.'
TLDR Power Gamers are sad, Read the fluff, dont try and play the victim.
/rant
The faction that literally includes Tyranid units(Genestealers and Broodlords-which they revere as their leader), isn't allowed to be Battle Brothers with Tyranids. This is not some power gaming complaint. They are Tyranids who aren't allowed to fully ally with Tyranids. It makes no sense. You're trying to say the army of half human/half Tyranid monsters wouldn't fall under synapse control, or at the least follow their Broodlord anyway? They're already trying to take over the world- the arrival of the Tyranids changes nothing. Just brings in reinforcements.
TheWaspinator wrote: I am opposed to any decision that does not allow hive tyrants to drive limousines.
After considering the consequences of loosing BB this was actually not neccessary to prevent 'Tyranid shenanigans'. They could just write some GC armywide special rules like Tyranids are not allowed to lead GC units, or Tyranids are not allowed to enter any of the GC transports. Another possibilty would be to add special rules to the GC vehicles, like they did with Space Marine Terminators and Rhinos.
Regarding explanations based on fluff, Tyranid creatures are digested after a battle too This is not something special to cult members.
By their DNA, the Genestealer Cult units (excluding the currently ruleswise non-existent Brood Brothers) are indeed Tyranids. We know the Patriarch is in some kind of contact with the Hive mind during his entire existence. And Genestealers - the start and the end of the Genestealer reproduction cycle - are without doubt Tyranids. Loosing BB does not make sense.
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
Yes apparently, because Tyranids are 'weak' and need it.
That's not even relevant. Like, really don't bring that up in the disguise of balance. GSC were not the 'fix' to the Tyranid codex and were never intended to be. Trying to blame GW for that seems irresponsible and childish, as if you need to find something to be mad at them for.
Hmm to be fair the Imperium DOES NOT CARE either - thats kinda the Grim Dark point?
They are quite happy to exterminatus the whole planet of defenders...............
If you can defend the fact that all Imperial forces are BB with each other than surely all Tryanid forces would also be - stands to reason? Be a bit like saying Blood Axes are not BB with Goffs, or Ulthwe are not with Iiyanden?
Up to the point that the FAQ was published there was not defintaive statement on their alliance status - so it has come as a surpirse to many - however no point in us getting upset here - People should ask polietly why this is the case on the Fb page.
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
The faction that literally includes Tyranid units(Genestealers and Broodlords-which they revere as their leader), isn't allowed to be Battle Brothers with Tyranids. This is not some power gaming complaint. They are Tyranids who aren't allowed to fully ally with Tyranids. It makes no sense. You're trying to say the army of half human/half Tyranid monsters wouldn't fall under synapse control, or at the least follow their Broodlord anyway? They're already trying to take over the world- the arrival of the Tyranids changes nothing. Just brings in reinforcements.
This is a power gaming complaint.
Seeing as how Genestealers, and their kin, are not subject to synapse. They are designed to exist without a Hive Mind presence.
So yes, I'm saying that " the army of half human/half Tyranid monsters wouldn't fall under synapse control, ..."
Following the Broodlord =/= following the Hive Mind.
Like I've said repeatedly, this isn't unnatural if you are familiar with the Tyranid lore.
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Maybe because be it Eldars or Dark Eldars, for them an Eldar is still an Eldar.
They're like cousins that doesn't like each other much if not at all, but when something goes wrong they are still familly, and rather goes against a common threat then watch the other get stomped or something liker that.
Now we all now that the allies matrix for somethings doesn't really reflect the fluff, because the 4 levels of friendship doesn't have enough subtelty, so for now you're either best buds, someone that you used to know, the redhead kid of the class or the outright ennemy.
Regarding explanations based on fluff, Tyranid creatures are digested after a battle too This is not something special to cult members.
By their DNA, the Genestealer Cult units (excluding the currently ruleswise non-existent Brood Brothers) are indeed Tyranids. We know the Patriarch is in some kind of contact with the Hive mind during his entire existence. And Genestealers - the start and the end of the Genestealer reproduction cycle - are without doubt Tyranids. Loosing BB does not make sense.
In the current codex Genestealers (at least the cult/vanguard ones) try to flee from the hive fleet, so when they fight alongside the Tyranids it's a battle between the hive mind's control and their instincts - AoC sounds right for me.
Fluffwise it makes some sense for the Tyranids to create creatures who avoid them and lead them to new feeding grounds over and over again. For the 'Stealers... well, I guess they have a good time on the planet before moving on to start again elsewhere. Kinda like rental nomads (and they leave a REAL mess behind).
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
Given that all hive organisms are expendible - no - remember they will use thousands of termaguants to merely consume a defenders ammunition so its not a relevant quesiton. Unless of course it suits the Hive Mind to support them in a given enclave or situtaiton.
A genestealer cult will be just part of a invasion - as shown in the fluff.............They will be directed to do whatever the hive mind tells them to do and will be more responsive (lack of free will) than imperial forces can be with infighitng, politics and just trying to survive.
I can't really see any fluff reason that the they would not be Battle Brothers when you compare them to other armies who do have it?
They are just another tendril to be conserved or/and expended as the need arises
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Maybe because be it Eldars or Dark Eldars, for them an Eldar is still an Eldar.
They're like cousins that doesn't like each other much if not at all, but when something goes wrong they are still familly, and rather goes against a common threat then watch the other get stomped or something liker that.
Now we all now that the allies matrix for somethings doesn't really reflect the fluff, because the 4 levels of friendship doesn't have enough subtelty, so for now you're either best buds, someone that you used to know, the redhead kid of the class or the outright ennemy.
And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.
I've never been of the opinion that the cult should be able to ally with the 'Nids. The 'Stealers might get a pass, but the 'Nids are just going to eat everything else.
You think a Ripper gives a damn if you're a Brood Brother or a Hybrid? Of course not. To it you're just food!
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that the cult should be able to ally with the 'Nids. The 'Stealers might get a pass, but the 'Nids are just going to eat everything else.
You think a Ripper gives a damn if you're a Brood Brother or a Hybrid? Of course not. To it you're just food!
Yes but all Tyranids are recylable food.............if a given Hive Fleet controls the Cult then it will act as directed, be expended and consumed along with all other organisms on the planet - save for the "special" genestealers.
A brood brother or a hybrid might be fighting the guard when the real nids turn up - however he or she won't stop and join the defenders just becuase they are being going to be (or indeed are being) eaten by the nids - because it has no free will to do so?
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
Until the two fleets merge............then they are one...........
Given that all hive organisms are expendible - no - remember they will use thousands of termaguants to merely consume a defenders ammunition so its not a relevant quesiton.
A genestealer cult will be just part of a invasion - as shown in the fluff.............They will be directed to do whatever the hive mind tells them to do and will be more responsive (lack of free will) than imperial forces can be with infighitng, politics and just trying to survive.
I can't really see any fluff reason that the they would not be Battle Brothers when you compare them to other armies who do have it?
They are just another tendril to be conserved or/and expended as the need arises
The Hive Mind may direct the cult, but that doesn't mean it regards them as allies. That's an entirely different statement altogether.
I'm not saying that other armies should be battle brothers. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm saying given the Battle Brother rules we have, and the examples we have, then it makes absolutely no sense at all that Genestealer Cults and Tyranids should be battle brothers. I don't personally believe Adeptus Mechanicus should be BB with a lot of armies, but also understand that GW didn't appear to want an 'Imperial ally chart' and a 'everyone-else ally chart.'
Stop trying to use the "But army a is BB with army B."
It doesn't factor into this argument.
One faction sees the other as tools that have a semi-permanent use of making an invasion easier, but are ultimately food. By the time the Tyranid Fleet has arrived, it's too late for either the Cult, or the Imperial forces on that planet. Barring serious obstacles, the Tyranids will immediately set upon the planet and devour everything on it.
That's no grounds for an alliance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that the cult should be able to ally with the 'Nids. The 'Stealers might get a pass, but the 'Nids are just going to eat everything else.
You think a Ripper gives a damn if you're a Brood Brother or a Hybrid? Of course not. To it you're just food!
Yes but all Tyranids are recylable food.............if a given Hive Fleet controls the Cult then it will act as directed, be expended and consumed along with all other organisms on the planet - save for the "special" genestealers.
A brood brother or a hybrid might be fighting the guard when the real nids turn up - however he or she won't stop and join the defenders just becuase they are being going to be (or indeed are being) eaten by the nids - because it has no free will to do so?
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
Until the two fleets merge............then they are one...........
The Hive fleets do not 'merge.'
One is devoured by the other. The Hive Mind is Natural Selection at it's most efficient, so it pits the fleets against each other in order to determine which is more successful.
The winner absorbs the genetic code of the loser, but retains it's identity as the Hive Mind seems fit.
edited after checking books.
Mr Morden wrote: A brood brother or a hybrid might be fighting the guard when the real nids turn up - however he or she won't stop and join the defenders just becuase they are being going to be (or indeed are being) eaten by the nids - because it has no free will to do so?
I never said they'd do that. It's more that the swarm of Tyranids won't stop and go "Thems be on our side!" and leave them alone. They'll kill everything that isn't them.
That's why they shouldn't be allies, and not because the Brood Brothers/Hybrids suddenly switch sides.
Given that all hive organisms are expendible - no - remember they will use thousands of termaguants to merely consume a defenders ammunition so its not a relevant quesiton.
A genestealer cult will be just part of a invasion - as shown in the fluff.............They will be directed to do whatever the hive mind tells them to do and will be more responsive (lack of free will) than imperial forces can be with infighitng, politics and just trying to survive.
I can't really see any fluff reason that the they would not be Battle Brothers when you compare them to other armies who do have it?
They are just another tendril to be conserved or/and expended as the need arises
Except that isn't how it works.
When the GSC sabotages a planet, it isn't at the Hive Mind's directive.
It's at the Broodlords, which is an important distinction to make.
The Broodlord commands the swarm.
The Broodlord leads them.
Notice how Broodlords don't have synapse, and are never stated as following the hive mind in any piece of lore?
The GSC sabotage planets because they believe their gods are coming, but when the gods arrive, the literally devour everything. The Hive tyrant doesn't pop off the bio-ship and say "Nah, these cats are chill, save them for last."
He eats them.
Tyranids are devourers. Cunning, voracious, but not prone to mercy, acts of cooperation or alliance, and certainly not to religious deification (excluding the broodlords mind you).
Why wouldn't they eat the free, whole-range, non-resisting meal before them?
Not got books to hand but have fluff where the hive mind directs invasion - will come back after finish work
Hmm to be fair the Imperium DOES NOT CARE either - thats kinda the Grim Dark point?
They are quite happy to exterminatus the whole planet of defenders...............
If you can defend the fact that all Imperial forces are BB with each other than surely all Tryanid forces would also be - stands to reason? Be a bit like saying Blood Axes are not BB with Goffs, or Ulthwe are not with Iiyanden?
Up to the point that the FAQ was published there was not defintaive statement on their alliance status - so it has come as a surpirse to many - however no point in us getting upset here - People should ask polietly why this is the case on the Fb page.
Most of the marines do hold the imperium and its call over their own squabbles. Not saying they'd like working together, but it sounds plenty reasonable, from a fluff standpoint, they that could work together while putting their beefs aside for the emperor.
Now most the admech, whilst apart of the imperium, hate the imperium. And to an extent, that goes both ways. They're only allies because they both won't bite the hand that feeds. I love the admech and even run an Inq detachment with them. But I really dont like the imperium. When they killed the drop pod thing, I thought it was kind of funny. A small piece of me almost wanted admech to get more units and get fluffed out of the imperium heading into the next millennia. I think the grand lie has gone on long enough, eh?
Fluff aside, give the nids BBs. You'd still be hard pressed to find nid and GSC armies wrecking every eldar and marine army. So fluff or not, who cares?
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
Honestly, AoC does make more sense than BB in this instance.
Tyranid Primes (and any other Tyranid ICs I might have forgotten if more exist) wouldn't ever lead GSC squads, and there's no way a GSCIC would ever be able to lead a Nid squad.
Nids would never ride in a theoretical GSC transport.
Sharing Warlord Trait benefits makes 0 sense for similar reasons.
Only psychic power sharing makes some sense, as a GSC Psyker would probably have 0 problems buffing Nids with powers, however the Nids would have 0 reason to ever return the favour.
Imagine a tool not 'Brother' with its wielder. Right.
Nids arrive and enthrall the cult. Nids and cult fight on the same side and all biomass (friends and enemies, alive or dead) are thrown or jump into the digestion pools after the fight.
Fight on the same side like, you know, Eldar and Dark Eldar, and different marine chapters that hate each other, etc.
I'm glad I never got around to buy the Deathwatch box.
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
N.I.B. wrote: Imagine a tool not 'Brother' with its wielder. Right.
Nids arrive and enthrall the cult. Nids and cult fight on the same side and all biomass (friends and enemies, alive or dead) are thrown or jump into the digestion pools after the fight.
Fight on the same side like, you know, Eldar and Dark Eldar, and different marine chapters that hate each other, etc.
I'm glad I never got around to buy the Deathwatch box.
"Imagine a tool not 'Brother' with its wielder. Right."
Daemon Weapons, Plasma Weapons, The Burning Blade, Vengeance Rounds, Djiin Blades, the Spear of Twilight, etc etc...Plenty of them right there bro.
"Same side" is a really loose term. Any Allies slot represents that.
Battle Brothers have no problem fighting beside each other and dying for each other.
Allies of Convenience fight side by side when it is convenient. Come the Apocalypse requires extreme plot-wrangling to make sense.
Let me put it this way for you.
If a Genestealer cult was discovered and purged, does the Hive Mind care?
No. And it certainly doesn't invade or try and save the cult.
Why?
Because it isn't Convenient for the Hive Mind.
When does the Genestealer Cult rise up and sabotage the planet?
When the Tyranid fleet arrives, and only then because it is Convenient.
And all of the recent fluff we have paints the Cult's members as victims of a misleading-indoctrination disguised as religion. They believe they are going to paradise when the fleet arrives, not messily devoured by six-legged hellbugs from the seven circle of nope.
If you have a garden and water it daily you are 100% putting more effort into it than the Hive Mind does the Cults.
In the original fluff, as written in Advanced Space Crusade, Hybrids were able to use Tyranid teleportation devices, were accepted (defense mechanisms didnt kill them) and could live on board of the bioships. IF they escaped the Tyranid invasion and getting eaten.
Warhams-77 wrote: In the original fluff, as written in Advanced Space Crusade, Hybrids were able to use Tyranid teleportation devices, were accepted (defense mechanisms didnt kill hunt or kill them) and they could live on board of Bioships. IF they could escape the Tyranid invastion and getting eaten.
I think we can agree the original fluff doesn't pertain to much in modern 40k. Things have changed dramatically since those days. For quick example, there currently are no Tyranid Teleportation devices, other than the one that was only mention in Advanced Space Crusade, the Teleporter Worm. 26 years ago.
And the Dark Angels were originally closet homosexuals.
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
All organic life is consumed at the end of the invasion-this includes Hive Tyrants and even Swarmlords. Of course it's not going to spare the Cult, but it will use for as long as it seems necessary like all Tyranid organisms. The Cult is just another extension of the Hive Mind's will, given autonomy so that it can operate outside its direct sphere of influence.
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
All organic life is consumed at the end of the invasion-this includes Hive Tyrants and even Swarmlords. Of course it's not going to spare the Cult, but it will use for as long as it seems necessary like all Tyranid organisms. The Cult is just another extension of the Hive Mind's will, given autonomy so that it can operate outside its direct sphere of influence.
Thanks, but we all know that. The part that's important, and that part people keep forgetting is that while all organics are consumed at the end of the invasion, the killing starts immediately. If the Cult successfully takes over a world, and are the sole party in power before the Tyranids arrive, do you think that the Tyranids won't kill them upon sight?
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
All organic life is consumed at the end of the invasion-this includes Hive Tyrants and even Swarmlords. Of course it's not going to spare the Cult, but it will use for as long as it seems necessary like all Tyranid organisms. The Cult is just another extension of the Hive Mind's will, given autonomy so that it can operate outside its direct sphere of influence.
Thanks, but we all know that. The part that's important, and that part people keep forgetting is that while all organics are consumed at the end of the invasion, the killing starts immediately. If the Cult successfully takes over a world, and are the sole party in power before the Tyranids arrive, do you think that the Tyranids won't kill them upon sight?
Actually wasn't there a fluff blurb about that exact situation? The Cult led the willing population into the digestion pools with no fuss.
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
All organic life is consumed at the end of the invasion-this includes Hive Tyrants and even Swarmlords. Of course it's not going to spare the Cult, but it will use for as long as it seems necessary like all Tyranid organisms. The Cult is just another extension of the Hive Mind's will, given autonomy so that it can operate outside its direct sphere of influence.
Thanks, but we all know that. The part that's important, and that part people keep forgetting is that while all organics are consumed at the end of the invasion, the killing starts immediately. If the Cult successfully takes over a world, and are the sole party in power before the Tyranids arrive, do you think that the Tyranids won't kill them upon sight?
Actually wasn't there a fluff blurb about that exact situation? The Cult led the willing population into the digestion pools with no fuss.
Not that I've ever read, no. But the Hive Mind has shown that less work can sometimes be preferable - look at Death Leaper.
Neronoxx wrote: I think we can agree the original fluff doesn't pertain to much in modern 40k. Things have changed dramatically since those days. For quick example, there currently are no Tyranid Teleportation devices, other than the one that was only mention in Advanced Space Crusade, the Teleporter Worm. 26 years ago.
I agree it is not current fluff but it was for a few years. Just from memory ASC 1990, Space Marine by Ian Watson 1993, Tyranid Attack 1993. In the first Tyranid army list in 1992 (WD 145), Hybrids, Magus and Patriarch, Brood Brothers and Mind Slaves fought side by side with Tyranid Warriors, 'Ripper swarms' and 'Termagants'. The 1995 Codex did change that? Or was it later?
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
All organic life is consumed at the end of the invasion-this includes Hive Tyrants and even Swarmlords. Of course it's not going to spare the Cult, but it will use for as long as it seems necessary like all Tyranid organisms. The Cult is just another extension of the Hive Mind's will, given autonomy so that it can operate outside its direct sphere of influence.
Thanks, but we all know that. The part that's important, and that part people keep forgetting is that while all organics are consumed at the end of the invasion, the killing starts immediately. If the Cult successfully takes over a world, and are the sole party in power before the Tyranids arrive, do you think that the Tyranids won't kill them upon sight?
Actually wasn't there a fluff blurb about that exact situation? The Cult led the willing population into the digestion pools with no fuss.
Not that I've ever read, no. But the Hive Mind has shown that less work can sometimes be preferable - look at Death Leaper.
If you mentally control a body, nay multiple bodies, how can they be anything but the same army? They have more fluff and logic grounds to be Battle Brothers than daemons do a cohesive army. Why would a khorne daemonkin marine give his life to protect a black legionary? He wouldn't.
Your examples feel pretty baseless, if one entity is literally in the mind of every living thing with tyranid dna, why would they only treat one another with convenience, they are literally the same entity at that point.
Zach wrote: ^ Besides your post being excessively belligerent and honestly unwarranted, let me just say really? That's your argument given the ridiculous super friends/inquisitor combinations everyone runs?
If you believe my post was unwarranted, maybe you could try reading the last page? It might help shed some light on the situation. And I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive to any one specific individual, but I've heard all sorts of different kinds of BS trying to justify something that was never justifiable.
It's almost as if everyone woke up and then started pissing and moaning because the sky wasn't purple anymore.
And again, reading comprehension.
"This is a apparent the day you walk into the hobby. The game runs on fluff, and not much else. It doesn't always accomplish this, but when it does I guess i shouldn't be surprised that people call it 'nerfs.''
I guess you missed that?
Don't try and argue that you want BB status for anything other than sheer gaming advantage now.
The sheer fact of the matter is that none of the complaints/complainers are forgetting one simple fact - The Hive mind DOES NOT CARE.
It arrives and consumes all biomass. Including the cult.
Does that sound like "Best Buddies" to you? One side eating the other while the former holds an objective?
*****
Go back, reread the fluff and you will find a tenous, at best circumstantially cooperative nature between GSC and Tyranids.
And yet Dark Eldar and Eldar are Battle Brothers...
Hmm.
Funny that. You're arguing that a faction which essentially gets mind-whammied and taken over on a psychic level when the Hive Fleets near shouldn't be battle brothers with said Hive Fleets...
While a faction known for pillaging, tormenting, torturing and hunting down the other out of nothing more than amusement is still battle brothers with its victims.
Hmmm indeed.
Will the Hive Mind defend the GSC?
Please be familiar with the subject before being sarcastic?
If it's in its best interest to do so, yes. Perhaps you're not as up to fluff as you think you are?
Then wouldn't that be Come the Apocalypse?
If that's the only time they would defend the GSC?
Perhaps I am, and someone else isn't.
All tyRamos bio forms are expendable- if it's in their best interest to throw thousands of gargoyles into the barrel of a gun to plug it, what will they do? If for whatever reason they need thto Cult to rise up and start consuming, they will direct them to do so. If they'd rather have the biomass they'll eat them. Just like every other Tyranid. Which Broodlords and their spawn are.
That only proves my point though. For factions to be Battle Brothers there must be an established understanding that both sides are willing to die to protect the other. Space Wolves and Dark Angels do this - even though they have their pride, their rivalries and their disagreements - They can put those aside to fight for each, with each other and beside each other.
Nowhere in the fluff is this supported by the Tyranids. There is no evidence they give two-diddly-squats about the Cult. Indeed the very purpose of the Cult is to serve as a disposable distraction to ease the difficulty of planetary invasion.
That's the whole purpose of the Cult. By the time the Tyranids have made landfall, everything is considered food. No one is spared. They don't pick up the Cult and drive them around space in their giant squid-ships.
The Hive Tyrant also isn't going to be blocking shots for the cult, or diverting it's own forces to die for the cult. The Cult dies for the Hive Mind, not the other way around.
All organic life is consumed at the end of the invasion-this includes Hive Tyrants and even Swarmlords. Of course it's not going to spare the Cult, but it will use for as long as it seems necessary like all Tyranid organisms. The Cult is just another extension of the Hive Mind's will, given autonomy so that it can operate outside its direct sphere of influence.
Thanks, but we all know that. The part that's important, and that part people keep forgetting is that while all organics are consumed at the end of the invasion, the killing starts immediately. If the Cult successfully takes over a world, and are the sole party in power before the Tyranids arrive, do you think that the Tyranids won't kill them upon sight?
Actually wasn't there a fluff blurb about that exact situation? The Cult led the willing population into the digestion pools with no fuss.
Not that I've ever read, no. But the Hive Mind has shown that less work can sometimes be preferable - look at Death Leaper.
Yeah, it should be just a paragraph in the Tyranid codex- 5th and/or 6th edition. If this is still a tangent, I'll find out where exactly when I get home tonight.
This is either an intentional rules change (my bet) or the 
