Spacewolverine wrote: It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.
Pretty much this.
Keep in mind that this is a huge new thing for GW. It used to be that the FAQs were just released without feedback. Then they would get feedback and then turn around some of their responses.
If you don't like some of these FAQs, respond in the replies and ask for clarification.
They're only asking for feedback on clarity though, not on the content.
But I agree - we'll have to wait and see whether or not they take the critique on the answers themselves into account and rethink some of the more dubious / problematic answers. Selling your armies is a bit over the top, at least wait for the official version.
And they didn't just change the rule on the Apothecary thing on a whim, they had the wrong answer pinned down on the image. Mistakes happen. You can claim they did it due to feedback or "just cause" all you want - I'll go with the good old in dubio pro reo here and believe it was a simple mistake.
deevil wrote: The Eldar Jetbike has a stat of 3+ not 5+/3+ to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm incorrect - as I am sure this forum will) regardless of what his equipment list says. It is not a case of mixed armor values where there is a mix of 'separate' targets with 5+ and 3+ respectively. IN which case the owning player can say you hit tommy instead of johnny. This is a case of everybody has 3+ even though they are also wearing mesh armor, their bike UPS it to 3+
Else you could make the same argument that everyone has save '-' and choose not use their 3+ armor... when being shot by grav... imagine
Wow and its not like Eldar jetbkes are not cheese anyway
Did anyone ask as a FAQ why the Eldar Jet bike is 3+ and not 4+ if so it might get changed to the correct value.
Given the ruling with the LOS-blocking Drop Pods, is disembarking behind the pod so the enemy has to waste a turn shooting the Drop Pod a viable tactic? Makes assault units in a drop pod actually viable.
Apart from the fact bikes dont, and havent since at least 4th. they just add one to toughness.
Or should marines have a 2+ save while on bikes? I think WS players would LOVE that....
Noone was playing grenades Wrong. The FAQ answer is pure rubbish, as the line used to "justify" it refers purely to the shooting attack and ignores the explicit permission to use grenades in assault.
Spacewolverine wrote: It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.
Point #1 - I'm not crying. Don't put words in my mouth or assume actions that aren't happening. It makes you sound like a jerk, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a jerk.
Point #2 - This probably isn't and definitely shouldn't be a first draft. Realistically, this should be several drafts in and should have passed layers of internal review before being passed to the customer base for comment. The fact that there are so many basic errors lets me know that the internal review process either didn't happen or wasn't taken seriously. That's bad.
Point #3 - I wouldn't characterize how the company who has sold me literally thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of product over a period of several decades handles the rules that dictate how I'm (practically speaking) able to use my models in a community setting as irrelevant. It's extremely relevant. The rules have been fragmenting more and more over the recent years and the game is becoming almost unplayable for many people. Balance is a joke with the power divide between a competitive build and a casual build usually being insurmountable for the casual player. Competitive play is a slave to the meta, more so than in days past with the majority of armies having no builds with a realistic chance of winning. This is also bad.
Point #4 - We don't need FAQs for many of these issues. We need Erratas. The rules should be unambiguous. As it stands, and as many have commented in this thread, the ambiguity still stands, just with a clarifying statement OR there was no ambiguity at all and the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules. If you're making a change to a rule, use an Errata and change the rule. Don't use an FAQ and change the meaning without changing the text. For me, this is another example of GW not taking this seriously.
I still like to paint, and GW makes nice models, so I'll likely still buy from them. I just sort of feel like they don't give a crap about the people who like to play. GW is flat out terrible with the rules compared with almost any other miniatures game on the market. Can you imagine Fantasy Flight Games having such a fragmented rule set riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies, with multiple publications spanning game editions still in print? Can you imagine Privateer Press doing the same? Mantic? For a market leader, GW is terrible at certain things. Hopefully, this FAQ activity represents forward progress and not just a flavor of the month activity for GW.
Spacewolverine wrote: It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.
Point #1 - I'm not crying. Don't put words in my mouth or assume actions that aren't happening. It makes you sound like a jerk, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a jerk.
Not being a jerk nor putting words in your mouth. The knee jerk reaction of I'm selling my armies and accusing GW is abusive to their customer base which is completely unfounded when GW is trying to reconcile with the community is the crying factor over something very irrelevant. I'm going to leave this at that.
Point #2 - This probably isn't and definitely shouldn't be a first draft. Realistically, this should be several drafts in and should have passed layers of internal review before being passed to the customer base for comment. The fact that there are so many basic errors lets me know that the internal review process either didn't happen or wasn't taken seriously. That's bad.
We are the lawyers and RAW based oppinions. Typos or mistakes are very easy to happen and can get past proof reading. This is the right step for GW.
Point #3 - I wouldn't characterize how the company who has sold me literally thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of product over a period of several decades handles the rules that dictate how I'm (practically speaking) able to use my models in a community setting as irrelevant. It's extremely relevant. The rules have been fragmenting more and more over the recent years and the game is becoming almost unplayable for many people. Balance is a joke with the power divide between a competitive build and a casual build usually being insurmountable for the casual player. Competitive play is a slave to the meta, more so than in days past with the majority of armies having no builds with a realistic chance of winning. This is also bad.
I've been playing for 21 years have probably spent a house mortgage on figures. The game has never been balanced but plausible for any Army to win any given day depending on tactics and knowledge of the game. I think it's a joke that competitive players think there list are so high and mighty compared to a casual. I do not see a difference in competitive or cheese, I play what I want to play and have FUN.
Point #4 - We don't need FAQs for many of these issues. We need Erratas. The rules should be unambiguous. As it stands, and as many have commented in this thread, the ambiguity still stands, just with a clarifying statement OR there was no ambiguity at all and the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules. If you're making a change to a rule, use an Errata and change the rule. Don't use an FAQ and change the meaning without changing the text. For me, this is another example of GW not taking this seriously.
We do need FAQs to create a proper rules errata.
I still like to paint, and GW makes nice models, so I'll likely still buy from them. I just sort of feel like they don't give a crap about the people who like to play. GW is flat out terrible with the rules compared with almost any other miniatures game on the market. Can you imagine Fantasy Flight Games having such a fragmented rule set riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies, with multiple publications spanning game editions still in print? Can you imagine Privateer Press doing the same? Mantic? For a market leader, GW is terrible at certain things. Hopefully, this FAQ activity represents forward progress and not just a flavor of the month activity for GW.
GW does make fantastic models, that we can agree on. They obviously again I state do care for their customers if they are trying to take the time and effort to do an FAQ. GW and the New CEO is trying to reconcile with their customer base that they have basically abandoned due to the OLD CEO, not caring because they were a models first mentality. The new CEO actually talks to high end tournament organizers for input on rules, balance and erratas.
insaniak wrote: Funnily enough, my original drop pods (built in 4th edition before the GW model came out) were small Pringles cans with foamcore fins and a stormbolter mounted on the outside under the central compartment.
Nobody ever had an issue with them, either for the fact that they blocked LOS, or for doing so while still having a functional weapon... Even after the official model was released.
Back in the day, it was also a BS2 stormbolter, too!
It's going to take some time to digest the drop pod changes, for me.
I am fine with the "Apothecaries don't get special weapons" ruling. I can see the argument that they should, but I'm not hurt about it, nor did I model any with special weapons.
Spacewolverine wrote: Not being a jerk nor putting words in your mouth. The knee jerk reaction of I'm selling my armies and accusing GW is abusive to their customer base which is completely unfounded when GW is trying to reconcile with the community is the crying factor over something very irrelevant. I'm going to leave this at that.
A pattern of behavior isn't rectified with a box of chocolates and a bouquet of flowers. This hobby feels like an abusive relationship to me. It might not to you, but you have no right to invalidate my, or anyone else's feelings as irrelevant. It's condescending and offensive.
Typos or mistakes are very easy to happen and can get past proof reading.
Ever worked in publishing? I have. Even a mediocre review should have caught the differences between Yes and No or the discrepancies between image and accompanying text. This is actually pretty basic copy editing.
The game has never been balanced but plausible for any Army to win any given day depending on tactics and knowledge of the game. I think it's a joke that competitive players think there list are so high and mighty compared to a casual.
Awesome. I might need some pointers on how to win against Scatterbike Spam, Invisible Death Stars and no scatter first turn Alpha Strike charges with my Tempestus Scions army list. Surely, I'm just rolling the dice wrong or something. Balance IS an issue and tactics/knowledge of the game won't do enough for you if there is an insurmountable power divide between lists. There are a very limited number of top tier, tournament winning army builds. There are near infinite casual lists that will never win a tournament regardless of player skill.
We do need FAQs to create a proper rules errata.
Why would we possibly need FAQs to create Erratas? We should be able to claim ambiguity and GW should be able to reword via Errata without an intermediate FAQ step.
They obviously again I state do care for their customers if they are trying to take the time and effort to do an FAQ.
"Sure he gets mad sometimes and doesn't communicate well, but he buys me flowers after every fight, so I know he loves me." GW has a pattern of behavior over the recent years of not caring about its customer base. I'm somewhat committed at this point given how much I've spent, so I really do hope this is a legitimate shift in behavior. In the long run, I kind of doubt it. It's really hard to change a pervasive corporate culture and I haven't seen much change yet. This feels more like a team of a few new hires who don't really understand the rules were tasked with "putting together some FAQs to tide the noisy players over until we can sell them a new edition".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe take this off topic conversation so where else?
Nah. I'll just quit posting. Everything about this whole process just makes me mad for some reason. I think it's because GW has been defecating on something I love for several years now and while I appreciate the effort, the game still smells pretty bad.
nekooni wrote:They're only asking for feedback on clarity though, not on the content.
But I agree - we'll have to wait and see whether or not they take the critique on the answers themselves into account and rethink some of the more dubious / problematic answers. Selling your armies is a bit over the top, at least wait for the official version.
And they didn't just change the rule on the Apothecary thing on a whim, they had the wrong answer pinned down on the image. Mistakes happen. You can claim they did it due to feedback or "just cause" all you want - I'll go with the good old in dubio pro reo here and believe it was a simple mistake.
Asking why an answer is the way it is, is asking for clarity.
For example, on the question regarding Apothecaries, why is the answer yes/no? Is there an order of operations we are to follow, or does an upgraded model drop any upgrades they had?
And no, I wasn't referring to that, I don't consider this official yet. I do not have the old FAQs to reference them, but there have been a few cases of a rule being answered one way in one month, and then the exact opposite two or three months later.
Kriswall wrote: I think it's because GW has been defecating on something I love for several years now and while I appreciate the effort, the game still smells pretty bad.
while i agree to some degree... i dont think its about bad rules... no one would ever be able to make a perfect ruleset especially not with a game as complex as 40k. its more about the borderline frame of mind of some players willing to exploit every little innaccuracy with zealous obsessiveness in order to gain an advantage. and yes this can make you sad.
just look at the drop pod discussion over the last few pages... the creativeness for "interpreting" the rules is just unbelievable.
nekooni wrote:They're only asking for feedback on clarity though, not on the content.
But I agree - we'll have to wait and see whether or not they take the critique on the answers themselves into account and rethink some of the more dubious / problematic answers. Selling your armies is a bit over the top, at least wait for the official version.
And they didn't just change the rule on the Apothecary thing on a whim, they had the wrong answer pinned down on the image. Mistakes happen. You can claim they did it due to feedback or "just cause" all you want - I'll go with the good old in dubio pro reo here and believe it was a simple mistake.
Asking why an answer is the way it is, is asking for clarity.
For example, on the question regarding Apothecaries, why is the answer yes/no? Is there an order of operations we are to follow, or does an upgraded model drop any upgrades they had?
And no, I wasn't referring to that, I don't consider this official yet. I do not have the old FAQs to reference them, but there have been a few cases of a rule being answered one way in one month, and then the exact opposite two or three months later.
because you are changing the model and that model does not have excess to that weapon. If it did it would say a model may be upgrades to an apoth the apoth may exchange his weapon for..... Ect. Like they do for all other models.
OgreChubbs wrote: because you are changing the model and that model does not have excess to that weapon. If it did it would say a model may be upgrades to an apoth the apoth may exchange his weapon for..... Ect. Like they do for all other models.
That is one opinion. No Order of Operations is given there or in any rulebook, though. As I said, they didn't explain the answer with anything more than a "no".
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
I can see this one hits a nerve for you Kriswall, why is that?
Admittedly, I'm curious how this one slipped through. It'd be a fun article to hear how GW came to some of these decisions. I'd buy that White Dwarf for sure!
It's the straw that broke the camel's back. The rules are written so poorly that we constantly bicker about what they mean. When we finally get an FAQ, there is no explanation and then we get a "Yes... or No? Yeah, go with No." No explanation, no Errata to fix the underlying ambiguous rules issues. This game is almost unplayable for a casual player at this point.
Anybody interested in Necrons, Tau Empire or Skitarii, PM me.
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.
No anger. Just tired of feeling abused. The rule set is a joke. It's poorly written and it feels like this FAQ effort isn't being taken seriously. They seem more worried in making fancy layouts with background graphics than fixing the ambiguous wordings.
There are way too many good rule sets out there to continue to be in an abusive relationship with GW.
OgreChubbs wrote: because you are changing the model and that model does not have excess to that weapon. If it did it would say a model may be upgrades to an apoth the apoth may exchange his weapon for..... Ect. Like they do for all other models.
That is one opinion. No Order of Operations is given there or in any rulebook, though. As I said, they didn't explain the answer with anything more than a "no".
Because it is simple, the anwser is no apoths do not carry anything but what is listed. That is like someone saying I was a jet pilot now I am driving tanks can I take my plane in the tank? NO
When you change the model it bcomes something else, not order of operation nothing it is a different model. It was a trooper then changed to a apoth with the apoth weapons. No one tries to say I gave this guy a heavy bolter then changed him into a sergant so he keeps it. No he had a bolter then he was changed to a sergant and under the weapons tab it says. A sergant may replace is bolter with blah.
So anyone trying to say order i gave it males no sense anymore then saying. I was adding a predator to my army then changed it into a hell drake but he keeps the weapons because it the order it is written. You changed the model and unless the model says you can change his gear you cant.
Also it tells you the load out for apoths and then gives you his upgrades, So how is this a question you turned him into a apoth and now he has this profile, so those weapons are gone.
Kriswall I totally agree with you.
I've invested money in 7k points new painted Space Marines last year (that was a lot of money for me). At the beginning I was proGW but inconsistant rules and new psychic powers in Angels of Death supplement followed by the new rules in Skies of Death was to much for me.
I organize local events in my area and now I have "moral hangover" that I get some of my friends into this game. Many of them are getting beaten every single game...
I'll try to do some fluff events and see how it will work out, but I already lost my enthusiasm...
Oh btw game/codecies are "broken" for months and we will be waiting another months for official FAQ. Is this how you treat your customers?
So to stay on topic Do you think that when this draft in first question on page 8 say that ICs lose their chapter benefits it take only C:SM Chapter Tactics benefits or new Angels of Death "duplicated" chapter detachment benefits too?
OgreChubbs wrote: Because it is simple, the anwser is no apoths do not carry anything but what is listed. That is like someone saying I was a jet pilot now I am driving tanks can I take my plane in the tank? NO
Real Life examples are pointless to this discussion about game mechanics, especially since Real Life would allow an Apothecary to pick up the dead soldier's Meltagun and fire it at that Walker, but cannot do that in game.
OgreChubbs wrote: When you change the model it bcomes something else, not order of operation nothing it is a different model. It was a trooper then changed to a apoth with the apoth weapons. No one tries to say I gave this guy a heavy bolter then changed him into a sergant so he keeps it. No he had a bolter then he was changed to a sergant and under the weapons tab it says. A sergant may replace is bolter with blah.
That would be an order of operation to consider the final outcome of the model as to what it can have.
OgreChubbs wrote: So anyone trying to say order i gave it males no sense anymore then saying. I was adding a predator to my army then changed it into a hell drake but he keeps the weapons because it the order it is written. You changed the model and unless the model says you can change his gear you cant.
Try a better example. Where is the option to change a Predator to a Helldrake?
OgreChubbs wrote: Also it tells you the load out for apoths and then gives you his upgrades, So how is this a question you turned him into a apoth and now he has this profile, so those weapons are gone.
It gives a default loadout for the models in the unit, but nothing says that he would lose any such upgrades when upgraded to an Apothecary. The upgrade option certainly doesn't say it.
Again, there is no order of operations regarding this. Without it, we don't know why the "no" is applicable.
OgreChubbs wrote: Because it is simple, the anwser is no apoths do not carry anything but what is listed. That is like someone saying I was a jet pilot now I am driving tanks can I take my plane in the tank? NO
Real Life examples are pointless to this discussion about game mechanics, especially since Real Life would allow an Apothecary to pick up the dead soldier's Meltagun and fire it at that Walker, but cannot do that in game.
OgreChubbs wrote: When you change the model it bcomes something else, not order of operation nothing it is a different model. It was a trooper then changed to a apoth with the apoth weapons. No one tries to say I gave this guy a heavy bolter then changed him into a sergant so he keeps it. No he had a bolter then he was changed to a sergant and under the weapons tab it says. A sergant may replace is bolter with blah.
That would be an order of operation to consider the final outcome of the model as to what it can have.
OgreChubbs wrote: So anyone trying to say order i gave it males no sense anymore then saying. I was adding a predator to my army then changed it into a hell drake but he keeps the weapons because it the order it is written. You changed the model and unless the model says you can change his gear you cant.
Try a better example. Where is the option to change a Predator to a Helldrake?
OgreChubbs wrote: Also it tells you the load out for apoths and then gives you his upgrades, So how is this a question you turned him into a apoth and now he has this profile, so those weapons are gone.
It gives a default loadout for the models in the unit, but nothing says that he would lose any such upgrades when upgraded to an Apothecary. The upgrade option certainly doesn't say it.
Again, there is no order of operations regarding this. Without it, we don't know why the "no" is applicable.
I have a feeling that no matter what they say you will try and re-word it to suit your intrest so best of lick mate, side note no one like to play a (game) where people try and take advantage of things. But like I said it is a game where you pick your freinds and enemies for a fun game.
OgreChubbs wrote: I have a feeling that no matter what they say you will try and re-word it to suit your intrest so best of lick mate, side note no one like to play a (game) where people try and take advantage of things. But like I said it is a game where you pick your freinds and enemies for a fun game.
That is a rather rude way of putting it.
I did not state anything in that which I did not state in other threads on the same topic. The biggest problem with the Apothecary question (along with numerous others in a similar vein) is that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable. I have argued for your position on the exact same basis that I just argued against it for that reason.
Charistoph wrote: that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable.
Who cares? There's no "why" infantry move 6" either. It's the rules. Accept it.
I think what he means is that it would be nice for them to explain the mechanics - and once and for all to clear up the order of operation discussions that keep popping up.
Charistoph wrote: that there are no rules specifically nailing it down as to why a "yes" or "no" is applicable.
Who cares? There's no "why" infantry move 6" either. It's the rules. Accept it.
But we have a rule that specifically states Infantry move 6".
Nothing states how the options are purchased, what checks are to be made when or even if, is it top down or can we meander through the list, or if a model can keep any upgrades after being upgraded to another model. We are just given a list of options and that is it. Out of all the threads on this, no one has presented one piece of quote to substantiate which order of operations is correct.
It is pertinent in cases where in the top down format, a Wolf Scout Pack Leader is given an opporutunity to have a camo cloak before being upgraded, and the Crusader Squad Sword Brother is upgraded after adding any Neophytes per Initiate. If we are looking at a final format confirmation system, the answer would be "no", but if top down without replacement, the answer is "yes". The Apothecary is upgraded before any Weapon options, but after the Standard and Champion are chosen.
It is not order of purchase, you changed the item you where buying. Think of it is way
You walk into a store and order a cake.
Cake owner says you can exchange the plain toppings for sprikles, a picture or candels.
You say I want sprinkles.
Then you say oh I want to turn the cake into a pie.
Owner says ok here is your options for your pie.
You cant keep the options for a different item.
By the logic of how you write the list you could abuse anything. Mass heavy weapons?
Buy a heavy bolter in a squad of 5 then turn him into sergant, then a heavy bolter turn him into a apoth, buy a heavy weapon then turn him into anything.
And what gear they can acquire. I also gave a Codex Marine option as well with the Sword Brother.
Did the question mention anything about Standards, out of curiosity?
OgreChubbs wrote: It is not order of purchase, you changed the item you where buying. Think of it is way
You walk into a store and order a cake.
Cake owner says you can exchange the plain toppings for sprikles, a picture or candels.
You say I want sprinkles.
Then you say oh I want to turn the cake into a pie.
Owner says ok here is your options for your pie.
You cant keep the options for a different item.
By the logic of how you write the list you could abuse anything. Mass heavy weapons?
Buy a heavy bolter in a squad of 5 then turn him into sergant, then a heavy bolter turn him into a apoth, buy a heavy weapon then turn him into anything.
Invalid comparison. Making a cake has some very defined processes involved, as does a pie. Where is this process defined for unit purchasing?
Your final example is also in poor choice. Sergeants are not upgrades of Marines (currently). Being the Heavy Weapon Guy does not change the model name.
And what gear they can acquire. I also gave a Codex Marine option as well with the Sword Brother.
Did the question mention anything about Standards, out of curiosity?
OgreChubbs wrote: It is not order of purchase, you changed the item you where buying. Think of it is way
You walk into a store and order a cake.
Cake owner says you can exchange the plain toppings for sprikles, a picture or candels.
You say I want sprinkles.
Then you say oh I want to turn the cake into a pie.
Owner says ok here is your options for your pie.
You cant keep the options for a different item.
By the logic of how you write the list you could abuse anything. Mass heavy weapons?
Buy a heavy bolter in a squad of 5 then turn him into sergant, then a heavy bolter turn him into a apoth, buy a heavy weapon then turn him into anything.
Invalid comparison. Making a cake has some very defined processes involved, as does a pie. Where is this process defined for unit purchasing?
Your final example is also in poor choice. Sergeants are not upgrades of Marines (currently). Being the Heavy Weapon Guy does not change the model name.
I don't agree with Charistoph on a lot of things, but I do agree with him on this. I can see both sides of the arguement for and against apothecaries. Both sides have very real points. GW could clear up this issue and a lot of similar issues with an explanation on exactly why the answer is no. I find it quite frustrating and perplexing on to why they suddenly changed the yes to a no like they had made some serious game breaking mistake and at the same time not do or mention anything about the mess they made with the drop pods. Seriously, one is a very minor boost that makes apothecaries useful for more than a fnp (at an increased cost) and relatively little effect on the game, and the other completely changes the game essentially. The door for shenanigans was kicked open with the drop pod faqs. It makes me want to tack another 100 points on to drop pods with how severly game altering they can be with this faq.
Do you know how many times I have chopped off this poor apothecary's hand? I've decided to go feth it and chopped his entire arm off and gave him a bionic arm that looks like it has a gun built into it. He is Iron Hands now.
So... in regards to Helfrost & RA again. They seem to say that whomever's turn it is chooses the order, but that seems to suggest that both are still definitely HAPPENING, regardless of the order. Does this lead to the following matrix of possible outcomes?
#1 - RA Failed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#2 - RA Failed, Helfrost Passed - model is removed as a casualty.
#3 - RA Passed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#4 - RA Passed, Helfrost Passed - model is not removed as a casualty.
Or is this supposed to be "Helfrost is better on your turn, RA is better on my turn"?
Not quite, since you wouldn't take RP against a failed Hellfrost and failing a RP doesn't necessarily mean being removed as a casualty (see Destroyers).
It's a little confusing. I personally preferred it when it was at the end of the phase and they stood up. Fluffier and easier to keep track off.
Yarium wrote: So... in regards to Helfrost & RA again. They seem to say that whomever's turn it is chooses the order, but that seems to suggest that both are still definitely HAPPENING, regardless of the order. Does this lead to the following matrix of possible outcomes?
#1 - RA Failed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#2 - RA Failed, Helfrost Passed - model is removed as a casualty.
#3 - RA Passed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#4 - RA Passed, Helfrost Passed - model is not removed as a casualty.
Or is this supposed to be "Helfrost is better on your turn, RA is better on my turn"?
Actually, what they say is pretty much what I argued for page after page in multiple threads. It is not +1. It is a change to the profile. Although I conceded that the way it was worded left characters who took a mount at S9 by RAW, I always argued that it was likely S10 RAI. This simply verifies that while the rule may have been poorly written, what they always intended was for the "base strength" to become S5, and any x2 modifiers to make it S10.
The argument that a profile strength of S5 should be changed to S4+1 because a Thunderwolf was listed in the wargear never made any sense to me.
Actually, what they say is pretty much what I argued for page after page in multiple threads. It is not +1. It is a change to the profile. Although I conceded that the way it was worded left characters who took a mount at S9 by RAW, I always argued that it was likely S10 RAI. This simply verifies that while the rule may have been poorly written, what they always intended was for the "base strength" to become S5, and any x2 modifiers to make it S10.
The argument that a profile strength of S5 should be changed to S4+1 because a Thunderwolf was listed in the wargear never made any sense to me.
Quite simply because that is how the rule was written. If you can see how it would be for an HQ that has it added later on, it would still apply as the profile listed would have that adjustment included and the math completed of S 4+1.
If it is meant to upgrade the base profile before Modifiers, it should explicitly state such.
Actually, what they say is pretty much what I argued for page after page in multiple threads. It is not +1. It is a change to the profile. Although I conceded that the way it was worded left characters who took a mount at S9 by RAW, I always argued that it was likely S10 RAI. This simply verifies that while the rule may have been poorly written, what they always intended was for the "base strength" to become S5, and any x2 modifiers to make it S10.
The argument that a profile strength of S5 should be changed to S4+1 because a Thunderwolf was listed in the wargear never made any sense to me.
Quite simply because that is how the rule was written. If you can see how it would be for an HQ that has it added later on, it would still apply as the profile listed would have that adjustment included and the math completed of S 4+1.
If it is meant to upgrade the base profile before Modifiers, it should explicitly state such.
Except that there is a major difference between characters who buy a Thunderwolf and the members of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry: the statistics in their profile.
A Wolf Lord is listed in his profile as being S4, RAW he would have to add one to his strength when he buys his mount, but Thunderwolf Cavalry are listed in their profiles as being S5 - they are NEVER listed ANYWHERE as being strength 4. It was the pinnacle of RAW twisting insanity to say that we were required to calculate a new base strength by subtracting out wargear which we could only assume had been added in, and then re-adding it later, after multiplying by 2 for their Powerfist. A suggestion that was without precedent but which many on this site were saying was the only clear way to handle it. GW's FAQ supports the argument that this was not the correct way to handle it and goes even further to say that the intent was that Characters are also considered to be adjusting their profile.
So the take away is two fold:
1) If the profile lists a characteristic value like toughness or strength we are not expected to subtract out what we believe the wargear has added to arrive at a new number and then add it back in when calculating multiple modifiers. You simply take what is listed and modify by what is added to THAT number.
2) GW is terrible at writing rules and taking the RAW approach beyond a reasonable degree will lead to unreasonable conclusions.
NightHowler wrote: Except that there is a major difference between characters who buy a Thunderwolf and the members of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry: the statistics in their profile.
A Wolf Lord is listed in his profile as being S4, RAW he would have to add one to his strength when he buys his mount, but Thunderwolf Cavalry are listed in their profiles as being S5 - they are NEVER listed ANYWHERE as being strength 4. It was the pinnacle of RAW twisting insanity to say that we were required to calculate a new base strength by subtracting out wargear which we could only assume had been added in, and then re-adding it later, after multiplying by 2 for their Powerfist. A suggestion that was without precedent but which many on this site were saying was the only clear way to handle it. GW's FAQ supports the argument that this was not the correct way to handle it and goes even further to say that the intent was that Characters are also considered to be adjusting their profile.
So the take away is two fold:
1) If the profile lists a characteristic value like toughness or strength we are not expected to subtract out what we believe the wargear has added to arrive at a new number and then add it back in when calculating multiple modifiers. You simply take what is listed and modify by what is added to THAT number.
2) GW is terrible at writing rules and taking the RAW approach beyond a reasonable degree will lead to unreasonable conclusions.
You are correct, except for the simple fact that the Thunderwolf Mount Wargear notes that the profile was an updated profile just like it is for the Bikers. In other words, it is telling you that the Str 5 you see on the unit profile is already noted as being an X+1 number.
They do need to note that it applies to the base characteristic in all cases in order to be considered that without some magic formula to ignore the logic that is actually printed.
NightHowler wrote: Except that there is a major difference between characters who buy a Thunderwolf and the members of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry: the statistics in their profile.
A Wolf Lord is listed in his profile as being S4, RAW he would have to add one to his strength when he buys his mount, but Thunderwolf Cavalry are listed in their profiles as being S5 - they are NEVER listed ANYWHERE as being strength 4. It was the pinnacle of RAW twisting insanity to say that we were required to calculate a new base strength by subtracting out wargear which we could only assume had been added in, and then re-adding it later, after multiplying by 2 for their Powerfist. A suggestion that was without precedent but which many on this site were saying was the only clear way to handle it. GW's FAQ supports the argument that this was not the correct way to handle it and goes even further to say that the intent was that Characters are also considered to be adjusting their profile.
So the take away is two fold: 1) If the profile lists a characteristic value like toughness or strength we are not expected to subtract out what we believe the wargear has added to arrive at a new number and then add it back in when calculating multiple modifiers. You simply take what is listed and modify by what is added to THAT number. 2) GW is terrible at writing rules and taking the RAW approach beyond a reasonable degree will lead to unreasonable conclusions.
And now the question has to be asked, since they have a Thunderwolf Mount, do we add the bonuses into their base profile?
Nighthowler - except the rule for the mount *stated* it was a bonus. So we didnt have to assume there was a +1S coming from anywhere - we knew it for a fact!
Except that, very clearly, GW never intended us to change the profile when applying the multiple modifiers rule (a procedure that is found nowhere in the BRB even though it's the only argument the S9ers could ever come up with). So you take what you're given in the profile (S5) and apply any modifiers you get to THAT number. So the wargear that's already included is just that - already included. Don't un-include it and then add it back in later. We get our stats from the profile and then modify THAT number with any wargear that is not already included.
The only argument that ever made any sense was that characters should be S9 and only because their profile showed a base strength of S4, and since this website is not intended for discussing RAI, I had to concede that characters would be S9 RAW, and it was GWs sloppy rules writing that left them S9.
I'm so relieved they took what they intended and wrote it out clearly.
Thats the difference - the rule plays no part any longer. Otherwise you played it acording to the multi mod rule (and basic maths) which is that 4+1*2 = 9
nosferatu1001 wrote: Thats the difference - the rule plays no part any longer. Otherwise you played it acording to the multi mod rule (and basic maths) which is that 4+1*2 = 9
Even after the FAQ and you're still not trying to understand. They're telling you that you use the profile - not a recalculated profile based on wargear that was already included. And they're also telling you that if a character takes a mount, it changes their "base" profile - and you use that new base profile and add on additional modifiers to the new profile.
They wanted them to be S10 and did a poor job writting a rule that conveyed that, but they're trying to fix it with an FAQ. Don't fight it. Instead try to understand it.
I'm not fighting it. I'm pointing out your misunderstanding over the argument. AS it was a lot stronger than your claims - given it was exactly following the FACT you haev a modifier to a stat and the FACT you know how to deal with multiple modifiers.
I'm pointing out they wrote a rule - that there is a MODIFIER to the profile - and are now claiming there is no need to follow the rule. That is a change in rule. It isnt a clarification, and should have (like a lot of these) been fixed through errata
The profile is, according to the rule, 4+1. because it tells you that the 5 in the porfile includes the modifier of +1. So without any modifier the profile is 4.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Thats the difference - the rule plays no part any longer. Otherwise you played it acording to the multi mod rule (and basic maths) which is that 4+1*2 = 9
Not to be a stickler (ok that's a lie its pretty much exactly what I'm doing) but the way you wrote that equation out doesn't work (in game or in basic maths) 4+1*2 = 6 by basic maths and the game would see it as 4*2+1 = 9. And I have said this before, but with the RAI and the FAQGW is trying to say that the 'increase' is not a +1 modifier so doesn't get taken in to the multiple modifiers equation and you are supposed to change the base profile, but yes as RAW there was no way of doing that., Which is why I always argued (and played because no one at my FLGC cared) RAI.
Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.
it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.
Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.
I can see you have a strong emotional attachment to being right on this, but you're wrong. The FAQ supports that you're wrong, and even explains how you're wrong. But instead of reading it and trying to understand, you're still reading it from the point of view tha GW is wrong, and you're right.
Face it. Base strength is 5, so the equation you're looking for is 5 x 2 = 10 (not 4 + 1 x 2 = 10, and not 4 x 2 + 1 = 9). Stop trying to make it something it's not. If the people who make the rules tell you that it modifies the bass stat, then it modifies the base stat.
Here's a direct quote from the FAQ: This is not a modified profile, but is instead the model's new profile (as demonstrated by the Thunderwolf Cavalry profile).
Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.
it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.
Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.
I can see you have a strong emotional attachment to being right on this, but you're wrong. The FAQ supports that you're wrong, and even explains how you're wrong. But instead of reading it and trying to understand, you're still reading it from the point of view tha GW is wrong, and you're right.
Face it. Base strength is 5, so the equation you're looking for is 5 x 2 = 10 (not 4 + 1 x 2 = 10, and not 4 x 2 + 1 = 9). Stop trying to make it something it's not. If the people who make the rules tell you that it modifies the bass stat, then it modifies the base stat.
Here's a direct quote from the FAQ: This is not a modified profile, but is instead the model's new profile (as demonstrated by the Thunderwolf Cavalry profile).
Technically he is right a change is supposed to be made by an errata not a faq, and a lot of these faqs should be erratas. The thing is this could have repercussions elsewhere by starting false precedents. (I can't think of any but you never know) What I mean by this is it brings up questions, "do all mounts directly change the profile or are these an exception? Are there any other things that "modify" the profile directly? If so what?" They just gave an answer with no explanation behind it and now we don't know if this is a precedent or an exception.
Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.
it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.
Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.
I can see you have a strong emotional attachment to being right on this, but you're wrong. The FAQ supports that you're wrong, and even explains how you're wrong. But instead of reading it and trying to understand, you're still reading it from the point of view tha GW is wrong, and you're right.
Face it. Base strength is 5, so the equation you're looking for is 5 x 2 = 10 (not 4 + 1 x 2 = 10, and not 4 x 2 + 1 = 9). Stop trying to make it something it's not. If the people who make the rules tell you that it modifies the bass stat, then it modifies the base stat.
Here's a direct quote from the FAQ: This is not a modified profile, but is instead the model's new profile (as demonstrated by the Thunderwolf Cavalry profile).
Technically he is right a change is supposed to be made by an errata not a faq, and a lot of these faqs should be erratas. The thing is this could have repercussions elsewhere by starting false precedents. (I can't think of any but you never know) What I mean by this is it brings up questions, "do all mounts directly change the profile or are these an exception? Are there any other things that "modify" the profile directly? If so what?" They just gave an answer with no explanation behind it and now we don't know if this is a precedent or an exception.
I see what you're saying about an errata, but it would only really be needed for characters who purchase a mount. The profile for Thunderwolf Cavalry has always been S5, and so they would only require an FAQ saying "stop trying to recalculate the profile".
But since we don't know one way or another we can't be sure.
The grav vs eldar windriders actually involves this.
Following the precedent this faq set, windriders on a jetbike are 3+ armor saves, mesh armor confers 5+ so following the rules to modify a stat, the windriders are at a 3+ save the mesh armour is a set stat modifier so it overrides this 3+ and now windrider saves are effectively 5+ all the time.
Zarroc1733 wrote: But since we don't know one way or another we can't be sure.
The grav vs eldar jetbike farseers actually involves this.
Following the precedent this faq set, farseers o a jetbike are 3+ armor saves, mesh armor confers 5+ so following the rules to modify a stat, the farseers are at a 3+ save the mesh armour is a set stat modifier so it overrides this 3+ and now farssers saves are effectively 5+ all the time.
I assume you mean Windriders. Farseers do not have Mesh Armour, then have Rune Armour (4++).
Zarroc1733 wrote: But since we don't know one way or another we can't be sure.
The grav vs eldar jetbike farseers actually involves this.
Following the precedent this faq set, farseers o a jetbike are 3+ armor saves, mesh armor confers 5+ so following the rules to modify a stat, the farseers are at a 3+ save the mesh armour is a set stat modifier so it overrides this 3+ and now farssers saves are effectively 5+ all the time.
I assume you mean Windriders. Farseers do not have Mesh Armour, then have Rune Armour (4++).
Correct, apologies, trying to multitask at work
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fixed, thank you Galef. Also want to note I'd never play it that way (though its more of a nerf in reality) because its obviously not intended but I'm sure there are other cases affected too that won't be as clear.
NightHowler wrote: I see what you're saying about an errata, but it would only really be needed for characters who purchase a mount. The profile for Thunderwolf Cavalry has always been S5, and so they would only require an FAQ saying "stop trying to recalculate the profile".
Incorrect. It has always been a modified profile. The Thunderwolf Mount Wargear specifically states this as a modification. What has changed is how the game treats such modifications. Previously, any modifier not considered part of the base was noted in parenthetical, like Biker Toughness, and the Cavalry was not in parenthetical. Now this is no longer the case. Such upgrades are automatically included in the profile. But in the cases for tests, they no longer rely on the base profile for such things. Nothing is noted to take in to account an already modified profile when applying Multiple Modifiers. Indeed, Multiple Modifiers says the exact opposite.
If it is Intended to be part of the base profile before other modifiers, it needs to state such. Just including it when the Wargear states it is included, is insufficient. It was then, it is now.
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.
Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.
Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
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.
Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.
Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
Is anybody else confused?
(Raises hand)
In all honesty, I'll probably play all situations using the last one if that's agreed upon with my opponents. Player whose turn it is chooses the order of resolution.
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.
Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.
Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
Is anybody else confused?
I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that GW's rules don't work, have never really worked well and aren't currently being rewritten to work. This game REQUIRES a patchwork of house rules just to function.
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.
Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain? A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.
Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously? A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
Is anybody else confused?
I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that GW's rules don't work, have never really worked well and aren't currently being rewritten to work. This game REQUIRES a patchwork of house rules just to function.
SInce the GWFAQs are "GW House rules" does that mean we need to house rule the house rules?
These faqs feel like their rules monkeys have finally suffered a collective stroke. Like, we all knew they were abusing the poor things, but now it's just sad.
I am starting to think I work at GW because how the faqs are coming out all my fighting over the years of what was suppose to be correct, is correct lol.
Like really who really thought you can throw 1 gernade but everyone can use them in close combat was a thing. It says 1 gernade done not 1 gernad unless your near them then just start dropping them.
I always thought they should add a rule if you use a gernade in cc use a small templte centered on your model and all models that are tuched take the hit. Like if you bum rush me with a gernade then drop it we both get hit this is not a no FF battlefield server, we all seen that crap.
OgreChubbs wrote: I am starting to think I work at GW because how the faqs are coming out all my fighting over the years of what was suppose to be correct, is correct lol.
Like really who really thought you can throw 1 gernade but everyone can use them in close combat was a thing. It says 1 gernade done not 1 gernad unless your near them then just start dropping them.
I always thought they should add a rule if you use a gernade in cc use a small templte centered on your model and all models that are tuched take the hit. Like if you bum rush me with a gernade then drop it we both get hit this is not a no FF battlefield server, we all seen that crap.
The rule wasn't exactly clear. They specifically say THROW one per phase and talk about cc attacks being grenades dropped into vulnerable areas or clamped into place.
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.
Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.
Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
Is anybody else confused?
To be fair before the hellfrost vs reanimation in the SW draft, I was ok with the two FAQ's being different, because while FNP and RP are similar they are not the same thing so having something that negates RP but doesn't negate FNP, while needing to be an errata and not a FAQ yes or no answer, was fine. But then they decided to muck everything up anyway.
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote: To be fair before the hellfrost vs reanimation in the SW draft, I was ok with the two FAQ's being different, because while FNP and RP are similar they are not the same thing so having something that negates RP but doesn't negate FNP, while needing to be an errata and not a FAQ yes or no answer, was fine. But then they decided to muck everything up anyway.
Considering that the rules for how both activate and function are the same between the two, and only their restrictions are mildly different, I do not see how they can be treated differently in these cases.
Either both FNP and RP can intercede and prevent an Unsaved Wound trigger, or they cannot. GW's answer says otherwise, even though they operate exactly the same.
Their drunk monkeys got a hold of the darts again.
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote: To be fair before the hellfrost vs reanimation in the SW draft, I was ok with the two FAQ's being different, because while FNP and RP are similar they are not the same thing so having something that negates RP but doesn't negate FNP, while needing to be an errata and not a FAQ yes or no answer, was fine. But then they decided to muck everything up anyway.
Considering that the rules for how both activate and function are the same between the two, and only their restrictions are mildly different, I do not see how they can be treated differently in these cases.
Either both FNP and RP can intercede and prevent an Unsaved Wound trigger, or they cannot. GW's answer says otherwise, even though they operate exactly the same.
Their drunk monkeys got a hold of the darts again.
Again, I am inclined to agree with you lol. Either my opinions on things are changing or GW has really gotten out of whack on things.
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.
Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.
Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
Is anybody else confused?
I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that GW's rules don't work, have never really worked well and aren't currently being rewritten to work. This game REQUIRES a patchwork of house rules just to function.
SInce the GWFAQs are "GW House rules" does that mean we need to house rule the house rules?
Posting it here too. But the +2A optional rule for Dreadnoughts just became official errata. BA, GK, and SW players rejoice! CSM players, they said they informed the rules team about it, so perhaps the Helbrute will see an update too!
casvalremdeikun wrote: Posting it here too. But the +2A optional rule for Dreadnoughts just became official errata. BA, GK, and SW players rejoice! CSM players, they said they informed the rules team about it, so perhaps the Helbrute will see an update too!
"Optional"
"Official"
...
So, as players, we can now OFFICIALLY decide whether or not we want to give Dreadnoughts +2 attacks... as opposed to before when we were only able to UNOFFICIALLY decide whether or not we wanted to give Dreadnoughts +2 attacks? Massive change right there. Good call GW.
In this example, GW is taking the whole 'we think you should play however you want, but yeah, that makes sense to us' tact. Optional rules are useless when playing against strangers because you don't know which way they'll lean. Every game becomes a discussion of which optional rules to include. I don't need a negotiating session before each game. The only negotiation should be which table to use.
No, it is no longer optional. The word optional is not anywhere in the new rule. It flat out says that BA, GK, and SW Dreadnoughts of any type get +2 to their Attack characteristic. Period.
Observe:
Well unless I'm mistaken, it's a draft and therefore optional (technicality, I know, but worth noting). At any rate, it's a welcome change that IMHO should be applied regardless of whether it's optional or mandatory. And it's about time their Attacks Characteristic was brought up to par.
Well unless I'm mistaken, it's a draft and therefore optional (technicality, I know, but worth noting). At any rate, it's a welcome change that IMHO should be applied regardless of whether it's optional or mandatory. And it's about time their Attacks Characteristic was brought up to par.
This wasn't posted in an FAQ. It is a separate post. +2 attacks. Dreads now stand a chance! (I think a Librarian Furioso with Fulmination for Electroshield will be quite awesome now)
I didn't realize they'd already Errata'd their as yet unpublished draft FAQ. My apologies for being unable to keep up with this clusterfeth.
They really need to bribe about 5 veteran players paired with 5 law grad students with free models, lock them in a room and tell them they can come out when they've rewritten 40k to be unambiguous and internally consistent.
From that post "...we've decided to make it an official Errata...."
Coming from the official 40k facebook group. That's good enough for me. Grats to all the loyalists. Hopefully they will also allow you to use crusaders squads in formations one day.
casvalremdeikun wrote: No, it is no longer optional. The word optional is not anywhere in the new rule. It flat out says that BA, GK, and SW Dreadnoughts of any type get +2 to their Attack characteristic. Period.
Observe:
And for those people who do not have Facebook to access it, how are they to know? Especially when they want to confirm it?
This isn't in their standard FAQ/Errata sites. So, Draft to me. A good Draft, but still a Draft.
Charistoph wrote: This isn't in their standard FAQ/Errata sites. So, Draft to me. A good Draft, but still a Draft.
While you and I may not agree with how they've marketed the errata, it is still an official errata. Here's the quote from GW that accompanied this image:
Hey folks,
Last week, as part of our ongoing FAQ draft process, we published a new optional rule for Dreadnoughts of the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights Chapters. So many of you got in touch saying that you'd certainly be using the new rule that we've decided to make it an official Errata.
The rest of the finalised FAQs and Errata will be on the way once we have your feedback on all the drafts, but we wanted to get this to you so you could all have fun smashing stuff with your Dreadnoughts while you waited. Once again, thanks for all your help making the game of Warhammer 40,000 even better.
I don't have a Facebook account, but I can still access all of this by visiting their facebook page. Yeah, this is not the best way to go about it - it should be on the website - but this is their official Facebook page, and they say this is official (and not a draft), and the copy of the image says it's official... so it's official.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If someone doesn't have access to Facebook, how are they getting access to the GW website? Magic?
If someone doesn't know about these forums and goes to their site or just googles "Warhammer faq", what will come up?
In addition, if you are not signed up, accessing anything worthwhile on Face book is a trial to the point of not even bothering to try.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yarium wrote: I don't have a Facebook account, but I can still access all of this by visiting their facebook page. Yeah, this is not the best way to go about it - it should be on the website - but this is their official Facebook page, and they say this is official (and not a draft), and the copy of the image says it's official... so it's official.
Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?
And I have tried accessing it without Facebook (my forum browser on my PC does not have Facebook signed in), and it is quite the pain.
Honestly, I doubt the average individual would know to look for ANY errata, let alone how to go about that. Still, what is and is not official is hard to nail down anyway.
Charistoph wrote: Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?
It's hard for me to access the names on the Do Not Fly list, but they still definitely exist, and are definitely very official. Whether or not it's easy for you to find does not change how official it is. I agree that it should be easier to find. There should be a link. But... there isn't. Shrug. It's just there for now. Sorry, but it's official, and it's now a thing.
casvalremdeikun wrote:Honestly, I doubt the average individual would know to look for ANY errata, let alone how to go about that. Still, what is and is not official is hard to nail down anyway.
As to why, they may have heard it from another, but not where to locate it.
When one goes to check updates, for thing most people do is a web search these days, if they do not go directly to the company's website directly.
And how many of those would think that Facebook would be the sole location for these FAQs?
Yarium wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?
It's hard for me to access the names on the Do Not Fly list, but they still definitely exist, and are definitely very official. Whether or not it's easy for you to find does not change how official it is. I agree that it should be easier to find. There should be a link. But... there isn't. Shrug. It's just there for now. Sorry, but it's official, and it's now a thing.
Not a good comparison. The only time the average person needs to access the DNF list is to make sure they or anyone they are traveling with are not on it. The officials who are to determine the list and those who need to check the list to prevent fliers need to access it (Oversight committees would be part of those who determine the list). In addition, there is always the Freedom of Information Act...
As a potential game organizer, each player needs to have access to these things. It is generally expected that if one is planning on using and FAQ/Errata, they need to have the print out with them. How easy is it to print out this FAQ from a Facebook page?
To be fair, Facebook is the sole location for the "preliminary" FAQs.
These are not finished. They're trying to get feedback on these, and what better way than putting them on social media where it is easy for someone to post/reply?
It's official so far as the Facebook people are concerned.
Doesn't change the fact that if I go to the GW website OR the Black Library website and look at the FAQs/Errata section... it's not there.
This actually makes perfect sense. How better to correct a fractured rule set requiring purchases from multiple sources than with fractured FAQs/Erratas requiring downloads from multiple sites? Makes total GW sense. This is great news!
Whether or not it's easy to access, or to even know to access it or not, doesn't change that it's there, and is accessible. Just watch for the sign saying "Beware of the leopard."
Charistoph wrote: As a potential game organizer, each player needs to have access to these things. It is generally expected that if one is planning on using and FAQ/Errata, they need to have the print out with them. How easy is it to print out this FAQ from a Facebook page?
Well, you can print the image that was posted here. Right click, save the image address, paste into a new tab/browser, hit the Enter/Return key, and hit print. That's not that hard. I am sorry for folks that don't even know to access the Facebook Page, and groups that don't know about the change, but them's the breaks. GW has not put it in a convenient location. I suspect that the Customer Relations person at GW is not able to talk or make requests of the guys that run the website. Probably a lot of company bureaucracy involved. Let's not forget that these are the same folks that have DIFFERENT faq's on both the Black Library and proper GW websites. Both of those are official, though due to dates involved, one obviously holds precedence. So arguing that because it's not in the same place it always way is not an argument.
Yarium wrote: Whether or not it's easy to access, or to even know to access it or not, doesn't change that it's there, and is accessible. Just watch for the sign saying "Beware of the leopard."
I don't think this situation would pass the reasonable person standard. Go out and tell 100 random strangers that gaming company XYZ publishes FAQs/Erratas in a FAQs/Erratas section on their website. Then ask those same people whether they think they would be able to find all of the FAQs/Erratas in this section. More specifically, ask them if they think they'd need to look anywhere other than the FAQs/Erratas section for FAQs and Erratas.
I'm betting you'd get 100 people who would not think to search Facebook for FAQs that are 'official' but not listed in the FAQs/Erratas section of the company's website.
This is the issue. Is this an official FAQ? Sure. Is there a reasonable expectation that the average player would know about it? I don't think you can say yes. You might not know about this if...
1. You don't use Facebook. 2. You use Facebook, but don't check it often. 3. You use Facebook, but don't follow any game related groups. 4. You don't frequent gaming forums. 5. You know about the FAQs/Erratas section of the company website and reasonably expect it to contain all of the FAQs/Erratas.
Nice reference, by the way, but in the real world Arthur Dent would have a strong argument that a proper notification of pending construction work was not made.
Kriswall wrote: Nice reference, by the way, but in the real world Arthur Dent would have a strong argument that a proper notification of pending construction work was not made.
Thanks! Wasn't too sure who might get the reference, but it pretty adequately explains the current FAQ situation.
And yes, if GW was a person, they would most certainly not be reasonable!
You are absolutely correct. It is an official FAQ/Errata. It is entirely unreasonable for someone to know about it though!
Unfortunately regardless of where the faq comes from, as long as the source can be verified as being from GW, then it's official.
Because if you simply disregard something because you cannot easily access it with a google search, then it would invalidate a lot of the datasheets that were "limited edition" or were only printed in a White Dwarf.
Like that one Blood Angel's formation with the Assault Marines. I had no idea it existed and nothing on the website or anything outside of White Dwarf implied it would have existed. But I can't just say "that formation is illegal". It's hard to find and obscure, but it's legal because it came from a verifiable GW source. Same could be said of a lot of those "limited time" formations that came on the website bundles too.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Unfortunately regardless of where the faq comes from, as long as the source can be verified as being from GW, then it's official.
Because if you simply disregard something because you cannot easily access it with a google search, then it would invalidate a lot of the datasheets that were "limited edition" or were only printed in a White Dwarf.
Like that one Blood Angel's formation with the Assault Marines. I had no idea it existed and nothing on the website or anything outside of White Dwarf implied it would have existed. But I can't just say "that formation is illegal". It's hard to find and obscure, but it's legal because it came from a verifiable GW source. Same could be said of a lot of those "limited time" formations that came on the website bundles too.
I guess you missed the point of what I and Kriswall were saying, then.
If you go in to a group you haven't been in to before, and then just tell them it is there, but no one in the group has Facebook on their phone, etc, but expect them to accept this on your say so, is the problem.
While the argument over appropriate locations to publish FAQs and errata is fascinating, let's leave this thread for discussing the actual contents of the FAQs and errata, hmm?
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
Bam! No more assassains in drop pods.
No more lots of things in Drop Pods.
Also, I play Tau Empire. What are Battle Brothers?
Noooo, no more GK Purifiers in my DA drop pods :(
I haven't read through the 14 pages yet, and I'm sure someone has already said it, but I'm SUPER excited that this ruling finally got settled.
Q: Can a model choose between saves, even if one save is numerically inferior? For example, can a
Ravenwing Biker take a 4+ re-rollable Jink save over its 3+ Armour Save?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a model choose between saves, even if one save is numerically inferior? For example, can a
Ravenwing Biker take a 4+ re-rollable Jink save over its 3+ Armour Save?
A: Yes.
BAM!
Yea they went against RAW several times. this included.
Q: Can a model choose between saves, even if one save is numerically inferior? For example, can a
Ravenwing Biker take a 4+ re-rollable Jink save over its 3+ Armour Save?
A: Yes.
BAM!
Yea they went against RAW several times. this included.
Why would this be against RAW? Haven't we always been instructed to take the "best" save? Best is a value judgment. If I need my last Terminator to die for some strategic reason, the "best" save from my perspective is the 5++, not the 2+. This is why you don't bake value judgments into rules. It's not like RAW tells us that we must prioritize saves with the lowest die roll required. We prioritize what we consider the best.
Kriswall wrote: Why would this be against RAW? Haven't we always been instructed to take the "best" save? Best is a value judgment. If I need my last Terminator to die for some strategic reason, the "best" save from my perspective is the 5++, not the 2+. This is why you don't bake value judgments into rules. It's not like RAW tells us that we must prioritize saves with the lowest die roll required. We prioritize what we consider the best.
I believe the original dispute is that the Rulebook does in fact state that a lower save is better, and this can be found under the section on Armour Saves, with the rest of the characteristics, near the start of the BRB. It actually says "thus a lower save is better". Common language suggests an order in this terminology. Specifically, the idea of "Good", "Better", "Best". It then logically follows that, given a lower save being "better", the lowest save would be "best". This would mean that "best" is not a value judgement, according to the BRB, but rather whatever the lowest save currently is despite any other modifiers.
The opposite argument is that, as you put it, what is "best" is a value judgement, and that GW's wording of "lower is better" is merely a comment about the rule, and not the rule itself. Now, in my opinion, this would be a RAI interpretation, since we can't simply pick and choose when a statement in the book is a comment about a rule, and when a statement is the actual given rule.
The FAQ has clarified that the RAI is correct, and I am happy they have given direction on that. Means this argument is well and thoroughly put to bed.
That hasn't been an actual statement since 5th Edition.
You just always have the advantage of using the best Save. That means to me that I cannot force a Hammernator to use their Terminator Save instead of their Storm Shield Save, not that he MUST use his Storm Shield Save.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour
Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?
Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?
You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.
In terms of the rules - as long as both are available to be taken, they're equal. Same as a model with terminator armour being given a suit of relic terminator armour having two 2+ saves
You also know the rule book tells you how inv and cover saves DIFFER. If the definition of better is not included with those differences, it still applies
nosferatu1001 wrote: You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour
Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?
Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?
You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.
The answer, of course, is that it depends on what else is going on. If you're being attacked by an attack with AP1, 2 or 3, the invuln save is better. If you're being attached by an attack that ignores invuln saves, the armor save is better. If neither of these things is happening, the saves are equivalent. The "best" save is whichever one benefits the player more in a given scenario.
All else equal, a 2+ armor save protects you 83.33% of the time. A rerollable 3+ invuln save protects you 88.89% of the time. In this instance, the 3++ rerollable save is clearly better.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You're told how invulnerable and cover saves differ from armour
Is the definition of "better" one of those differences?
Then which one is better, 3+ armor save or 3+ invulnerable save?
You know that the example in rulebook spells out that lower armor save is better than higher armor save, nothing more.
In terms of the rules - as long as both are available to be taken, they're equal.
Really? Your rulebook must be different then than mine. Page 8 talks about Armour save and explicitly says Unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour Save is, the better. No comparison to Invulnerable Save or Cover Save there.
Same as a model with terminator armour being given a suit of relic terminator armour having two 2+ saves
You also know the rule book tells you how inv and cover saves DIFFER. If the definition of better is not included with those differences, it still applies
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You were talking RAW, but could not provide support here. You and I both know that 4+ re-rollable is better than 3+. I know in some cases my 4+ Invulnerable save is better than my 3+ Cover Save, or even 2+ Armour Save.
As Charistoph pointed out, I am not mandated to take my 3+ save, but have the advantage of using the best available save to me. And as said, I know 4+ re-rollable is better.
You are basing your whole argument on page 8 which explains how Armour Saves differ from other characteristics. Nothing more, just Armour Saves, not Invu/Cover.
The answer, of course, is that it depends on what else is going on. If you're being attacked by an attack with AP1, 2 or 3, the invuln save is better. If you're being attached by an attack that ignores invuln saves, the armor save is better. If neither of these things is happening, the saves are equivalent. The "best" save is whichever one benefits the player more in a given scenario.
Correct, and I am given the advantage of using the best possible save available. By forcing me to use 3+ rather than re-rollable 4++ I'm clearly not having the advantage of using the best save in a given situation. And that is against the rules as written.
I would argue that a Guardian jetbike only has one armor save, and its 3+.
The wargear entry for eldar jetbike specifies the model riding an eldar jetbike has a 3+ armor save.
The profile for warlocks on jetbikes lists their save as 3+
regardless of profile, having the eldar jetbike as listed above states the model has a 3+ armor save when riding the jetbike.
Not the model has its armor save and an optional 3+ save, that is the models armor save when riding the bike.
Graviton states it rolls to wound versus armor save.
RAW a warlocks best save does not matter until it is making its saving throw, the graviton rule tells you which value you to use (ARMOR SAVE) not (BEST SAVE) when rolling to wound.
so the warlock is wounded on 3+, ap is 2, and has a 4++ save it can take from rune armor.
a Guardian is wounded on 3+ (it has eldar jetbike, which tells us the models armor save is a 3+)
casvalremdeikun wrote: If someone doesn't have access to Facebook, how are they getting access to the GW website? Magic?
If someone doesn't know about these forums and goes to their site or just googles "Warhammer faq", what will come up?
In addition, if you are not signed up, accessing anything worthwhile on Face book is a trial to the point of not even bothering to try.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yarium wrote: I don't have a Facebook account, but I can still access all of this by visiting their facebook page. Yeah, this is not the best way to go about it - it should be on the website - but this is their official Facebook page, and they say this is official (and not a draft), and the copy of the image says it's official... so it's official.
Is the link to this on their website? Or does one have to rely on the words of others in order to access it?
And I have tried accessing it without Facebook (my forum browser on my PC does not have Facebook signed in), and it is quite the pain.
I do not even have a facebook email. I depend on the kindness of strangers and my wife lol. Like nearly all women she has a facebook thing.
insaniak wrote: We probably don't need to rehash the whole 'best save' debate in this thread... The pertinent points have been made.
Awwwe. Besides, you made me look up what "pertinent" means.
Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ. I'm very happy to see logic win in so many cases, showing what the intent has been all along.
The dreadnought +2A is in an errata somewhere or part of the FAQ package?
Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.
While obvious stuff may or may not need to be included in an FAQ, it often is.
I'm very happy to see logic win in so many cases, showing what the intent has been all along.
It doesn't show that at all, though. It shows the intent now. The intent when the book was actually written is anybody's guess... it quite often won't match how GW rules it in an FAQ later on.
I'm very happy to see logic win in so many cases, showing what the intent has been all along.
It doesn't show that at all, though. It shows the intent now. The intent when the book was actually written is anybody's guess... it quite often won't match how GW rules it in an FAQ later on.
And that "intent" may even change between the Draft and "Live" depending on feedback and people answering those questions going back and looking at what they actually wrote, too. It has happened before, but is not common.
And I have seen some people's "logic" which would assert something that is not written.
Roknar wrote: It's not part of the faqs. It's an individual post on their facebook page.
But it is set up like the FAQ Drafts, just without the "draft" title attached.
That is kind of irrelevant. It does not say anywhere in it that it is a draft. If anything, the draft was in the Space Wolves FAQ, this is the final product.
Roknar wrote: It's not part of the faqs. It's an individual post on their facebook page.
But it is set up like the FAQ Drafts, just without the "draft" title attached.
That is kind of irrelevant. It does not say anywhere in it that it is a draft. If anything, the draft was in the Space Wolves FAQ, this is the final product.
Let's not start that again. A mod already asked it to be stopped once.
Naw wrote: Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.
I never said the best save situation was obvious RAW, I just said they went against the RAW. (Which was not obvious to many apparently).
It's not so much that it wasn't obvious as that the apparent RAW in that situation was a little silly in certain situations. For as long as the rules have restricted us to using a single save, most players from my experience have gone with just letting the owning player choose.
Naw wrote: Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.
I never said the best save situation was obvious RAW, I just said they went against the RAW. (Which was not obvious to many apparently).
It's not so much that it wasn't obvious as that the apparent RAW in that situation was a little silly in certain situations. For as long as the rules have restricted us to using a single save, most players from my experience have gone with just letting the owning player choose.
nosferatu1001 wrote: And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".
Well, I guess they don't recognize Flyers starting in Reserves as "deploying normally".
Or they recognise that the complete "tense" of the rule is during deployment, when flyers cannot deploy at all. And that they wrote the "either" to apply to all units either starting on the board or all units starting in reserve, and that having only part of your formation deployed breaks the explicit ride
nosferatu1001 wrote: And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".
Well, I guess they don't recognize Flyers starting in Reserves as "deploying normally".
Or they recognise that the complete "tense" of the rule is during deployment, when flyers cannot deploy at all. And that they wrote the "either" to apply to all units either starting on the board or all units starting in reserve, and that having only part of your formation deployed breaks the explicit ride
As I said, Flyers starting in Reserves is not "deploying normally".
The phrase "deploying normally" could be considered in a specific instance or a overall sense. Since it is never defined as an overall sense, why should we not consider it in the specific instances in which it applies?
Or in other words, it is perfectly normal for a Flyer to deploy from Reserves, but it is not normal for everything. The answer to the FAQ is taking it from the universal standard of "normal deploying".
As for it being required, Infiltrate states it as a requirement, but is still considered optional by this same group of FAQ Drafts, why does this one require it then?
Only by ignoring the overall context of the rule. A context enhanced by the rules name. A context that firmly fixes this decision as during deployment. You cannot, in good faith, disagree here.
All units either (deploy normally, start in reserves).
You have no permission to split "all units" up into separate groups, as is clearly given in the rule. This is non optional that the same decision is taken for all units.
So at deployment everything must either deploy, or start in reserves.
A flyer cannot deploy, so must be in reserves. Ergo so must all other units
nosferatu1001 wrote: Only by ignoring the overall context of the rule. A context enhanced by the rules name. A context that firmly fixes this decision as during deployment. You cannot, in good faith, disagree here.
All units either (deploy normally, start in reserves).
You have no permission to split "all units" up into separate groups, as is clearly given in the rule. This is non optional that the same decision is taken for all units.
So at deployment everything must either deploy, or start in reserves.
A flyer cannot deploy, so must be in reserves. Ergo so must all other units
QED
And reinforced by the FAQ.
And Infiltrate requires all units with the Special Rule to Infiltrate or be put in Reserves. But the FAQ says otherwise. Nothing states that this rule is any more required than others, but it also says that they all start in Reserve or deploy normally. Name means nothing really except to identify it.
You demonstrated nothing that countered the argument, so at best you managed "QE"
This rule gave no option, and the FAQ did not contradict.the written rule but merely reinforced it. The rules name merely gives a hint as to intent. Strike as one, not Strike in as many pieces as Charistoph would prefer
nosferatu1001 wrote: You demonstrated nothing that countered the argument, so at best you managed "QE"
This rule gave no option, and the FAQ did not contradict.the written rule but merely reinforced it. The rules name merely gives a hint as to intent. Strike as one, not Strike in as many pieces as Charistoph would prefer
Preference has nothing to do with it. It is using the language provided. There is no universal standard that defines "deployed as normal" to being "deployed during deployment". So each can be taken as whatever their "normal" is. All this FAQ is actually doing is setting that universal standard.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The rule entire sets the context. You keep chopping bits out of the rule in the hope it supports your position.
It didn't in the prior thread. It doesn't now
Strike as one meant exactly that, they've just confirmed the plain reading.
No, I am not taking it out of context. There is no context to properly explain this previously. And using the name as the reason is more "chopping bits out of the rule in the hope it supports your position". Otherwise you would present where the rulebook actually defines "deploys normally" as "deployed during deployment".
nosferatu1001 wrote: Agreed. The previous thread conclusively showed you could only take one choice, and the FAQ simply confirmed the most simple reading of the rule.
No, the previous thread did not. It just demonstrated people's preferences in terms of reading the language.
The problem, as stated, is that there is nothing truly defined as a universal "deploys normally" or "deploys as normal".
In agreement with Nos. Ask yourself what would be the point of a rule that didn't do anything? Now it's clarified that it actually does the way it was written, while making sense at the same time.
This should not be an issue anymore and Charistoph should just drop it.
Naw wrote: In agreement with Nos. Ask yourself what would be the point of a rule that didn't do anything? Now it's clarified that it actually does the way it was written, while making sense at the same time.
This should not be an issue anymore and Charistoph should just drop it.
While I also agree with Nos, I feel it's fair to point out that there are plenty of examples of rules that don't do anything in the game. GW is bad at writing rules, as can be evidenced from this FAQ clusterfeth where many of the "answers" directly contradict the written rules and should actually be erratas. My takeaway from the FAQs released so far is that the written rules can't be trusted and don't actually correlate to the author's intent in any sort of meaningful way. We need a full edition rewrite written by different people and with no copypasta. Hell, contract out to FFG to rewrite the rules in their "Getting Started/Rules Reference" book format. The game would become instantly more playable.
Not to be too obvious, but a debate over how you think the FAQ is wrong should be done in the FB responses, not here. GW doesn't really care what you post here, but what you post there can effect the final draft, as seem with active changes they've already implemented. Just saying.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Kris - they have never followed a real FAQ / Errata distinction, so why you xpect differently this time around I dont know.
Hope springs eternal.
Plus, the market is shifting. Warhammer 40k/Warhammer Fantasy used to be these two insurmountable obstacles to competitors. Warhammer Fantasy is now a joke and 40k is constantly losing ground to games like Armada and X-Wing. Games Workshop is going to have to get its act together one of these days, else we'll eventually say things like, "hard to believe GW used to be a market leader". They literally can't afford to keep doing things the way they've always done them. The community is screaming for consistent rules. This current FAQ effort isn't a good response, but at least it's a response. That's a step in the right direction.
nosferatu1001 wrote:The prior thread just demonstrated that the rule does nothing, under your reading. You rendered an entire rule redundant.
That is always unlikely to be the correct reading.
Strike as One had a meaning, and has a meaning as confirmed by the RAWFAQ answer.
Every unit must be on the board OR
Every unit must be in reserve
Thats it. Done. Your argument was shown incorrect at the time, and is proven as such now. Drop it
It was not shown as incorrect in that thread, just incompatible with one interpretation. Strike As One as a title of a rule has no meaning except to divest itself from rules with similar effects.
There are many rules that are rendered either redundant or obselete. The Necron Obelisk has an ability that forces all Flying Monstrous Creatures (among others) to take a Dangerous Terrain Test. Flying Monstrous Creatures come with Move Through Cover which has the model automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests. How about the vast plethora of Salvo Weapons that are only found on Vehicles or Heavy Weapons found only on Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures?
The rulebook does not state anything that "deployed as normal" means "deployed during deployment", just like the rulebook does not state anything regarding Battle Brothers not being able to board Transports during deployment. Nor does the rulebook allow Infiltrate to be an optional situation.
You came in with a high and mighty tone regarding the situation. I acknowledged that the FAQ Draft is taking the position that "deployed as normal" does universally mean "deployed during deployment", and then you kept pressing on the issue. You have also misrepresented what happened in that thread to suit your fantasies. You need to drop it.
The entire rule , a defining rule of the formation, ends up having no use under your convoluted interpretation - that requires ignoring a sentence, and changing the meaning of a sentence.
Oh, and you noted that I used "unlikely" there? As in expressing something with a degree of uncertainty?
Your stance was proven wrong, ie your context ignoring, rule changing stance was proven wrong. If you wish to, start a new thread on this settled topic. Just avoid posting more about it here.
nos, and charistoph. This has been discussed in prior threads. GW has posted the intent of the rule (whether or not the actual rule agrees with that). As such, there is no need to continue this pointless bickering.
You said it was solved. It wasn't. Either you were deliberately misrepresenting or your mind made up a different resolution in hand. I assumed you were not deliberately attempting to mislead readers.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Your stance was proven wrong, ie your context ignoring, rule changing stance was proven wrong. If you wish to, start a new thread on this settled topic. Just avoid posting more about it here.
It was not proven wrong in that thread. The FAQ Draft has stated numerous things which do not and cannot match what is written, so "proof" from the FAQ Draft is not happening. Clarification is what is happening with it. I acknowledged it earlier and I am acknowledging it now.
Now let it drop before your high and mighty attitude lead to problems.
nosferatu1001 wrote: And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".
And there was much rejoicing!
I like that they fixed Deathwing Land Raiders. They don't come in Turn 1, but they at least come in.
What I didn't understand though was if you are allowed to deploy the terminators in the land raider or not (if they have to be deployed in deep strike reserve still for the formation). Anyone know?
chaosmarauder wrote: What I didn't understand though was if you are allowed to deploy the terminators in the land raider or not (if they have to be deployed in deep strike reserve still for the formation). Anyone know?
Hopefully it will get clarified in the final version - the non-terminator IC ruling earlier seems to indicate they can (as otherwise the character wouldn't be able to embark into the otherwise empty Dedicated Transport).
Hopefully the GWFAQ team reads the rules they are attempting to clarify, before they finalize the FAQ. Quite a few of their clarifications break RAW, which means those "clarifications" should be errata rather than FAQ responses.
Regarding the BB in transports question. The Ork Blitz Brigade is a Formation made up entirely of Transport vehicles (it is a detachment). If I then take an Ork Combined Arms Detachment in the same army, all the units from the Combined Arms Detachment are "Battle Brothers" with the Blitz Brigade Formation... Which would mean that they couldn't start in the Battle Wagons? If you look on the chart it shows orks are Battle Brothers with orks and nothing else. This is to represent Allied Detachments, meaning that if this FAQ was to go in effect now you could no longer ride in the blitz brigade. (Different detachment same faction)
Also on page 132 under deployment it says " models must either deploy within their deployment zone or be held back in reserve. models can be deployed inside buildings fortifications or transport vehicles in their deployment zone subject to their transport capacity." Plus on page 135 under reserves and combined reserve units it states that "DURING DEPLOYMENT you must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any transport vehicles in reserve, in which case they show up together." The rules are clear that as long as a battle brother wants to embark on a NONDEDICATED TRANSPORT it is 100% legal for them to do it, If you are right then no one can ever ride in a flyer transport again because you cannot buy it as a dedicated transport. Since you cannot start in a battle brothers transport, even units from the same detachment can't ride in a stormraven for example. Since they are considered battle brothers... correct?
No as they Ally rules only apply to models with a different Faction, not units from different Detachments (which is what many people THINK is the case, even though it isn't).
Matt.Kingsley wrote: No as they Ally rules only apply to models with a different Faction, not units from different Detachments (which is what many people THINK is the case, even though it isn't).
Where does it say that?
If you look on the chart it shows orks are Battle Brothers with orks and nothing else. This is to represent Allied Detachments, meaning that if this FAQ was to go in effect now you could no longer ride in the blitz brigade. (Different detachment same faction)
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies - Levels of Alliance', Paragraph 2 wrote:"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army".
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies - Levels of Alliance', Paragraph 2 wrote:"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army".
The relevant sections.
Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies - Levels of Alliance', Paragraph 2 wrote:"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army".
The relevant sections.
Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?
What gave you permission to look on the chart?
Permission only exists to look at the chart when you have different factions. here yo udo not have different factions. SO you cannot look n the chart. meaning you dont have an Ally status at all.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: No because they're the same Faction, and as such their level of alliance is meaningless because it only applies to models with differing Factions.
Except it also says they're battle brothers right? Why even label Orks are battle brothers with orks unless they are battle brothers? As it's currently worded the new GWfaq disallows allied detatchemnt transport riding, or at best just raises further questions. If they want to clarify it they can easily have had it say, "Can units that are different factions embark in each other's transports during deployment? BUT IT DOESN'T it says BATTLE BROTHERS and orks are battle brothers with orks so as I read it it disallows the blitz brigade.
Red_Lives wrote: Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?
You take Formation as second Detachment, not as Allied Detachment. Only Allied Detachment (the other Detachment from Main Rulebook) forces you take other Faction than your Primary Detachment.
Red_Lives wrote: Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?
You take Formation as second Detachment, not as Allied Detachment. Only Allied Detachment (the other Detachment from Main Rulebook) forces you take other Faction than your Primary Detachment.
I worded that poorly my mistake. I should've said "Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as a separate detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?"
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
Red_Lives wrote:Except it also says they're battle brothers right? Why even label Orks are battle brothers with orks unless they are battle brothers? As it's currently worded the new GWfaq disallows allied detatchemnt transport riding, or at best just raises further questions. If they want to clarify it they can easily have had it say, "Can units that are different factions embark in each other's transports during deployment? BUT IT DOESN'T it says BATTLE BROTHERS and orks are battle brothers with orks so as I read it it disallows the blitz brigade.
You need to really break down the wording here to see what they're saying. First off, an army is composed of any number of detachments. The first sentence of the first quote states that you can include MODELS though from any number of different factions in the same army, but doesn't tell you how to get those models into your army. Using detachments, or going Unbound, does that. It then says that, regardless of HOW you choose your army (aka, detachments or Unbound), that it's the MODELS, not the DETACHMENTS that follow the Ally chart, and that it only applies to models from DIFFERENT Factions, not for different Detachments. If the ally rule was about detachments, and not the models in them, then any models taken from different codexes in an UNBOUND army could ride in each other's transports or cast spells on each other. However, because the ally matrix is about MODELS (and specifically, models from DIFFERENT Factions), this can't happen.
So, since it's about MODELS, and doesn't care about detachments at all, you are left with two possibilities:
A. Models from one Ork detachment can start the game in the transports of another Ork detachment.
or
B. Models from one Ork detachment cannot start the game in their own transports. (since the MODELS would be Battle Brothers with themselves)
However, we're told that the Ally chart only applies to DIFFERENT FACTIONS, not DIFFERENT DETACHMENTS, and so the only remaining possibility is A, and yes, the Orks can jump into those transports!
Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
Red_Lives wrote:Except it also says they're battle brothers right? Why even label Orks are battle brothers with orks unless they are battle brothers? As it's currently worded the new GWfaq disallows allied detatchemnt transport riding, or at best just raises further questions. If they want to clarify it they can easily have had it say, "Can units that are different factions embark in each other's transports during deployment? BUT IT DOESN'T it says BATTLE BROTHERS and orks are battle brothers with orks so as I read it it disallows the blitz brigade.
You need to really break down the wording here to see what they're saying. First off, an army is composed of any number of detachments. The first sentence of the first quote states that you can include MODELS though from any number of different factions in the same army, but doesn't tell you how to get those models into your army. Using detachments, or going Unbound, does that. It then says that, regardless of HOW you choose your army (aka, detachments or Unbound), that it's the MODELS, not the DETACHMENTS that follow the Ally chart, and that it only applies to models from DIFFERENT Factions, not for different Detachments. If the ally rule was about detachments, and not the models in them, then any models taken from different codexes in an UNBOUND army could ride in each other's transports or cast spells on each other. However, because the ally matrix is about MODELS (and specifically, models from DIFFERENT Factions), this can't happen.
So, since it's about MODELS, and doesn't care about detachments at all, you are left with two possibilities:
A. Models from one Ork detachment can start the game in the transports of another Ork detachment.
or
B. Models from one Ork detachment cannot start the game in their own transports. (since the MODELS would be Battle Brothers with themselves)
However, we're told that the Ally chart only applies to DIFFERENT FACTIONS, not DIFFERENT DETACHMENTS, and so the only remaining possibility is A, and yes, the Orks can jump into those transports!
Except the chart clearly says that Orks ARE battle brother's with orks, the new GWfaq is poorly worded if they want it to be option A then the new faq should say "Can units that are different FACTIONS embark in each other's transports during deployment?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: But I guess that's the point of posting it on facebook first right? SO people like me can spot the ambiguous wording so they can change it before it gets posted on their website and becomes official.
Red_Lives wrote: Except the chart clearly says that Orks ARE battle brother's with orks, the new GWfaq is poorly worded if they want it to be option A then the new faq should say "Can units that are different FACTIONS embark in each other's transports during deployment?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: But I guess that's the point of posting it on facebook first right? SO people like me can spot the ambiguous wording so they can change it before it gets posted on their website and becomes official.
Sorry, meant to address that. This is because it's possible to have more than one army in the game. If you and I are allied together for a game, and thus we have two armies. In THAT situation, the Orks from one army would be Battle Brothers with the Orks from another army. However, all Orks within the same army don't use the Ally matrix.
Red_Lives wrote: Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?
You take Formation as second Detachment, not as Allied Detachment. Only Allied Detachment (the other Detachment from Main Rulebook) forces you take other Faction than your Primary Detachment.
I worded that poorly my mistake. I should've said "Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as a separate detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?"
No you did not. there is a difference between an allied detachment and an Allied Detachment.
You only read the chart when you have different factions
For you, the chart doesnt exist.
Otherwise no FA drop pod or HS battlewagon could ever be used at deployment
the Allies chart is ON:LY used when you have models from DIFFERENT FACTIONS.
Then GW should change the wording in the FAQ fron Battle brothers (which orks are to orks) to different FACTIONS, because they may want to say same faction different detachment can't deploy in each others transports, and as it's currently worded that is how it would be played. Same detachment can use FA and Heavy transports another detachment with the same faction can not.
Orks are not battle brothers to Orks. Because you cannot read the chart unless you are different factions..
Seirously. The rule quotes have been given above, and they clearly state you ONLY use the Allies matrix when you have models from different factions. Until that point the Allies matrix does not exist. Orks have no Ally status with each other
How it is currently worded works with the current rules. You;ve been shown this. If you are still unclear, start a new thread please.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Orks are not battle brothers to Orks. Because you cannot read the chart unless you are different factions..
Seirously. The rule quotes have been given above, and they clearly state you ONLY use the Allies matrix when you have models from different factions. Until that point the Allies matrix does not exist. Orks have no Ally status with each other
How it is currently worded works with the current rules. You;ve been shown this. If you are still unclear, start a new thread please.
I disagree, the matrix is in the rulebook so it's part of the rules too. You can make that argument that 2 Space marine Detachments using different chapter tactics deploying in each other's transports should be disallowed too as it is currently worded (this may also be GW's intent)
the rules, again- Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
Your disagreement is moot, because the rules - repeated above, as you keep failing to review them, state the Allies matrix ONLY applies whenyou have models from different factions
With 2 Ork detachments, do you have different factions? Simple yes or no required. Nothing more.
I think the reason the chart shows Orks being Battle Bros with Orks is so that the chart remains consistent with Imperials being battle bros with Imperials.
It was probably also intended so that in the future, they could release supplements that split the Ork faction (like Clan rules or something). In which case, Deathskulls and Snakebites (or something) would treat each other as battle bros.
"This is because it's possible to have more than one army in the game. If you and I are allied together for a game, and thus we have two armies. In THAT situation, the Orks from one army would be Battle Brothers with the Orks from another army. However, all Orks within the same army don't use the Ally matrix. "
Red_Lives wrote: I disagree, the matrix is in the rulebook so it's part of the rules too. You can make that argument that 2 Space marine Detachments using different chapter tactics deploying in each other's transports should be disallowed too as it is currently worded (this may also be GW's intent)
You missed the point of what everyone else is saying.
Yes, the chart is there, but the chart does not become usable/accessible until you have units from different Factions in the same army. It is not a case of being ignored, it is a case of not being accessed. As an Ork player, do you use the charts for the Ranged Weapons in the BRB? For the most part, no. Why? Because most of the weapons an Ork player uses are unique to their codex and not rulebook weapons. The same thing applies. Ork units are the same Faction, so do not call upon the Allies rules.
The reason for that their Battle Brothers has been explained. The main is New Factions which use the Ork Chart position, ala how Genestealer Cults were before the Draft FAQ. This is how the Imperium of Man actually operates.
Glad they fixed Scouts, but sad about their lack of Formation help. I'm not a Space Marine player by any means, but I don't like BA's being treated differently than other SM factions
Galef wrote: Glad they fixed Scouts, but sad about their lack of Formation help. I'm not a Space Marine player by any means, but I don't like BA's being treated differently than other SM factions
Well, that's one of the disadvantages of having a completely separate codex. Its not like they would add Formations in an FAQ, after all.
An apparent discrepancy from the BRBFAQ with one of the 2 Template Weapons? I am not familiar with the weapon in question, but GW is saying it is a 1D3 instead of a 2D3.
They contradicted the previous FAQ. It's not that big of a deal for me, since we got the 4 attacks in CC. I don't care about number of overwatch frags.
Charistoph wrote: An apparent discrepancy from the BRBFAQ with one of the 2 Template Weapons? I am not familiar with the weapon in question, but GW is saying it is a 1D3 instead of a 2D3.
Yeah, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a single weapon that fires twice, and not two weapons. As such, being a Template weapon, it just gets the one Wall of Death roll. Don't have the rule in front of me, so I couldn't be mistaken and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that rule just cares about being a model with a template weapon, and not how many weapons you have or how many shots that weapon fires.
DarknessEternal wrote: Apparently Space Wolves and Blood Angels use a different order of operation between multiplication and addition.
Good luck trying to figure out what other factions are supposed to do with that precedent.
Well, they're saying their intent was that the Cyber Wolf changes the model's base stats. I'd say that's the exception, not the rule. However, I agree, it really should have been clearer.
There is still a precedent in that temporary modifiers go Multiply/Divide > Add/Subtract, while wargear that gives permanent modifiers to you goes before temporary modifiers.
And if anyone argues that a weapon is a permanent modifier, then it would mean that any character armed with a Power Maul would always be S6, even if he's not using the maul (such as if he also has a Power Axe for AP2).
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: There is still a precedent in that temporary modifiers go Multiply/Divide > Add/Subtract, while wargear that gives permanent modifiers to you goes before temporary modifiers.
Precedent, yes, but nothing that actually states that things like the Wolf Cavalry upgrade updates the base modifier by default. Part of the problem with GW rules and FAQs is that you need to have a drunken monkey decoder dart board in order to not have an argument about them.
Or just go by common sense. Wolf Cav, Bikes and Armor stuff have always been pieces of wargear that modified the profile directly, while Weapons and Special Rules never affected the profile.
For example characters that come with a pistol and a CCW by default with no options to swap them out (such as Kharn in every edition) never has that +1 attack stated in their profile for using two weapons, as that is a product of a special rule due to his wargear combo rather than an actual piece of wargear conferring it.
I would expect if they talked about that shield-wall phalanx thing the Dark Angels Terminators can do to increase their toughness would come after anything that would halve or double their toughness, as it's not something granted innately to them but only under specific conditions. Conversely, if a piece of wargear would permanently halve the toughness of a Nurgle Biker Lord, I would expect the end result to be a Toughness of 4 rather than 3, since the wargear halving the toughness, the bike, and the mark of nurgle would all be permanent passive modifiers and would go Multiply/Divide > Add/Subtract.
I see a lot of people complaining about that Augur Triangulation thing. What's the big deal here? I don't know much about Blood angels, but I like how they actually gave an explanation this time around. Plus it seems pretty clear to me. Minus the part about range I guess.
p.80 reads that you should measure any range involving an embarked unit from the hull. I don't see how that shouldn't count for the locator beacon.
Roknar wrote: I see a lot of people complaining about that Augur Triangulation thing. What's the big deal here? I don't know much about Blood angels, but I like how they actually gave an explanation this time around. Plus it seems pretty clear to me. Minus the part about range I guess.
p.80 reads that you should measure any range involving an embarked unit from the hull. I don't see how that shouldn't count for the locator beacon.
The deal is that they ignored their own rules yet again.
You can measure to a embarked unit as per the rules, but not for the teleport homers for no good reason.
Another rule change. They are so inconsistent it is laughable.
Roknar wrote: Hmm, wasn't there a bit about embarked units in the BRBfaq? I vaguely remember somethign along those lines.
FAQ? not sure,
Actual rules Yes. Vehicles chapter, under the Embarking rules: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."
So yea GW just likes to ignore its own rules I guess.
There was a clarification in the faq that said character with AoE abilities do not work whole embarked abd a section on psychic powers other then witch fire exception can not be cast while embarked.
embarked units are effectively treated as not on the board unless otherwise stated. The triangulation rule further supports that.
You can shoot via fire ports and use witch fires but essentially embarked units are not considered in the field of play. Certain abilities such as the Ork kff grants exceptions or alternate rules to this and is otherwise specifically called out.
Now the question I have is does open top transports change this rule? It appears to me to be no.
Roknar wrote: Hmm, wasn't there a bit about embarked units in the BRBfaq? I vaguely remember somethign along those lines.
FAQ? not sure,
Actual rules Yes. Vehicles chapter, under the Embarking rules: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."
So yea GW just likes to ignore its own rules I guess.
No, you just happened to not read all the other FAQs
The First Draft Main Book FAQ
Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?
A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.
Roknar wrote: Hmm, wasn't there a bit about embarked units in the BRBfaq? I vaguely remember somethign along those lines.
FAQ? not sure,
Actual rules Yes. Vehicles chapter, under the Embarking rules: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."
So yea GW just likes to ignore its own rules I guess.
No, you just happened to not read all the other FAQs
The First Draft Main Book FAQ
Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?
A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.
Honestly, that question should not even be a question if you actually read the rules.
And As I said, they changed the rule and went against the RAW.
They have done this several times in this FAQ. it is laughable at this point.
Roknar wrote: Hmm, wasn't there a bit about embarked units in the BRBfaq? I vaguely remember somethign along those lines.
FAQ? not sure,
Actual rules Yes. Vehicles chapter, under the Embarking rules: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."
So yea GW just likes to ignore its own rules I guess.
No, you just happened to not read all the other FAQs
The First Draft Main Book FAQ
Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?
A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.
Honestly, that question should not even be a question if you actually read the rules.
And As I said, they changed the rule and went against the RAW.
They have done this several times in this FAQ. it is laughable at this point.
No they didn't change any rules nothing you linked in the brb changed the faq.
Just because there may be a situation you need to measure to an embarked model (for instance the shooting exception) doesn't mean every special rule works from an embarked unit. There hasn't been a single faq that changed the rules just people to stubborn to admit they read the rules wrong. And I'm not saying he wrote clear rules just that every faq makes sense.
Well, at the very least they didn't back on their own faq this time. The "hidden" erratas are fine if they make it into the final version as actual erratas. At least this one has been consistent so far.
BA Scout units given boosted stats. SW equivalents are not. To be clear it's not so much the errata itself but the reasoning behind it.
The reasoning behind it is that in the SM book, Scouts now have the same statline as Marines. Space Wolf scouts don't get that 'boost' because they already had it.
BA Scout units given boosted stats. SW equivalents are not. To be clear it's not so much the errata itself but the reasoning behind it.
The reasoning behind it is that in the SM book, Scouts now have the same statline as Marines. Space Wolf scouts don't get that 'boost' because they already had it.
Except they cost a lot more. I would agree if SM Scouts cost 14pts and were Elites. What about the Claw units then? They are also "new" Astartes so why don't they have the same stats?
What the hell happened to the Frag Cannon's overwatch? The original BRBFAQ mentioned them and it's d3 per number of shots, and now they come out with this 1d3 answer?
I hope this is one of those "whoops we screw this up let us fix it real quick" moments like what they did with the SM command squad apothecary.
Because they have special rules that regular Scouts don't.
What about the Claw units then? They are also "new" Astartes so why don't they have the same stats?
Once upon a time they did. They were reduced when Scouts were reduced, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see them boosted back up next time the codex is redone.
For the short term, though, having Blood Claws and Scouts with different stats is not confusing for players in the same way as having Scouts and Scouts with different stats is, so there's not as pressing a need to update it in the FAQ. The focus of the FAQ seems to be just to 'correct' statlines on functionally (more-or-less) identical units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mulletdude wrote: What the hell happened to the Frag Cannon's overwatch? The original BRBFAQ mentioned them and it's d3 per number of shots, and now they come out with this 1d3 answer?
I hope this is one of those "whoops we screw this up let us fix it real quick" moments like what they did with the SM command squad apothecary.
It's definitely a contradiction... but the original answer doesn't seem to fit the original rules, so will hopefully be updated to match the Blood Angels version.
Because they have special rules that regular Scouts don't.
What about the Claw units then? They are also "new" Astartes so why don't they have the same stats?
Once upon a time they did. They were reduced when Scouts were reduced, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see them boosted back up next time the codex is redone.
For the short term, though, having Blood Claws and Scouts with different stats is not confusing for players in the same way as having Scouts and Scouts with different stats is, so there's not as pressing a need to update it in the FAQ. The focus of the FAQ seems to be just to 'correct' statlines on functionally (more-or-less) identical units.
Name them please because I don't remember any.
Hence the confusion. Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
And As I said, they changed the rule and went against the RAW.
They have done this several times in this FAQ. it is laughable at this point.
Isn't changing the rules the half the point of an FAQ? If they messed up and had rules interact in a way they didn't want them to you would expect them to FAQ it to the way they intended.
Nightlord1987 wrote: So are all the complaining Wolf players going to ignore the REASONING behind their Claw units lower skills?
They're supposed to be lil puplings, too excited for their own good.
Hence Rage. Scouts are inexperienced and not used to their own bodies so how come they're equal to veteran warriors now. There's a difference between pointing out a flaw and complaining.
Nightlord1987 wrote: So are all the complaining Wolf players going to ignore the REASONING behind their Claw units lower skills?
They're supposed to be lil puplings, too excited for their own good.
No, they're not ignoring that. Blood Claws are the equivalent of Scouts in other Chapters. They should therefore have the same stats as everyone else's neophytes. The change to lower stats happened at a time when Scouts also had lower stats, to bring them in line with everyone else. Now that everyone else has gone up, Space Wolf neophytes should as well.
In a system where an Ork boy and an unmodified human share the same strength band, there is no particular reason for Marine neophytes to have different stats to regular marines. Yes, they're not as skilled... but the difference in terms of the stat banding that the game uses is negligible.
If the rule unambiguously states X, yet they FAQ to say Y, then more properly they should errata to change the actual text of the rule.
DR - every FAQ in every edition has muddled FAQ and errata. I don't know why this remains a shock.
It is not a shock. just laughable, and shows me that GW does not care at all about the rules.
gungo wrote: No they didn't change any rules nothing you linked in the brb changed the faq. Just because there may be a situation you need to measure to an embarked model (for instance the shooting exception) doesn't mean every special rule works from an embarked unit. There hasn't been a single faq that changed the rules just people to stubborn to admit they read the rules wrong. And I'm not saying he wrote clear rules just that every faq makes sense.
Yes they changed a number of rules with the FAQ.
Before the FAQ you could measure to an embarked unit for a Locator beacon.
In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.
Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Or just go by common sense. Wolf Cav, Bikes and Armor stuff have always been pieces of wargear that modified the profile directly, while Weapons and Special Rules never affected the profile.
That is not factual. Bikes have never been noted as modifying the profile directly before any other modifications. Indeed, up until recently, the modified Toughness value of a model which CAME as a Bike was not considered when determining Instant Death. Instant Death was changed to consider the modified Toughness only recently, and that is when Bike units stopped having parentheses in their profiles.
All the Wolf Cavalry Wargear states is that it increases the stat and that it is included in the profile if the model comes with it as default. It does not state that it does it before any other modifiers are applied in any manner.
Armour Saves are even more quirky, and nothing in their rules state they are to be applied as part of the base profile of the model.
In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.
Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
What sort of change are you expecting?
Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?
WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.
In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.
Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
What sort of change are you expecting?
Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?
WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.
Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.
In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.
Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
What sort of change are you expecting?
Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?
WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.
Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.
Well no they'd be Grey Hunters with worse weapons and more expensive for some reason.
Why should my "new" Marines be worse then everyone elses? Answer: They shouldn't. So we have two options. 1. Make Claw units WS/BS 4. 2. Make DA, BA and SM Scouts WS/BS 3. I'm happy with either of those.
Fine. Two options if you want to at least attempt to appear competent at game design.
Chapters are different via tactics, organisation and unique units e.g. Deathwing Knights. Not randomly making things that have the same background different cuz we can.
As I said if other Scouts went back to WS/BS 3 I'd be happy.
They made Scouts cheaper when making them BS/WS 3. Both a good move.
When returning them to BS/WS 4, they didn't change the cost. Not a good move, not at at all. Especially with the discrepancies that should show up with Crusader Squad Neophytes and Wolves' Claws units.
Jackal wrote: As I said, personally I think they should all drop o match wolf scouts, but that's just my opinion based on them being inexperienced.
And unfortunately GW have missed quite a bit when it comes to weird rules and changes etc.
Wolf Scouts aren't inexperienced. They used to be Grey Hunters and then promoted to Scouts. It is why their WS/BS didn't change in their 5th Edition codex even though Codex and BAngels did. It is all the Claw Squads who are inexperienced.
In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.
Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
What sort of change are you expecting?
Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?
WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.
Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.
Well no they'd be Grey Hunters with worse weapons and more expensive for some reason.
Why should my "new" Marines be worse then everyone elses? Answer: They shouldn't. So we have two options. 1. Make Claw units WS/BS 4. 2. Make DA, BA and SM Scouts WS/BS 3. I'm happy with either of those.
Well no they'd be exactly Grey Hunters, Same LD same upgrades and 2 more points for the bolt gun, bolt pistols, and CCW that grey hunters can pay 2 points for, so exactly the same if you take the CCW.
In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.
Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.
What sort of change are you expecting?
Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?
WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.
Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.
Well no they'd be Grey Hunters with worse weapons and more expensive for some reason.
Why should my "new" Marines be worse then everyone elses? Answer: They shouldn't. So we have two options. 1. Make Claw units WS/BS 4. 2. Make DA, BA and SM Scouts WS/BS 3. I'm happy with either of those.
Well no they'd be exactly Grey Hunters, Same LD same upgrades and 2 more points for the bolt gun, bolt pistols, and CCW that grey hunters can pay 2 points for, so exactly the same if you take the CCW.
Does the harlequin faq also mean that the fist of khorne special rule for assaulting after disembarking now officially does nothing, since it doesn't specify assaulting after deepstriking/reserve?
I'm quite happy with the Spider Errata as well. No one really played them in my area, nor did I. This takes the pressure off to try them out, as I really don't like T3 models that can't hide in transports.
The Aspect Host Wave serpent change is a surprise. I was aware of the issue, but expected GW to say no +1BS to the Serpent. Well, I guess my Fire Dragons just got a pimped new ride.
Crazyterran wrote: So, that means you can have a Wraithknight as a Lord of War and as a HQ in a Codex: Iyanden detachment?
Lovely.
Negative. It means you can have your Lord of War WK as your Warlord. Says nothing about taking a Wraithlord or WK as an HQ. Please read the rule before assuming the worst.
Crazyterran wrote: So, that means you can have a Wraithknight as a Lord of War and as a HQ in a Codex: Iyanden detachment?
Lovely.
Negative. It means you can have your Lord of War WK as your Warlord. Says nothing about taking a Wraithlord or WK as an HQ. Please read the rule before assuming the worst.
--
Also don't forget the *character* addition if it's chosen as the Warlord so it can challenge for fun!!.
Luckily Iyanden Spirit seers in Wraith host got a bit nerfed his utility if their go for runes of battle (as their primary just grant them the same bonus they have passively due formation) but we all know most of players will go to fish Invisibility instead on Telepathy with them.
On the other hand, crafty players can use it to Grant battle focus to outside Wraithknights in Warhost formations so a double edge thing.
So if Iyanden is legal are we back to Spiritseers making Wraithguard and Wraithblades troops? I believe the supplement still has that statement in the section it talks about the wraith units.
Crazyterran wrote: So, that means you can have a Wraithknight as a Lord of War and as a HQ in a Codex: Iyanden detachment?
Lovely.
Negative. It means you can have your Lord of War WK as your Warlord. Says nothing about taking a Wraithlord or WK as an HQ. Please read the rule before assuming the worst.
--
Also don't forget the *character* addition if it's chosen as the Warlord so it can challenge for fun!!.
Wraithknights used to be Characters in the old Eldar Codex, but lost this in the current one. Iyanden allows you to make it your warlord, but doesn't make it a Character.
Fhionnuisce wrote: So if Iyanden is legal are we back to Spiritseers making Wraithguard and Wraithblades troops? I believe the supplement still has that statement in the section it talks about the wraith units.
No. That used to be a rule of the Spiritseers in the old Eldar Codex. So it's gone.
I don't really get why they 'aye'ed the Iyanden book. The primaris Voice of Twilight didn't properly work when the book was relased (all wraith units are mandatory targets, blessings need LOS). That's in addition to WKs not being characters and Spiritseers not moving Wraithguards/blades to troops anymore. So if you are stuck with 3 elite slots anyway, why not grab a wraith host and gain battle trance and improved Voice of Twilight?
Wraith LORDS have always been characters, but Wraih KNIGHTS have never been characters. I'm gonna have to check the Iyanden supplement when I get home to see that actually wording if they become characters. If they do not, no WL trait.
Galef, Per the Iyanden supplement, a Wraithlord or Wraithknight can be your Warlord even though they are not HQs. IIRC, At the beginning of 7th, I think it was FAQ'd that Wraithknights became characters in this case, however, the BLFAQ link no longer works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, found it (had to download all to view). Per the last update for Iyanden (May 2014), available here www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html
AMENDMENTS Page 50 - Heroes of Iyanden Replace this paragraph with the following: 'If you are fielding an Iyanden detachment, you may select a single Wraithlord or Wraithknight in that detachment to be your Warlord. If you do so, the selected model is a character and receives a Warlord Trait.'
Happyjew wrote: Galef, Per the Iyanden supplement, a Wraithlord or Wraithknight can be your Warlord even though they are not HQs. IIRC, At the beginning of 7th, I think it was FAQ'd that Wraithknights became characters in this case, however, the BLFAQ link no longer works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, found it (had to download all to view). Per the last update for Iyanden (May 2014), available here www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html
AMENDMENTS
Page 50 - Heroes of Iyanden
Replace this paragraph with the following:
'If you are fielding an Iyanden detachment, you may select
a single Wraithlord or Wraithknight in that detachment
to be your Warlord. If you do so, the selected model is a
character and receives a Warlord Trait.'
That's tough to say that FAQ is still viable, though. Not only because the link in broken, but because it may lead to an agreement of whether the "Draft FAQ" overrides all previous FAQs. If it does, we ignore what you just quoted. If it doesn't invalidate the FAQ, we start to wonder it the Draft is official yet. That might lead back tot the question of whether you can use the Iyanden supplement.
TLDR, that's a mess and it's better just to say your WL WK can't take a trait or challenge because he's not a character.
Even if the FAQ Draft overrides the current drafts, there is (currently) no draft FAQ for Iyanden. Furthermore, if you have the digital copy, it most likely was updated to include that amendment.
I don't know for sure if the link is broken, it may just be my computer (i can't even url link on this forum for some reason). Even then, the download still works.
I had zero difficulty finding the Iyanden FAQ. If you just look up warhammer FAQ, or black library FAQ on google the first link took me to a page with it. Looking up Iyanden FAQ however brought up a dead link. It seems that gw changed the url to warhammer-40k from warhammer-40000. You can look at the cached version by google that still works for the old url.
Either way its the same file just with a different url, and it is easily available from the black libraries FAQ and errata page. It is the "official update for 7th edition". There has been no FAQ since that supersedes it so I don't see any reason that it would not be relevant.
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
NorseSig wrote: Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
I think we should be happy they made any errata at all considering they only promised an faq. They offered clarifications not changes.
NorseSig wrote: Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.
NorseSig wrote: Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.
Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.
NorseSig wrote: Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.
Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.
No, they're not since erratas have always been posted as a part of the FAQ document and not separately.
JimOnMars wrote: Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.
To be fair, points have been updated in the Errata section of the FAQ documents before. It is quite rare, though. I can only think of the Hellberute right after CSM's latest launch and adjustments to the Black Templar codex when Codex Marines 5th Edition came out.
In keeping with that, if they haven't errata'd the Scatter Lasers by now, they won't before the next book.
NorseSig wrote: Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.
Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.
No, they're not since erratas have always been posted as a part of the FAQ document and not separately.
Again I will repeat myself I am referencing the ERRATA portion NOT the FAQ. It DOES NOT MATTER that they are usually given together. And there is a difference between ERRATA and FAQ. Are you really going to say there isn't a difference between errata and faq simply because they are released together? If there isn't a difference why is one labeled faq and the other errata? Why do they have different definitions? Like I said before reading comprehension. You are an intelligent individual. I see no reason why you shouldn't use it to comprehend what others write.
To be fair these errata are just as draft status as the faqs.
Example the dreadnauts change was only done AFTER player feedback. Even still some of the errata hasn't been the most clearly written either and i expect some minor rewording before it's officially posted on the GW website in PDF.
The only point changes in errata has Only ever been done when there is a misprint and two different printings have different point costs. Beyond that there has never been a point adjustment to balance a unit..... Ever
It's pretty clear at this point all codexs have been updated to 6/7th standard and we are now in a lame duck period until 8th edition comes out next year and I am sure after that point we will see a mass push for all the codexs to be updated. I'm not saying we won't get campaign style updates and new formations or models but we haven't had a proper codex update in 40k in almost a year.
As an Ork and guard player I can't wait for an updated 8th edition streamlined codex especially under this current administration that seems to pay more attention to detail and I can't wait to see my codexs updated as well but I don't expect much until the summer of next year. I think the review of the faqs will give the devs insight into issues the community is having, I think the fact GW is going to the largest tournament events such as the ITC LVO next year to help run events is a huge insight for them to see the problems with the rules and time issues with the game. I fully expect after all this reviewing and insight GW will produce a much better edition for 40k especially considering what they did for AoS by involving a lot of the community to help produce the generals handbook. However at this point I think GW is gathering data and letting the current ruleset play out before they update any major codex.
NorseSig wrote: Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.
Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.
Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.
No, they're not since erratas have always been posted as a part of the FAQ document and not separately.
Again I will repeat myself I am referencing the ERRATA portion NOT the FAQ. It DOES NOT MATTER that they are usually given together. And there is a difference between ERRATA and FAQ. Are you really going to say there isn't a difference between errata and faq simply because they are released together? If there isn't a difference why is one labeled faq and the other errata? Why do they have different definitions? Like I said before reading comprehension. You are an intelligent individual. I see no reason why you shouldn't use it to comprehend what others write.
And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.
And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.
I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.
Back to the topic of the thread. this wasn't too bad of a set of faqs/erratas. Didn't like all of them, but I don't think anything really gave much if any of a helping hand to the power of the eldar.
Anyone else notice that they ruled a blast marker that clips an unintended unit counts as "targeted" at that unit? This contradicts previous rulings that allowed us to drift a marker onto an untargetable unit.
Roknar wrote: Does the harlequin faq also mean that the fist of khorne special rule for assaulting after disembarking now officially does nothing, since it doesn't specify assaulting after deepstriking/reserve?
My opinion is 'no' because games workshop have said time and time again that a rule in one book does not affect rules in another book.
Also the following draft faq is for a formation outside of the BRB which means that it overrides the BRB not allowing them to charge after deepstrike:
Q: Under the Hungry for Blood special rule, are the Berzerkers in the Fist of Khorne Formation allowed to charge in turn one, or from turn two, when they disembark?
A: The Berzerkers can charge on the same turn they disembark, regardless of which turn that is.
And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.
I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.
Arguing semantics of calling the overall thing an FAQ vs calling it FAQ and Errata doesn't change the fact that it really would not have made a lot of sense to do point changes within the documents. Someone called the whole thing an FAQ, so what, we know there's errata in there as well, it's easier colloquially to just call it all one thing.
You can feel they should have done points adjustments, but I don't think points adjustments should be done in an errata unless an actual mistake was made when publishing a book. It's not a good precedent and then people have to check to see if their units actually cost what they claim in the book when they're list-building.
And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.
I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.
Arguing semantics of calling the overall thing an FAQ vs calling it FAQ and Errata doesn't change the fact that it really would not have made a lot of sense to do point changes within the documents. Someone called the whole thing an FAQ, so what, we know there's errata in there as well, it's easier colloquially to just call it all one thing.
You can feel they should have done points adjustments, but I don't think points adjustments should be done in an errata unless an actual mistake was made when publishing a book. It's not a good precedent and then people have to check to see if their units actually cost what they claim in the book when they're list-building.
If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.
The fact that GW kept waiting for a couple for years each time until actual codexs are updated is one of the reasons the game is in such a state.
Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!
ZooPants wrote: Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!
They buffed the shooting before. Nobody took Spiritseers before and I don't see that changing. It isn't much of a buff IMO.
And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.
I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.
Arguing semantics of calling the overall thing an FAQ vs calling it FAQ and Errata doesn't change the fact that it really would not have made a lot of sense to do point changes within the documents. Someone called the whole thing an FAQ, so what, we know there's errata in there as well, it's easier colloquially to just call it all one thing.
You can feel they should have done points adjustments, but I don't think points adjustments should be done in an errata unless an actual mistake was made when publishing a book. It's not a good precedent and then people have to check to see if their units actually cost what they claim in the book when they're list-building.
If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.
The fact that GW kept waiting for a couple for years each time until actual codexs are updated is one of the reasons the game is in such a state.
"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.
BossJakadakk wrote: "Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.
If there are no other changes, usually not. However, Meltabombs really didn't change from 4th Edition to 5th, and yet Black Templar Assault Marines had their cost for them increase from 5 to 15 keeping it balanced with the other Codex Marines via errata.
So, it does happen, but it is incredibly rare and usually only happens much after the fact when equivalent changes are made, ala the Attacks for the Dreadnoughts.
"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.
Except that it absolutely is - many game systems do it and improve the experience.
We are having rules changes either by FAQ or Errata - points is just something else that can be adjusted. If you can change one you can change the other.
Why is it better to have horribly unbalanced units when they can be adjusted with a simple update - I can see how, unless you are a person that enjoys playing with broken units it can be anything other than a benefit? And I am someone who prefers everything in hard copy - but a digital update that improves the game is not something to be disdained.
"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.
Except that it absolutely is - many game systems do it and improve the experience.
We are having rules changes either by FAQ or Errata - points is just something else that can be adjusted. If you can change one you can change the other.
Why is it better to have horribly unbalanced units when they can be adjusted with a simple update - I can see how, unless you are a person that enjoys playing with broken units it can be anything other than a benefit? And I am someone who prefers everything in hard copy - but a digital update that improves the game is not something to be disdained.
The alternative is wait years on end?
Not something that should be disdained, no. However, people make lists using the actual books. If you alter points costs through errata, not everyone is going to get the memo. So they can put things like extra attacks and increased WS/BS or flickerjump being once per turn in an errata, but it's 100% understandable for them to not increase WK points by 100 in an errata considering the situation of rolling up to a game and finding out "Oh hey btw there's new FAQ/errata so some things work differently" compared to "Oh hey btw there's new FAQ/errata so you have to make changes to your list." One is a much more negative experience than the other. A more gradual change is still better for now until they completely overhaul how they do things. It may be the time (overdue even), but it's not the place.
And if point changes are rare, but still keeping with the idea of putting the same unit/item on the same base for multiple codices (like the melta bombs example), there's not a SM WK, there's not an Ork WK. It's not the same model in more than one codex listed at different points costs.
ZooPants wrote: Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!
Nah some of those facts are misleading.
Iyanden does allow to take 5x spiritseers as a single HQ choice, but only works when building CAD.
Spiritseers allow rerolls of 1 for wraith units when attacking enemy units at 12" of the Spiritseer, the 18" full reroll (not twin-link) only work for a specific formation with a single Spiritseer.
Mr Morden wrote: If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.
This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that GW chooses not to do this. Many of us have been sending messages, emails, letters and making phone calls to GW.
But that is only a couple hundred people. So far, GW thinks they can ignore us, and largely, they can. If they lose a couple of hundred customers, no big loss. They still have thousands of others.
This will only change when a truly large number of people complain (not on Dakka, but directly to GW.)
Mr Morden wrote: If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.
This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that GW chooses not to do this. Many of us have been sending messages, emails, letters and making phone calls to GW.
But that is only a couple hundred people. So far, GW thinks they can ignore us, and largely, they can. If they lose a couple of hundred customers, no big loss. They still have thousands of others.
This will only change when a truly large number of people complain (not on Dakka, but directly to GW.)
Have you sent your letters yet?
Surprisingly I have. I would also like to state their current direction is moving closer to being a "living" update kind of thing. They should be adjusting points SM have things that cost too little and a few that cost too much for instance. I honestly think when 8th comes out they need to base upgrade costs on how effective they are in a given unit. Things like that.
The issue with adjusting points cost is that GW already has adjusted them. they do with every codex release. They decide how much THEY think something should cost, then put it into print. Why would they adjust the points again when the points costs are where they want them to be?
The only times I have every seen points changes in a FAQ/Errata is when A) a misprint occurred with in different language books or B) Because they want all the Marines to have similar units.
FAQs are to clear up ambiguous rules. Erratas are meant to add/change a rule to make it clear or prevent shenanigans. They're pretty much the same and NEITHER of them are meant to change points costs.
Over-efficient units have always been a thing in 40K. Even if you change a few units, others will still be OP. In fact, changing the cost of unit A in codex 1 might create an OP issue with unit B in codex 2.
The other issue with "living" points adjustments is that GW is terrible at it. If they routinely stir the pot with point changes, there's no guarantee that at any point in time they will actually get them right. They would also need to provide a clear and unambiguous data feed for the current values, and we all would need to agree to download the latest updates and use them. Not much problem for regular players, but possibly intimidating for new ones.
Now if GW had some really good software that would simulate games and evaluate units, they might be able to offer definitive and fair point values, and these would not need to be updated. I don't see that happening any time soon.
JimOnMars wrote: The other issue with "living" points adjustments is that GW is terrible at it. If they routinely stir the pot with point changes, there's no guarantee that at any point in time they will actually get them right. They would also need to provide a clear and unambiguous data feed for the current values, and we all would need to agree to download the latest updates and use them. Not much problem for regular players, but possibly intimidating for new ones.
Now if GW had some really good software that would simulate games and evaluate units, they might be able to offer definitive and fair point values, and these would not need to be updated. I don't see that happening any time soon.
I agree with this and would like to add that a "living' rule set would probably be a mess if GW tried it. It's already hard enough to keep up with all the new formations and layers of special rules. Imagine how convoluted the game would be if points costs changed every month or so.
To be fair, it's a select few mistakes GW made that really make everything break down. Yes, CSM and BA need a lot of help, but if scatterbikes and WK weren't a thing, they would only be a 5 ft hole, not a 1000 ft hole.
Martel732 wrote: To be fair, it's a select few mistakes GW made that really make everything break down. Yes, CSM and BA need a lot of help, but if scatterbikes and WK weren't a thing, they would only be a 5 ft hole, not a 1000 ft hole.
I agree with the sentiment, but the analogy is a bit exaggerated.
Martel732 wrote: To be fair, it's a select few mistakes GW made that really make everything break down. Yes, CSM and BA need a lot of help, but if scatterbikes and WK weren't a thing, they would only be a 5 ft hole, not a 1000 ft hole.
I agree with the sentiment, but the analogy is a bit exaggerated.
It's almost impossible for the low tier lists to get anything done vs scatbikes/WK.
Mr Morden wrote: If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.
This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that GW chooses not to do this. Many of us have been sending messages, emails, letters and making phone calls to GW.
But that is only a couple hundred people. So far, GW thinks they can ignore us, and largely, they can. If they lose a couple of hundred customers, no big loss. They still have thousands of others.
This will only change when a truly large number of people complain (not on Dakka, but directly to GW.)
Have you sent your letters yet?
yes previosuly written to GW in general and White dwarf team
I noticed it looks like an official stance has been taken on the old issue of more than one psycher in a unit. A single unit(squad/brood/collection of independant) multiple psycher models count as a the same unit for casting of powers. Minor, but is going to have ripple effects.
barnowl wrote: I noticed it looks like an official stance has been taken on the old issue of more than one psycher in a unit. A single unit(squad/brood/collection of independant) multiple psycher models count as a the same unit for casting of powers. Minor, but is going to have ripple effects.
As much of a mess as the psyker rules are, I always imagined this particular bit to be intentional - in previous editions you would run multiple psykers with the same power in a deathstar to ensure the important ones (Fortune, etc.) was cast even if the first failed or denied. Even then, in my opinion it should have been the same target unit cannot be targeted twice by the same blessing.
ZooPants wrote: Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!
Not really. The problem with Iyanden is that it was written for the 6th edition codex and much of it has been superceded by the current codex. The only thing in it that will be of obvious benefit is making Wraithguard troops, but then you can quickly end up with a supper elite army that relies entirely on very short range shooting. Sure, you can bring a squad of 5 Spiritseers but why would you? The Spiritmark ability is largely useless now because rather than nominate a single unit for Wraith constructs to re-roll 1's against the Spiritseer now gives a 12" radius bubble where any Wraiths in range can re-roll 1's, a significantly better ability and is stock special rule in the codex. The 18" range, re-roll all failed To Hit rolls is the bonus in the Wraith Host formation so can't be used with the Iyanden supplement.
barnowl wrote: I noticed it looks like an official stance has been taken on the old issue of more than one psycher in a unit. A single unit(squad/brood/collection of independant) multiple psycher models count as a the same unit for casting of powers. Minor, but is going to have ripple effects.
As much of a mess as the psyker rules are, I always imagined this particular bit to be intentional - in previous editions you would run multiple psykers with the same power in a deathstar to ensure the important ones (Fortune, etc.) was cast even if the first failed or denied. Even then, in my opinion it should have been the same target unit cannot be targeted twice by the same blessing.
Now it's both, as the same Blessing or Malediction can't stack on a unit.
I played against Grey Knights today and it did come up where I denied Sanctuary on my opponents Palladin/Grand Master/Drago squad and he couldn't re-cast it thanks to the new FAQ. Though it certainly helped I wouldn't have called it game changing.
ZooPants wrote: Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!
Not really. The problem with Iyanden is that it was written for the 6th edition codex and much of it has been superceded by the current codex. The only thing in it that will be of obvious benefit is making Wraithguard troops, but then you can quickly end up with a supper elite army that relies entirely on very short range shooting.....
It is not possible anymore to make Wraithguard or -blades Troops. The 6th Ed Eldar Codex Entry for the Spiritseer HQ shifted the Wraithguard and Wraithblades to Troops. That book is replaced by the Craftworld Codex, which does not offer this rule.
The Iyanden Supplement was written with the battlefield role shift in mind, but has to do without it today.
I see they contradicted themselves again with Tank Shock. Earlier ruling was that Tank Shock cannot remove units, yet with Tau they just ruled that Tank Shock eliminates anchored Stormsurges.
Draft Errata resolves the Pulse Bomb issue and rewrites Coordinated Firepower so that are not firing as one unit any more. Coordinated Firepower just resolves all the shooting at the same time and propagates the Markerlight bonuses to all coordinated units, along with the BS bonus.
Tidewall cannot move if any enemy units are on it, the units on are in Combat, or not all of the unit is on it.
Tidewall is anchored if a Stormsurge on it is.
Firestorm Wing Piranhas can be all but wiped out and return at full starting model strength.
A lot more of course.
Can't seem to bring the rest of the pictures past FAQ Page 3 up as they are taking forever loading.
Interesting that they started with Erratas first this go around.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I see they contradicted themselves again with Tank Shock. Earlier ruling was that Tank Shock cannot remove units, yet with Tau they just ruled that Tank Shock eliminates anchored Stormsurges.
With their writers would get on the same page.
SJ
It's not a contradiction because he storm surge CANT move where the other rulings was because they can move just not in a straight line or within coherency.If a unit can't move away from a tank shock it is still destroyed.
If I tank shock your units in a corner near a building and zone edge with my battlewagon you are still destroyed.
Charistoph wrote: Can't seem to bring the rest of the pictures past FAQ Page 3 up as they are taking forever loading.
That's Facebook's doings if you're not logged in Reds8n posted them HERE in the News & Rumours thread for the work blocked.
Oh, yeah, I know. Priority goes to members who log in, and I'm not logged in on this browser, and I don't feel like pulling it up on my phone. I was merely pointing out why I didn't go further through it.
Glad that Coordinated Fire was errata'd. No more firing as a single unit! Clears it up that Uber-Buffmander was NOT an intended consequence! However, the returning full-strength Piranha's gig sure was everything that was feared. All return, even if one was immobilized, and they can come on and leave during the same turn.
I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?
Oh, and being able to run over those Stormsurges with a Chimera or a Rhino is going to be H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S.
Yarium wrote: I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?
I can't explain about Scoring, since that honestly doesn't make any sense.
However, Split Fire operates like Stubborn, even having one of the same qualifiers. However, if Split Fire comes from the Detachment, then it shouldn't work any more than any other unit-affecting detachment rules, since the IC doesn't count as part of the unit for them.
Yarium wrote: I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?
The confusion was over things like formation or detachment rules.
Split Fire has the wording "if a unit contains one or more models with this rule", and the IC rules single out Stubborn (a rule with the same type of wording) as working with IC's that have joined to the unit.
Then there are rules like Deep Strike, which required every model in the unit to have the rule for anyone to benefit.
Formations and Detachments didn't use either of these two wordings, so we weren't sure which side of the line they came down on (apparently, somewhere in the middle, where the unit still gets most of the benefits).
Reds8n posted them 