http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170234a_Daemons_of_Chaos_v1.0_APRIL13.pdf

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440134a&categoryId=1000018§ion=&pIndex=2&aId=3000006&start=3&multiPageMode=true

is that maybe a new Empire one too ?

Bit of luck this is the start of a new batch and we'll get some 40k updates too !

Hobbit update too yes ?

Dark Angels too !


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Do units deploying via the Deathwing Assault special rule count
toward the limit of unitsyou are allowed to keep in Reserves at the
start of a battle? (p44)
A: Yes.
Q: The Standard of Devastation states that ‘all friendly Codex:
Dark Angels units within 6” of the standard treat their boltguns as
Salvo 2/4 weapons’. Which boltguns does this apply to? (p66)
A: This applies to the standard boltgun (24”range, S4, AP5,
Rapid Fire), twin-linked boltguns on bikes, the bolter
component of combi-weapons, and hurricane bolters.

Well thats a pretty big change, Empire detachments count as steadfast even if their parent unit isnt in combat!

Hello conga lines!

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3050214a_Death_From_the_Skies_v1.1_avril_2013.pdf

from the death from the skies FAQ

Page 62 – Flyboss
Change “Zooming Flying Monstrous Creature”to “Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creature”.

.. I don't recall there being any FMC in the book at all ..?

.. sneaky glimpse at the future maybe ?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes. Rememberthough that a Crisis battlesuit can still only
fire a maximum of two weapon systems per Shooting phase.
For example: A Crisis battlesuit could be equipped with three (non Twin-linked) burst cannons, or one Twin-linked burst
cannon and one (non Twin-linked) burst cannon, so long as
you pay the appropriate cost in each instance. In either case,
make sure your opponent is aware how you have chosen to
equip such models at the beginning of the game.

Bad Abbadon, no Daemonhood for you!

Page 57 – Abaddon the Despoiler, Mark of Chaos Ascendent
Add the following sentence “If Abaddon rolls Spawnhood or
Dark Apotheosis on the Chaos Boon Table, re-roll this result
(and any further results of the same). The Despoiler is not
meant for Daemonhood just yet!”

Also this might annoy some DA players:

Page 64 – Power Field Generator
Add “If the bearer is embarked upon a Transport vehicle, the
power field’s effects only apply to models embarked upon that
vehicle”.

Hooray ! a 40k demon FAQ !


Boo as it's pretty pointless and doesn't solve or answer anything at all.

 reds8n wrote:
Hooray ! a 40k demon FAQ !


Boo as it's pretty pointless and doesn't solve or answer anything at all.

My sentiments exactly.

They've finally FAQ'd invulns for vehicles:

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armoursaves because they may always be taken
wheneverthe model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit –

Liking the call on the Tau suit weapons, need to pick up another three box and play around for the rest of Farsights enclave for the boy.

The Rulebook FAQ lets you allocate blast wounds to models out of LOS now, I think that's a big change.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

Q: Can enemy Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous
Creatures be hit by Imotekh the Stormlord’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special
rule? (p55)
A: Yes.

all is forgiven !

Oh man. Blasts can kill models out of Line of Sight. My Thunderfire Cannons are rejoicing.

Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing
their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count
as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes.

Well that's resolved that issue. Reanimation Protocols for all!

At least this helps with one or two issues for Daemons if I remember correctly

Page 2 – Modifiers
Change the last sentence to “A model’s Initiative cannot be
modified below 1, and no other characteristic can be modified
below 0”.

Page 105 – Battlefield Debris, Gun Emplacement
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to “One
non-vehicle model in base contact with the gun
emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon,
following the normalrules forshooting. Note that the model
counts as stationary forthese purposes”.

No dreads/rhinos firing guns then.... fair enough.

This is pretty big for DA:

Page 96 – Ravenwing Command Squad, options.
Add:
“• The Ravenwing Command Squad may purchase up to two
additional Ravenwing Black
Knights……………………………………………..40 pts / model”

Might want to remove "WFB" from the title, red, since all you lot care about are the 40k FAQs

And the Daemons still havnt been addressed....

Title changed.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3050214a_Death_From_the_Skies_v1.1_avril_2013.pdf

from the death from the skies FAQ

Page 62 – Flyboss
Change “Zooming Flying Monstrous Creature”to “Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creature”.

.. I don't recall there being any FMC in the book at all ..?

.. sneaky glimpse at the future maybe ?

.

.. any idea about this ? Is this a correction for a Flying Tyrant or something ?

Well, I guess I'm glad they released this FAQ before I went and equipped my DW sergeants with a TH/SS I suppose. I'm not entirely sure why GW is adamant that their terminator sergeants use power swords but, by god, they will make you field them that way.

Get back in there, Sergeant Always-Dies-First!

Disappointed by the DW Assault ruling as well, but I can always just counts-as with Logan if I want to do a full deep strike (well, drop pod) army. Not the end of the world.

The Errata letting Ravenwing Command Squads buy 2 extra models is huge, I never expected to see something like that.

Well, they didn't answer any of the important questions in the Chaos Daemons FAQ.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The Errata letting Ravenwing Command Squads buy 2 extra models is huge, I never expected to see something like that.

One of the strangest FAQS I've seen, makes you wonder how much they tested the original codex to suddenly allow a bigger squad like that.

 reds8n wrote:



.. any idea about this ? Is this a correction for a Flying Tyrant or something ?

I think it was a Dakkajet thing where they got +1 to BS when shooting Flyers and FMC's.

of course ! Thanks.

 Lansirill wrote:
Well, I guess I'm glad they released this FAQ before I went and equipped my DW sergeants with a TH/SS I suppose. I'm not entirely sure why GW is adamant that their terminator sergeants use power swords but, by god, they will make you field them that way.

Get back in there, Sergeant Always-Dies-First!

Didnt this just clarify that you can take thss and a cml on the same model?

WoW the GK FAQ gets 2 additions for stuff no one cares about, while still dodging the DtW for Cleansing flame or Heroic Sacrifice.

 shamikebab wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The Errata letting Ravenwing Command Squads buy 2 extra models is huge, I never expected to see something like that.

One of the strangest FAQS I've seen, makes you wonder how much they tested the original codex to suddenly allow a bigger squad like that.

Bad sales maybe?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neither rule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per ‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Great news!

Instead of answering, roll a dice!

The Eldar change is only to mention that you can LoS Mind War. I'm surprised that mattered enough to FAQ at this point.

Page 49 – Lelith Hesperax – The Penetrating Blade
Change the second sentence to “Her close combat attacks ignore Armour Saves”

Well, that was fun for some people, yeah?

 Shandara wrote:
Bad sales maybe?

Maybe but I would be surprised since it's a dual box with the normal Black Knight unit, and I've found the Black Knights to be amazing and most of what I've seen around from DA Players says the same thing.

People generally only took the Ravenwing Command squad if they wanted a mobile Banner of Devastation, because at 3 models, it just wasn't worth pimping out with things like Apothecaries for any other reason, so I think the change was a good idea, but I don't think the lack of popularity there was showing up on their bottom line.

 spears wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
Well, I guess I'm glad they released this FAQ before I went and equipped my DW sergeants with a TH/SS I suppose. I'm not entirely sure why GW is adamant that their terminator sergeants use power swords but, by god, they will make you field them that way.

Get back in there, Sergeant Always-Dies-First!

Didnt this just clarify that you can take thss and a cml on the same model?

That may have been the intention, but I'm not sure that's the effect. The new wording is that you 'replace his storm bolter and power fist', so if you have a storm bolter and power sword you aren't going to be able to exchange.

 Lansirill wrote:

 spears wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
Well, I guess I'm glad they released this FAQ before I went and equipped my DW sergeants with a TH/SS I suppose. I'm not entirely sure why GW is adamant that their terminator sergeants use power swords but, by god, they will make you field them that way.

Get back in there, Sergeant Always-Dies-First!

Didnt this just clarify that you can take thss and a cml on the same model?

That may have been the intention, but I'm not sure that's the effect. The new wording is that you 'replace his storm bolter and power fist', so if you have a storm bolter and power sword you aren't going to be able to exchange.

Hrrrmmmmm that seems like a mistake on GW's part (imagine if you can) It does state ''any model'' I really hope your wrong but I think as written you are indeed correct.

 Lansirill wrote:
That may have been the intention, but I'm not sure that's the effect. The new wording is that you 'replace his storm bolter and power fist', so if you have a storm bolter and power sword you aren't going to be able to exchange.

Hah, I hadn't noticed that, seems like they have undone the entire purpose of the original phrasing.

How peculiar, I feel like it's oversight, there's no particular reason a Deathwing unit shouldn't be able to emulate a normal Assault Terminator unit.

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neither rule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per ‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

This is pretty awesome.

Glad to see they finally corrected the Fantasy DoC Winds roll to match the non-English versions.

Yeh 40k daemons FAQ was certainly disappointing.

Like really, the Daemon FAQ isn't even a FAQ...

I'm really happy for the XV8 triple single weapons load out.

Yay!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hehe. Buff and Nerf to Imotekh:

Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is this a reversal of the last FAQ?

Q: If Old Zogwort rolls on the Weirdboy psychic power chart and gets a
psychic power that is resolved as a Shooting attack (specifically Frazzle
or Zzap) may he re-roll this power? If not, then can he ignore the power
for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points? (p61)
A: As a Warphead, he may re-roll, but may not ignore the
power for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points if his
re-roll also comes up as Frazzle or Zzap.

Yes, it was. Neat.

Q: If Old Zogwort rolls on the Weirdboy psychic power chart and
gets a psychic power that is resolved as a Shooting attack
(specifically Frazzle or Zzap) may he re- roll this power? If not then
can he ignore the power for the purposes of expending Warp
Charge points? (p61)
A: No to both questions.

I feel like this one is kinda huge...

Page 56 / 101 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier – Scout
Remove Scout from the Special Rules section of both the
Bestiary and Army List entries for the Valkyrie Assault Carrier
and Vendetta Gunship.

 streamdragon wrote:
I feel like this one is kinda huge...

Page 56 / 101 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier – Scout
Remove Scout from the Special Rules section of both the
Bestiary and Army List entries for the Valkyrie Assault Carrier
and Vendetta Gunship.

That already happened when DFTS came out.

edit: Yep, from the Feb FAQ for IG:

Page 56 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier, Unit Type.
Change type to Flyer (Hover, Transport).
Page 56/101 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier, Special Rules.
Remove the Deep Strike and Scout special rules.
Page 56 – Vendetta Gunship, Unit Type.
Change type to Flyer (Hover, Transport).
Page 56/101 – Vendetta Gunship, Special Rules.
Remove the Deep Strike and Scout special rules.

 pretre wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I feel like this one is kinda huge...

Page 56 / 101 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier – Scout
Remove Scout from the Special Rules section of both the
Bestiary and Army List entries for the Valkyrie Assault Carrier
and Vendetta Gunship.

That already happened when DFTS came out.

edit: Yep, from the Feb FAQ for IG:

Page 56 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier, Unit Type.
Change type to Flyer (Hover, Transport).
Page 56/101 – Valkyrie Assault Carrier, Special Rules.
Remove the Deep Strike and Scout special rules.
Page 56 – Vendetta Gunship, Unit Type.
Change type to Flyer (Hover, Transport).
Page 56/101 – Vendetta Gunship, Special Rules.
Remove the Deep Strike and Scout special rules.

Ah, didn't ever pick up DFTS so I missed that.

From the Chaos Daemon FAQ:

Q: Can we stop using the Warp Storm table? It's really kind of gak.
A: Sure. I don't know what we were thinking with that thing!!!

Sorry... I'm wish listing again, and I've been watching a lot of David Mitchell. If you know who David Mitchell is, read the above again in his voice, and it's much funnier.

Wow, no more Dark Angel Land Raider wall of doom!

I found this one pretty funny if taken literally:
"Page 112 – Allies of Convenience
Change the second paragraph to read “Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers or have templates or blast markers placed over them. However, if a psychic power, scattering Blast weapon or other ability that affects an area hits some of these Allies of Convenience, they will be affected along with any friendly or enemy units. Note that Allies of Convenience units are treated as ‘friendly units’ for the purpose of controlling and denying Objectives, and for the purpose of pile-in moves in Close Combat. This means that, for example...etc” "


Also, was this the first time they made it clear that you cannot walk through friendly models?

Also made it clear that your Aegis line doesn't prevent you from losing the game if no other models are out there.

 reds8n wrote:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes. Rememberthough that a Crisis battlesuit can still only
fire a maximum of two weapon systems per Shooting phase.
For example: A Crisis battlesuit could be equipped with three (non Twin-linked) burst cannons, or one Twin-linked burst
cannon and one (non Twin-linked) burst cannon, so long as
you pay the appropriate cost in each instance. In either case,
make sure your opponent is aware how you have chosen to
equip such models at the beginning of the game.

Why on earth would anyone ever even want to do this? you cannot use 3 weapons in the same shooting phase and having them auto twin-link makes way more sense. although I could see a benefit for 2 single weapons of the same type, I cant understand why anyone would want 3.

Allies of Convenience used to be unable to hold objectives, right? That's pretty significant. It'd make an allied nurgle detachment more popular.

 xole wrote:
Allies of Convenience used to be unable to hold objectives, right? That's pretty significant. It'd make an allied nurgle detachment more popular.

AoC could hold objectives before. Desperate couldn't and still can't.

 jlong05 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes..

Why on earth would anyone ever even want to do this? you cannot use 3 weapons in the same shooting phase and having them auto twin-link makes way more sense. although I could see a benefit for 2 single weapons of the same type, I cant understand why anyone would want 3.

Overwatch Flamers, or just for another option.

The Infinite wrote:
The Rulebook FAQ lets you allocate blast wounds to models out of LOS now, I think that's a big change.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

Nope, it didn't actually change anything. The blast still has to hit the target unit to allocate anything - scattering to an invisible unit you weren't targeting means you can't allocate anything.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Wow, no more Dark Angel Land Raider wall of doom!

This sucks as it was the only competitive build for DA that I really enjoyed playing. It should be like the damn KFF! The bikes and terminator builds are too expensive and too few models. Time to eBay my DA and keep playing my Tau/Necrons!

rigeld2 wrote:

The Infinite wrote:
The Rulebook FAQ lets you allocate blast wounds to models out of LOS now, I think that's a big change.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

Nope, it didn't actually change anything. The blast still has to hit the target unit to allocate anything - scattering to an invisible unit you weren't targeting means you can't allocate anything.

Not units, but models. Models out of line of sight are ok now.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 jlong05 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes..

Why on earth would anyone ever even want to do this? you cannot use 3 weapons in the same shooting phase and having them auto twin-link makes way more sense. although I could see a benefit for 2 single weapons of the same type, I cant understand why anyone would want 3.

Overwatch Flamers, or just for another option.

Or, in the case of the Commander (who must take 4 weapon/wargear options), this could be interpreted as allowing for two twin-linked weapons loadouts. TL Fireknife Commanders, anyone?

 spectreoneone wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 jlong05 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes..

Why on earth would anyone ever even want to do this? you cannot use 3 weapons in the same shooting phase and having them auto twin-link makes way more sense. although I could see a benefit for 2 single weapons of the same type, I cant understand why anyone would want 3.

Overwatch Flamers, or just for another option.

Or, in the case of the Commander (who must take 4 weapon/wargear options), this could be interpreted as allowing for two twin-linked weapons loadouts. TL Fireknife Commanders, anyone?

A little OT, but to me TL on commanders seems silly with thier BS 5...

My favorite change in the FAQ and an odd one at that -

Page 47 – Monolith, Dimensional Corridor
Add “Note that a Monolith can use its Dimensional Corridor
on a turn that it deploys by Deep Strike.” to the end of the
rule.

In the Space Marines codex it says drop pods or the unit that disembarks can be shot at by a unit with Interceptor.


You know Space Wolf, Templar, DA and BA players will say this isn't in my FAQ so you can't.

The triple weapon suit would let you fire one of them as Interceptor and still have two of that weapon available next turn, wouldn't it?

Shaken, stunned, and weapon destroyed don't strip a hull point? Am I reading that right?

 erewego86 wrote:
Shaken, stunned, and weapon destroyed don't strip a hull point? Am I reading that right?

No.

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)

A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost

It means that if you get shaken from something else you don't suffer a HP. So you get by a thunder-hammer and glanced. Do you suffer two HP of damage? (one for the glance and one for the shaken?) No.

 erewego86 wrote:
Shaken, stunned, and weapon destroyed don't strip a hull point? Am I reading that right?

And immobilized as well, looks like Drop Pods are back to not losing that HP when they come in:

Q. If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point?

A. No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost

Looks like Swarms also got a bit of a buff, in that they don't get two bases removed if they suffer damage from a blast weapon that's instant death.

nobody wrote:


Looks like Swarms also got a bit of a buff, in that they don't get two bases removed if they suffer damage from a blast weapon that's instant death.

Yeah this and the RfP ruling made me do a happy dance as they were my two of my biggest pet peeves with the rules.

So I can take two separate missile pods instead of the classic twin-linker? Neat

 pretre wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)

A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost

It means that if you get shaken from something else you don't suffer a HP.

So yes, this fixes the drop pod issue.

I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...


I like that they clarified the 'two wychfires for having dual pistols' thing as well.

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

rigeld2 wrote:
GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

They are consistent. Consistently inconsistent. ba-dum ching.

 pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

They are consistent. Consistently inconsistent. ba-dum ching.

If I ever wanted to venture up north there are things I would do...

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

Isn't the consistent? Now only Glancing and Penetrating hits take Hull Points. Damage chart results don't.

Where's the inconsistency?

anybody else unable to get on gw site to get faq's temporarily unavailable and all?

edit: nvm, forgot the daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaash

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Where's the inconsistency?

Just with the flip-flopping between FAQ revisions. We started off with vehicles only losing a HP from glances and pens. They added in a lost HP from terrain immobilisation... and then they took it away again and we are back to just glances and pens. It would be nice if they made up their minds. Preferably at some point in the couple of years that they have the book before it is published... you know, when they're supposedly playtesting it...

 DarknessEternal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

Isn't the consistent? Now only Glancing and Penetrating hits take Hull Points. Damage chart results don't.

Where's the inconsistency?

What insaniak said. Flip/flopping FAQ answers helps no one. Between this, the Ork Weirdboy flip, the SitW flip...
It's crazy. And none of these were tiny things - they're all pretty important overall.

Could we rename the title to "New GW FAQS" please? I keep misreading "faqs" :/

 Sigvatr wrote:
Could we rename the title to "New GW FAQS" please? I keep misreading "faqs" :/

That would be "new Gw Cigarettes" because of the profanity filter.

As what?

 insaniak wrote:

So yes, this fixes the drop pod issue.

I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Actually - the rule for the loss of a Hull Point on failed dangerous terrain tests is still in there on page 2, right side, middle of page.

 Alpharius wrote:
As what?

I think he wants the title to show faq in caps






At least GW is consistent in raising prices.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Actually - the rule for the loss of a Hull Point on failed dangerous terrain tests is still in there on page 2, right side, middle of page.

Must have missed it in my early morning pre-coffee haze.

Excellent... so non-damage roll damage doesn't take a HP... except were we arbitrarily decide it does, for no apparent reason.

 Desubot wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
As what?

I think he wants the title to show faq in caps

Yeah, the title format makes it look like a non-so-nice-word (PM me if you want to know it Alpharius, I can't let the poor innocent souls see it ).

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

No it it still there.

"Page 71 – Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”."

Darn you for lying to me insaniak!

Thanks for being consistent across FAQs this time GW.
But your method of "whenever we say to" doesn't help people like your rules any better.

rigeld2 wrote:
Darn you for lying to me insaniak!

It's all part of my secret plot to... I dunno. Stuff.

Thanks for being consistent across FAQs this time GW.
But your method of "whenever we say to" doesn't help people like your rules any better.

This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ it to see who gets to write that answer.

 pretre wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ it to see who gets to write that answer.

Which would make me stab someone in the face.
I don't know who, but someone.

rigeld2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ it to see who gets to write that answer.

Which would make me stab someone in the face.
I don't know who, but someone.

Tell me I'm wrong. It would make complete sense for GW to do that.

And luckily, I am not within stabbing distance.

No, but you're 2 hours from my mother-in-law and I might be making a trip up there this year...

And you're probably right - that's how they resolve issues like this. Unfortunately, they don't take the first roll-off and determine from that how to handle similar issues...

rigeld2 wrote:
No, but you're 2 hours from my mother-in-law and I might be making a trip up there this year...

And you're probably right - that's how they resolve issues like this. Unfortunately, they don't take the first roll-off and determine from that how to handle similar issues...

Precedence is a silly concept.

nobody wrote:

 erewego86 wrote:
Shaken, stunned, and weapon destroyed don't strip a hull point? Am I reading that right?

And immobilized as well, looks like Drop Pods are back to not losing that HP when they come in:

Q. If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point?

A. No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost

Looks like Swarms also got a bit of a buff, in that they don't get two bases removed if they suffer damage from a blast weapon that's instant death.

Swarms never should have had 2 bases removed from that in 6th edition anyway. It was just finally cleared up by GW for those that debated the other side.

I love how they once again do an FAQ for Zogwort.

Q: If Old Zogwort rolls on the Weirdboy psychic power chart and gets a psychic power that is resolved as a Shooting attack (specifically Frazzle or Zzap) may he re-roll this power? If not, then can he ignore the power for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points? (p61)
A: As a Warphead, he may re-roll, but may not ignore the power for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points if his re-roll also comes up as Frazzle or Zzap.

While still happily side stepping the issue of him not being able to use half his psychic powers.

 spectreoneone wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 jlong05 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes..

Why on earth would anyone ever even want to do this? you cannot use 3 weapons in the same shooting phase and having them auto twin-link makes way more sense. although I could see a benefit for 2 single weapons of the same type, I cant understand why anyone would want 3.

Overwatch Flamers, or just for another option.

Or, in the case of the Commander (who must take 4 weapon/wargear options), this could be interpreted as allowing for two twin-linked weapons loadouts. TL Fireknife Commanders, anyone?

Double twin-linked makes sense to me, as does a TL and regular suit. Its the 3 single or 4 single(of the same type) that makes no sense to me. I guess for Overwatch and Interceptor, but hell, that's a lot of wasted options for a very minute opportunity of use.

Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

 Happygrunt wrote:
Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

Jervis was bored and couldn't think up a random chart to shove down our throats.

 Happygrunt wrote:
Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

From a purely Fluff stand point it could work. Some times they are with the main army and some times they are with the sneaky guys. From a gaming stand point it sucks.

Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

dkellyj wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

One should always strive to read a thread to the end before posting.

They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet... or say Deep Strike doesn't count as movement even though units who Deep Strike count as having moved...

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet...

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

Doesn't the skimmer rules give the skimmer permission to move over enemy units?

 Thaylen wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

Doesn't the skimmer rules give the skimmer permission to move over enemy units?

It doesn't give them the ability to hopshock

dkellyj wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

Desubot wrote:

At least GW is consistent in raising prices.

Only if you ignore inflation. Zing!

pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, but you're 2 hours from my mother-in-law and I might be making a trip up there this year...

And you're probably right - that's how they resolve issues like this. Unfortunately, they don't take the first roll-off and determine from that how to handle similar issues...

Precedence is a silly concept.

They're trying to establish that now before the CHS case is settled. Double-zing!

Alright, the Dark Angels one was actually pretty good.

Ravenwing Command Squads can now beef up a bit (only five guys, but that is not too shabby), Asmodai has his pistol back, DWA works exactly like I thought it did (glad I wasn't playing it wrong so I wont have to re-adjust), it ends those thrice forsaken "but what does Boltgun really mean?" threads for all eternity. Some will be sad that the LRC+PFG+SoDev combo no longer works... I am not one of those people. But the PFG is still a great addition to bike squads fearing AP3 ignores cover, among other things. Oh and Stasis Bombs no longer break the logic of the game over their knee.

Overall, a good FAQ from my perspective. I think that nailed most of the major issues with the codex at this point.

 reds8n wrote:
Hooray ! a 40k demon FAQ !
Boo as it's pretty pointless and doesn't solve or answer anything at all.

 Sasori wrote:
Well, they didn't answer any of the important questions in the Chaos Daemons FAQ.

 Goat wrote:
WoW the GK FAQ gets 2 additions for stuff no one cares about, while still dodging the DtW for Cleansing flame or Heroic Sacrifice.

Quark wrote:
The Eldar change is only to mention that you can LoS Mind War. I'm surprised that mattered enough to FAQ at this point.

Good to see that nothing has changed in rules design/rules question resolution in 25 years...

T

 puma713 wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

They really did.

And now that both irrelevant viewpoints are out there we can drop that tangent. Yay!

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

They really did.

Mmmm, no, they didn't. And GW took a stance to clarify the point for those that needed clarification (those that thought that just because you suffered an immobilized result, meant you lost a hull point, so you lost two hull points on each roll of immobilized, which is idiotic.)

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

They really did.

Mmmm, no, they didn't. And GW took a stance to clarify the point for those that needed clarification (those that thought that just because you suffered an immobilized result, meant you lost a hull point, so you lost two hull points on each roll of immobilized, which is idiotic.)

... And wasn't the actual stance I took at all. Way to misrepresent an irrelevant point! Do you feel complete now? How about this - you won.

Disappointed on the Deathwing Assault units counting towards the reserves. Oh well, it was fun to use them old school at Adepticon.

Wow the IG one makes no sense.

Scout was removed from fliers (already happened)

Camo Cloaks only add +1 to cover save (already happened)

PBS is mastery one (pretty sure that already happened)

And then the Al'Rahem vs Chenkov on respawning conscripts bit, which was ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE CODEX! Seriously! It tells you to respawn them from your board edge. How can people, especially GW, not see that? And then they tell you to just roll off, in the FAQ? Isn't the purpose of a FAQ to, you know, answer these questions so we DONT need to roll off?

The blast weapons being able to officially kill things out of site does more for us than our entire codex FAQ does for petes sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 White Ninja wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:
Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

From a purely Fluff stand point it could work. Some times they are with the main army and some times they are with the sneaky guys. From a gaming stand point it sucks.

So you're telling me Al'Rahem is such a master of scouting that he can sneak hundreds of unruly conscripts around enemy lines to attack their flank, when most barely understand which end of the lasgun goes bang?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

So you're telling me Al'Rahem is such a master of scouting that he can sneak hundreds of unruly conscripts around enemy lines to attack their flank, when most barely understand which end of the lasgun goes bang?

If their lasguns are going bang, you're going to need new conscripts. I think they're supposed to go zzzot.

At least they sort of admitted that going Daemon Prince is usually a big loss for your HQs, though they limited the change to Abbie.

Ideally they'd emulate the Fantasy version of the rule in which you can try and resist Spawndom and Princedom with a LD roll. Hell, I'd even accept a LD roll on 3d6 for the chance to keep my Lord on a bike the way I set him up instead of a dumb slow solo beatstick without grenades.

But that's dreaming too high.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet... or say Deep Strike doesn't count as movement even though units who Deep Strike count as having moved...

Does anyone have any clarification of this? Because I've always been 'mishapping' my Monolith when it ends up over another unit, which is pretty common with a footprint that big. If I can just move it a bit and then use the portal of exile, well thats a lot more fun (for me).

No, Skimmers don't protect from Deep Strikes - there's multiple threads in YMDC talking about it.

 Sephyr wrote:
At least they sort of admitted that going Daemon Prince is usually a big loss for your HQs, though they limited the change to Abbie.

Ideally they'd emulate the Fantasy version of the rule in which you can try and resist Spawndom and Princedom with a LD roll. Hell, I'd even accept a LD roll on 3d6 for the chance to keep my Lord on a bike the way I set him up instead of a dumb slow solo beatstick without grenades.

But that's dreaming too high.

That's dreaming to low, my dream was that they get the they got when they roll it on the chart, and keep the wargear they started with! The chaos daemon one in fantasy is at least an upgrade because you KEPT everything should you have succeeded on that LD test.

Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.

Me Likey !

Bloodhorror wrote:
Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.

Me Likey !

Even less reasons to field Imotekh

I'll be fair.

I play Nids. Allies of Convinience...

da fuq's that ?

 shamikebab wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The Errata letting Ravenwing Command Squads buy 2 extra models is huge, I never expected to see something like that.

One of the strangest FAQS I've seen, makes you wonder how much they tested the original codex to suddenly allow a bigger squad like that.

What is annoying about it more so is that they can freely change point values and core rules on things, which makes you wonder why there are units that suck total ass for being over pointed.

Page 95 – Herald of Tzeentch, Options
Change the second sub-point of the final bullet point to
“Burning Chariot of Tzeentch as a Dedicated Transport (pg40
– the Herald replaces the Exalted Flamer)”.

SOOOO totally the answer i needed for the burning chariot!!! THANK YOU GW!!! I now know that I STILL DONT WANT TO BUY THIS RULE BROKEN MODEL!!!

 keltikhoa wrote:
Page 95 – Herald of Tzeentch, Options
Change the second sub-point of the final bullet point to
“Burning Chariot of Tzeentch as a Dedicated Transport (pg40
– the Herald replaces the Exalted Flamer)”.

SOOOO totally the answer i needed for the burning chariot!!! THANK YOU GW!!! I now know that I STILL DONT WANT TO BUY THIS RULE BROKEN MODEL!!!

What was the question you did need answering?

Bloodhorror wrote:
Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.

Me Likey !

2 steps can be taken to mitigate losses from friendly hits.

#1 Ally with orks.

#2 Laugh with evil glee every time you fry greenskins.

 pretre wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ (Everytime the question is asked!)it to see who gets to write that answer.

You missed a bit - Fix'd...

 Ministry wrote:

This sucks as it was the only competitive build for DA that I really enjoyed playing. It should be like the damn KFF! The bikes and terminator builds are too expensive and too few models.

I agree.

I'm glad this FAQ came out before my birthday next week. I was planning on starting DA, but this kinda kills the army I wanted to play.

I bet they have the same ruling for the banner right before the next SM codex comes out.

 Dysartes wrote:

What was the question you did need answering?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/522757.page#5537122

That link talks about why the burning chariot is broken. but the basics are its a 10/10/10 open topped charriot with a rider that shoots heavy weapons (and lacks relentless) which means if the chariot moves you cannot shoot with it.

It is a brand new model... it was not in the old codex... I would imagine they would like to sell some... but as is they are useless in game.

It's not that the rules are flawed, it might just have been intended. There's no obvious error in the rules, it's just that it's an extremely bad model.

It's like you'd say that FO were forgotten to have Fearless in their rules and that it should be added in a FAQ...they are terrible models and the same applies to the chariot.

 Happygrunt wrote:
Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

Ugh... why bother even putting this in the FAQ. They should have just decided one way or the other, rather than saying "D6 it". Since that's the default for any unclear rule, anyway, this was totally unecessary.

Yeah, kind of astonishing that they didn't address the Burning Chariot move-and-fire issue.

But overall, besides the few 'roll a D6 for it' rulings, I have to say that this was a very good update.

Thank the LORD they finally cleared up the whole issue about models getting 'removed from play' still counting as casualties. I have been arguing that point for years, and it is so nice to not have to try to explain my reasoning anymore.

Imotekh's lightning hitting flyers is kind of a crazy ruling too, because it seemed like GW had focused in on exactly what they wanted to be able to affect and not affect zooming flyers, and now with this ruling, that question re-opens for a bunch of other abilities.

Also kind of strange is that the iBook versions have not been updated yet to incorporate these changes (usually it happens simultaneously).

 yakface wrote:
Imotekh's lightning hitting flyers is kind of a crazy ruling too, because it seemed like GW had focused in on exactly what they wanted to be able to affect and not affect zooming flyers, and now with this ruling, that question re-opens for a bunch of other abilities.

It makes me think vehicle explosions really do effect flying mc's.

I wish they were morre specific with the imotekh rulings, IE if models are in the bottom of a ruin they don't somehow still get hit by lightning. The vehicle explosions have the same problem though, as the effects of the external explosion make no mention of any mechanics akin to shooting attacks, so for now it seems they effect whatever model/unit is within the range of the explosion regardless of terrain.

I'd like it if imhotek was FAQ'd to not have lightning.

Laziest piece of game design I've seen in a long time.

At least until the Warp Storm chart appeared.

Making it more powerful seems odd; it's not like the Necrons need buffs at the moment.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 yakface wrote:
Imotekh's lightning hitting flyers is kind of a crazy ruling too, because it seemed like GW had focused in on exactly what they wanted to be able to affect and not affect zooming flyers, and now with this ruling, that question re-opens for a bunch of other abilities.

It makes me think vehicle explosions really do effect flying mc's.

I wish they were morre specific with the imotekh rulings, IE if models are in the bottom of a ruin they don't somehow still get hit by lightning. The vehicle explosions have the same problem though, as the effects of the external explosion make no mention of any mechanics akin to shooting attacks, so for now it seems they effect whatever model/unit is within the range of the explosion regardless of terrain.

I agree. If they were going to make this ruling, they needed to make it abundantly clear WHY the ruling was made this way so that we could understand when to apply this concept to similar effects.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that the roll to affect units (a 6 on a D6) is effectively equivalent to being a snap shot roll (1 in 6 chance) and therefore is allowed. Remember, the ruling is still in the FAQ that any attack which is not resolved as a snap shot or automatically hits does not affect flyers...so the correct thing to do for now is to assume this is a one-off exception ONLY for Imotekh (given that Necrons get everything good, why not?).

If I were to personally step out on a limb and try to apply this ruling to other things, I'd only feel comfortable doing it with other affects that randomly target units on a D6 roll of '6' personally (so the two Warp Storm results that generate hits but don't use a blast, for example).

 yakface wrote:
I agree. If they were going to make this ruling, they needed to make it abundantly clear WHY the ruling was made this way so that we could understand when to apply this concept to similar effects.

Yeah, it reminds me of the helldrake ruling. It would have been one thing if it was an errata and they added a few lines of rules to explain the 360 vision thing, Instead they just make it a special case with no real reason given.

To be fair when it comes to imotekh I was on the side that it did hit flyers, just because I felt it was like explosions but definitely would have liked them to clean things up a bit instead of just make arbitrary rulings.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, Skimmers don't protect from Deep Strikes - there's multiple threads in YMDC talking about it.

That's your opinion. There is no situation you can point to where this rule applies in regular 40K other than deep striking, and deepstriking is and counts as movement, stating otherwise is neither RAI or RAW as it's clear that deepstriking is the same thing as having moved.

It's obvious they had something in mind with the rule and the only RAI and RAW conclusion one can come to is that Deep Striking Skimmers can NOT mishap from landing on friendly or enemy units. There is no other scenario in regular 40K where a skimmers can be forced to end it's movement over friendly or enemy models.

If you can think of one please quote the page and rule that would allow for this to happen.

Saying this rule never applies is something win at all cost players would claim to deny an opponent with skimmers any advantage skimmers would have.
What gives you the right to say a rule in the rulebook doesn't apply because you dont like it?

The rule is very clear on what it does:

P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

If I deepstrike with a unit and it scatters on top of friendly or enemy models, do I have a choice if I want to place the skimmer on top of them or not? DO I HAVE A CHOICE OR AM I FORCED TO PUT THE MODEL THERE?

But deepstriking doesn't count as movement...

P.36 BRB
In the Movernent phase during which they arrive, deep
striking units may not move any further, other than to
disembark frorn a deep striking Transporr vehicle if they
are in one.

So a unit that has deepstruck/deepstriked may not move any further, but if it didn't move to begin with how could it move any further? Shouldn't it have said "may not move" indicating that it has been static?

P.36 BRB
In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run)
as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the
previous Movernent phase.

To me it's obvious what the rule does but for some people they can't accept that they are wrong and that their opponents units might have some slight benefit over their Spheeezee Meehreeenez...

Then again I'm probably biased and the rule never applies to any part of the game as a skimmer can never actually be forced to end it's move over a friendly or enemy model. Heck even with the Lifta Droppa it's technically in your opponents phase and not your own movement phase. So there is probably no point at all for the rule being there, they just added it as a joke and are having a good laugh right now... ha....ha....haaa

Could everyone just email the FAQ department asking about this question, I'm tired or arguing about it. So could everyone here who has any opinion about it just send in the below message?

Copy paste this message and send it to them, they might consider answering if enough people email them about it.

Email: Gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Topic: Do skimmers mishap from deepstriking onto friendly or enemy models?
Message:

This question has caused allot of heated arguments and anger. Do skimmers mishap if they deepstrike scatter onto friendly or enemy models?

P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

The Big Rule Book suggests that they do not with this rule for skimmers, some people do not agree claiming that deepstriking is not movement even though the deepstriking rules say:

P.36 BRB
In the Movernent phase during which they arrive, deep
striking units may not move any further, other than to
disembark frorn a deep striking Transporr vehicle if they
are in one.

P.36 BRB
In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run)
as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the
previous Movernent phase.
This question that is REALLY important for allot of armies. Especially Necrons with their huge Monoliths that used to not mishap from deepstriking onto units but now allot of people claim they do and simply state that the rule on page 83 is never applied to the game as there is no occurrence in the game where it can actually happen.

Please answer this question. What is the point of the rule on page 83? When does it take effect and can you give an example of when it does?

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

This rule was added to the rulebook because in 5th edition, it was pointed out (by the INAT) that, while making a tank chock movement, a skimmer could choose to move OVER a friendly or enemy unit to tank shock an enemy unit beyond. Then because of Death or Glory stunning or immobilizing the vehicle, the skimmer could be forced to end its movement over the friendly or enemy unit, leaving the players in an unsolvable quandary.

So they added this into the FAQ in 5th edition and then it made its way into the 6th edition rulebook. If you would like, I can provide you with the old INAT document where I first wrote the question (and our answer at the time), if that helps you put the puzzle pieces together as to why this rule is in the game.

But yeah, page 63 of the current rulebook states that skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models. The rules for tank shocking on page 85 state that units which the tank 'comes into contact with' are tank shocked. Therefore, a skimmer tank that is making a tank shock move can choose to move 'over' or 'through' enemy models in the way (and always must move over friendly models in the way). This can lead to situations where a skimmer is 'forced' to end its move over friendly or enemy models.

This rule has absolutely nothing to do with Deep Striking. If they wanted that, they just would have given them the same rules as Drop Pods. While models that Deep Strike count as moving, the model itself does not count as having Deep Struck until the process is finished, and therefore does not count as having moved until it has finished completely resolving the Deep Strike, including scatter and mishaps.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, Skimmers don't protect from Deep Strikes - there's multiple threads in YMDC talking about it.

That's your opinion. There is no situation you can point to where this rule applies in regular 40K other than deep striking, and deepstriking is and counts as movement, stating otherwise is neither RAI or RAW as it's clear that deepstriking is the same thing as having moved.

It's obvious they had something in mind with the rule and the only RAI and RAW conclusion one can come to is that Deep Striking Skimmers can NOT mishap from landing on friendly or enemy units. There is no other scenario in regular 40K where a skimmers can be forced to end it's movement over friendly or enemy models.

If you can think of one please quote the page and rule that would allow for this to happen.

Tank Shocking and suffering an Immobilize result.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you expecting no response?

Hmmm... time to rethink my Ravenwing army. Taking two 5 man ravenwing command squads is cheaper than taking the equivalent black knight squad and you can buy an apothecary to help with the cover ignoring damage.

Bummer about the Deathwing ruling, kinda kills the pure DW force teleporting in.

 White Ninja wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:
Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

From a purely Fluff stand point it could work. Some times they are with the main army and some times they are with the sneaky guys. From a gaming stand point it sucks.

From a fluff point of view it makes sense, but if that was the intention they could have worded it better. Referring to 'The Most Important Rule' just reads like "We've no idea! Decide amongst yourselves! This is great news!" instead of making the dice-off sound like an actual considered decision; "Not all conscripts are disciplined enough to use 'stalk the enemy', so can only deploy using outflank on a 4+"

Herzlos wrote:

From a fluff point of view it makes sense, but if that was the intention they could have worded it better. Referring to 'The Most Important Rule' just reads like "We've no idea! Decide amongst yourselves! This is great news!" instead of making the dice-off sound like an actual considered decision; "Not all conscripts are disciplined enough to use 'stalk the enemy', so can only deploy using outflank on a 4+"

They've done this kind of thing before, and frankly if we're talking about two rules that truly have no clear precedent then if they want these always to be resolved by a D6 roll, then as long as they're consistent then I'm okay with that (even if I personally believe it will always a terrible way to handle precedence issues).

HOWEVER, this isn't actually a case of two rules conflicting, which is why this particular ruling is baffling.

If Chenkov's special rule says that the unit arrives as normal like a unit arriving from Reserve then their *might* possibly be an argument that some conflict exists. But in this case the unit is NEVER in Reserve...it NEVER can be declared to be outflanking in the first place. Chenkov's rule just says that the unit moves on from the player's table edge, so the possibility of this unit ever outflanking is null, because it is never in reserve and therefore cannot by definition magically outflank.

The only thing his rule says is that the unit counts as a unit that has just arrived from reserve...meaning once the unit arrives, it THEN counts as having arrived from reserve (not that it actually was in reserve, because it wasn't...you didn't roll for it and certainly if the game ends before that unit is created you'd never say it was still in reserve and award the opponent with a Victory Point for it in a 'Purge the Alien' mission, for example).


Frankly, IMHO this never should have been included in a FAQ, and if they were going to include it then the answer should not be that neither of the two rules take precedence when one so clearly does. Kind of the worst of all worlds as far as I'm concerned.

Page 42 – Obliterators, Obliterator Weapons
Change the final sentence to:
“An Obliterator unit cannot choose to fire the same weapon in two consecutive shooting attacks”.

Previously:
"An Obliterator unit cannot choose to fire the same weapon in two of your consecutive shooting phases”.

Dafuq is the difference. Was there a way people were getting more than one shooting attack per shooting phase?

Artanis wrote:
Dafuq is the difference. Was there a way people were getting more than one shooting attack per shooting phase?

Overwatch or interceptor fire.

Oh cool, so you can fire a TL Plasma Gun at the opponent, fail to kill them and when they turn around and charge at you angrily, hit 'em with the TL Plasma again.


Sweet!

Bloodhorror wrote:
Oh cool, so you can fire a TL Plasma Gun at the opponent, fail to kill them and when they turn around and charge at you angrily, hit 'em with the TL Plasma again.


Sweet!

That's precisely what the FAQ says you cannot do.

Oblits can`t fire OW, can they? (SnP)

Might have something to do with one of the rulebook psychic powers. There on in there that let's you take control of an enemy model and shot with it. Puppet master I think.

 Verd_Warr wrote:
Oblits can`t fire OW, can they? (SnP)

They cannot. The ruling was probably motivated by someone asking the question not realizing that, though.

It also covers stuff like Puppet Master as well, though.

Edit: Ninja'd!

I'll really wish the GW higher ups will just retire already and sell the company to Hasbro, this way at least a good company will put money into thier product instead of just expect money from it. I know it's a dead horse, but the lack of playtesting and an editorial team really hurts this product.

The lazy gloss over of an FAQ that was released is truly pathetic.

 yakface wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

This rule was added to the rulebook because in 5th edition, it was pointed out (by the INAT) that, while making a tank chock movement, a skimmer could choose to move OVER a friendly or enemy unit to tank shock an enemy unit beyond. Then because of Death or Glory stunning or immobilizing the vehicle, the skimmer could be forced to end its movement over the friendly or enemy unit, leaving the players in an unsolvable quandary.

So they added this into the FAQ in 5th edition and then it made its way into the 6th edition rulebook. If you would like, I can provide you with the old INAT document where I first wrote the question (and our answer at the time), if that helps you put the puzzle pieces together as to why this rule is in the game.

But yeah, page 63 of the current rulebook states that skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models. The rules for tank shocking on page 85 state that units which the tank 'comes into contact with' are tank shocked. Therefore, a skimmer tank that is making a tank shock move can choose to move 'over' or 'through' enemy models in the way (and always must move over friendly models in the way). This can lead to situations where a skimmer is 'forced' to end its move over friendly or enemy models.

This rule has absolutely nothing to do with Deep Striking. If they wanted that, they just would have given them the same rules as Drop Pods. While models that Deep Strike count as moving, the model itself does not count as having Deep Struck until the process is finished, and therefore does not count as having moved until it has finished completely resolving the Deep Strike, including scatter and mishaps.

Rules for tank shocking, nowhere does it say skimmers use any special rules for tank shocking. Not under the skimmer rules or the tank shock rules. If skimmers could jump over a unit to tank shock one on the other side it should have been mentioned somewhere in the rulebook. As you say you brought up the problem in the INAT and GW added the rule on page 83 because of it but nowhere in the rulebook does it actually say you can jump over a unit to tank shock one on the other side. It might have been in an FAQ for 5E but that doesn't mean you can do it in 6E.

The rules clearly state that if your tank shocking vehicle comes into contact with a friendly model it immediately stops. Doesn't matter if it could jump over them, it immediately stops.
It's easy to say a skimmer never comes into contact with a friendly unit as it simply moves over them but the rules for tank shocking doesn't suggest skimmers get any special treatment.

P.85 BRB
To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the
spot to face the direction you intend to move it and
declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move,
up to its maximum speed. The vehicle must move at least
Combat Speed. Note that, because pivoting on the spot does not
count as moving, this is not enough for a Tank Shock.
Once the Tank has been 'aimed' and the intended distance
declared, move the Tank straight forwards until it comes
into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance
declared - no other changes of direction are allowed in a Tank
Shock. If no enemy unit is reached just move the Tank straight
ahead for the distance declared and nothing special takes place.

If the Tank would move into contact with a friendly
model, enemy vehicle, impassable terrain or a board edge, it
immediately stops moving 1" away.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tank Shocking and suffering an Immobilize result.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you expecting no response?

So? If you tank shock someone and suffer immobilize you stop in front of them. If you passed through an enemy unit that passed it's morale check and the second unit immobilises them then here is how you resolve that.

If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up
underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it
makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not))
these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest
distance, leaving at least I " between thern and the vehicle whilst
maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board

But what if you jump over a vehicle to tank shock a unit behind it and get immobilized?
Nowhere in the rules does it say you can do that? There might have been a FAQ for 5E saying you could do that but if they intended it that way why isn't the rules incorporated into 6E? Why isn't there a Tank Shock Exceptions section where it says skimmers can jump over units to tank shock units on the other side?

Both of you, just email GW.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Both of you, just email GW.

This made me laugh. Might as well ask a magic eight ball. Same quality of response.

Ah, NVM.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tank Shocking and suffering an Immobilize result.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you expecting no response?

So? If you tank shock someone and suffer immobilize you stop in front of them. If you passed through an enemy unit that passed it's morale check and the second unit immobilises them then here is how you resolve that.

But what if you jump over a vehicle to tank shock a unit behind it and get immobilized?
Nowhere in the rules does it say you can do that? There might have been a FAQ for 5E saying you could do that but if they intended it that way why isn't the rules incorporated into 6E? Why isn't there a Tank Shock Exceptions section where it says skimmers can jump over units to tank shock units on the other side?

Tank Shock requires you do make a normal move with instructions on what happens when you have to do things you normally can't (move through friendly/enemy units).
Skimmers are allowed to move over friendly/enemy units.
Find a rule denying this permission.

Both of you, just email GW.

Oh, I have. It doesn't mean anything, but frankly this argument doesn't have any actual rules standing.

Can you use Grand Strategy on Dreadknights with a Shunt Pack, which makes it a Jump MC?