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?
It could mean that they made an error in the previous draft FAQ that was noted in the feedback and wasn't repeated in the Tau FAQ. We'll have to wait until the FAQs go live to find out.
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.
I guess Tau players will likely never anchor that thing as long as a single tank is anywhere near it....a 35 point Rhino suddenly got scary to a GMC!!
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.
I guess Tau players will likely never anchor that thing as long as a single tank is anywhere near it....a 35 point Rhino suddenly got scary to a GMC!!
Not really, a Rhino is only AV11 in the front, the SS can do 'death or glory' with its highest strength weapon that will auto hit, in this case a virtually auto pen as well against AV11, just a roll on the D table or regular vehicle table, any result of immobilize/wreck/explode will negate the tank shock; on the very few times it gets killed by the Rhino, it will be epic however!
The wording of the FAQ makes it seem like Death or Glory is off the table. It's written as a simple if-then that makes it look like Tank Shocking a Stormsurge just kills it.
Jimsolo wrote: The wording of the FAQ makes it seem like Death or Glory is off the table. It's written as a simple if-then that makes it look like Tank Shocking a Stormsurge just kills it.
Good point but I don't think that's GW intention.
I think you can still death or glory which makes tank shocking with anything other than av13+ is near impossible to kill the Stormsurge with.
My point is that they went to great detail as to why Tank Shock was never meant to be used to remove models, then they rule the opposite for the Stormsurge, which ignores GMC rules as the Surge should technically only take 1d3 wounds instead of being removed. The issue has always been what happens to the tank, not what happens to the Stormsurge.
Again it's question answered be someone that neither read the actual rules nor the previous FAQ ruling.
jeffersonian000 wrote: My point is that they went to great detail as to why Tank Shock was never meant to used to remove models, then they rule tge opposite for the Stormsurge, which ignores GMC rules as the Surge should technically only take 1d3 wounds indtead of being removed.
Again it's question answered be someone that neither read the actual rules nor the previous FAQ ruling.SJ
I can understand this ruling from a rules-design perspective. Essentially, it can't move out of the way, so it takes 1d3 wounds. It's then still there after it's chance at Death or Glory, but the Rhino still has to complete it's move, so it takes another 1d3 wounds. It continues this process over and over again until it is removed as a casualty.
So, while I understand it, I still don't agree with it. I think GMCs should just take the 1d3 wounds, and if they're still present, the vehicle stops 1" away from the GMC. Then again, I think that GMC's and SHW's shouldn't be able to stomp vehicles or monstrous creatures, but that's just me.
jeffersonian000 wrote: My point is that they went to great detail as to why Tank Shock was never meant to used to remove models, then they rule tge opposite for the Stormsurge, which ignores GMC rules as the Surge should technically only take 1d3 wounds indtead of being removed.
Again it's question answered be someone that neither read the actual rules nor the previous FAQ ruling.SJ
I can understand this ruling from a rules-design perspective. Essentially, it can't move out of the way, so it takes 1d3 wounds. It's then still there after it's chance at Death or Glory, but the Rhino still has to complete it's move, so it takes another 1d3 wounds. It continues this process over and over again until it is removed as a casualty.
So, while I understand it, I still don't agree with it. I think GMCs should just take the 1d3 wounds, and if they're still present, the vehicle stops 1" away from the GMC. Then again, I think that GMC's and SHW's shouldn't be able to stomp vehicles or monstrous creatures, but that's just me.
There are no infinite loops in 40k, as each effect is only ever applied once unless otherwise noted. GMCs have a rule for when models are removed, to which Tank Shock does not have an overriding counter. The only issue was where does the tank stop moving, not where does the Stormsurge get moved to if it can't be moved. GW has answered poorly.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There are no infinite loops in 40k, as each effect is only ever applied once unless otherwise noted. GMCs have a rule for when models are removed, to which Tank Shock does not have an overriding counter. The only issue was where does the tank stop moving, not where does the Stormsurge get moved to if it can't be moved. GW has answered poorly.
SJ
Well, I believe that GW intends that "pathing" is a thing, even though by RAW it isn't. In a path there would be an infinite number of points that the vehicle travels along. If ever one of those points meets another model or vehicle, a Tank Shock or Ram occurs. Normally this would result in either the vehicle ending its move at that point, or the tank shock being successful and moving the target out of the way. What we have is a spot where the tank shock is successful, so the vehicle continues its move, but the model is still there. Therefore, at the next possible point of interaction (which would be an infinitely small distance of travel), another Tank Shock or Ram occurs.
Now, since thins isn't covered in the rules in regards to GMC's, and there are no rules on pathing, this can only be assumed to exist (can't be proven, so definitely not RAW), but having a model that's completely immobilized in place be instantly slain by a Tank Shock would fit with this view, otherwise a different answer that's actually based on the rules would have to be presented.
Of course, as I said before, the real answer should just be the take 1d3 and stop 1" away if it's not killed, but that's definitely not the rule and would be an errata... which, again, is what they just should have done.
Lord Blackscale wrote: I think another question would tank shock destroy other immobile vehicles? It seems that the answer might be yes, but it doesn't seem likely.
Technically speaking, you cannot Tank Shock a Vehicle. Ramming uses a different process of resolution.
Lord Blackscale wrote: I think another question would tank shock destroy other immobile vehicles? It seems that the answer might be yes, but it doesn't seem likely.
Technically speaking, you cannot Tank Shock a Vehicle. Ramming uses a different process of resolution.
What about units under the effects of the Dominate special power? If I cast Dominate on an MC or GMC and tank shock them in my next movement phase while the power is still in effect, and they fail the leadership test to move out of the way, are they destroyed as well?
Bojazz wrote: What about units under the effects of the Dominate special power? If I cast Dominate on an MC or GMC and tank shock them in my next movement phase while the power is still in effect, and they fail the leadership test to move out of the way, are they destroyed as well?
Quickjager wrote: Not necessarily, dominate doesn't affect special movement such as JSJ or flatout. I doubt it effects Fall Back either.
is there a raw for that?
why is that? isnt any kind of moving your model an "attempt to move" as in the ruling for Dominate?
where is "special movement" clarified in the brb?
dont mean to disagree, just courious.
would make sense to not make "a ls test to see if you must take a ls test", but then again....
That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.
Quickjager wrote: That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.
Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.
Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...
Quickjager wrote: That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.
Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.
Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...
Just to suggest a HIWPI due to that reading is that it wouldn't affect fallback moves or JSJ. The reason I say this is because it both states move, along with run or declare a charge. If it was all movement, it wouldn't need to specify more forms of it, or a limited number of them.
Quickjager wrote: That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.
Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.
Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...
To be fair, GW doesn't capitalize a lot of things like rules and wargear, unfortunately.
so its either only "regular" shooting, moving, running etc., which affects only the actions in the oppositions turn.
or, how i read it, every form of said actions(like overwatch, thrust moves, interceptor, falling back etc) until its my psy-phase again.
the "Run" would then be a special case, that would exclude all other forms of running(but turboboosting still is a Run?). i would agree on flatout not beeing affected, it is not a "run", and also things that can go flatout usually dont have a ls.
I want new rules, with someone professional editing the texts!!
Quickjager wrote: That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.
Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.
Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...
Really? On my psychic cards I could have sworn each action was capitalized... could someone look at theirs.
So, new FAQ today right? I'm hoping for Necrons. Not that there is a lot to wonder about but there are a few things I think are a little shaky they might weigh in on.
Like for instance, a RP unit in a decurion with cryptek who is hit by something with ID. Is the RP a 5+ or a 4+? I've seen it argued for both and I personally fall on the 4+ side of the things. But I would hope for an official ruling on that.
I'm also curious about if they will talk about the solar staff solar pulse and scattered blasts. In one of the previous FAQs they said that a scattered blast that falls on an unintended unit still counts as targeting that unit. The solar pulse says that anything targeting the unit has to fire snap shots. Since you can't blast on a snapshot does that mean the blast just does nothing? This is something that seemed pretty straightforward before. You can't center a blast on them but it could scatter on them. But, ironically, after the FAQ it is much less clear :(
Qlanth wrote: So, new FAQ today right? I'm hoping for Necrons. Not that there is a lot to wonder about but there are a few things I think are a little shaky they might weigh in on.
Like for instance, a RP unit in a decurion with cryptek who is hit by something with ID. Is the RP a 5+ or a 4+? I've seen it argued for both and I personally fall on the 4+ side of the things. But I would hope for an official ruling on that.
I'm also curious about if they will talk about the solar staff solar pulse and scattered blasts. In one of the previous FAQs they said that a scattered blast that falls on an unintended unit still counts as targeting that unit. The solar pulse says that anything targeting the unit has to fire snap shots. Since you can't blast on a snapshot does that mean the blast just does nothing? This is something that seemed pretty straightforward before. You can't center a blast on them but it could scatter on them. But, ironically, after the FAQ it is much less clear :(
Yup, should be a new one today. Looking forward to it! Recently it's be the Xenos forces, so Tyranid or Necrons seem likely.
I've always argued that it was a 4+ in that situation as well. I figured that the "caps at 4+" is something that applies to the total, not the specific. So, if you're increasing it to a 3+, too bad, the best you get is a 4+. In this way, it doesn't matter what order the bonuses are applied in. The only argument for it being a 5+ in that situation would be if the "caps at 4+" was applied after each and every modifier so that the order does matter. In that situation, whomever's turn it is would choose if it was a 4+ or a 5+. However, that, to me, seems out of whack.
As for the blast thing, the blast has already been fired by the time it scatters into your unit with the active solar staff. There'd be no "going back in time" to re-check it. The only time where they wouldn't be able to fire it is if, before scatter, the template would cover any model from the unit with the active Solar Staff (even if that unit wasn't targeted). At least, from the FAQ, that's my interpretation. The FAQ seems to make it that clipping someone with a blast on purpose still counts as targeting them, and if a blast scatters the unit can respond just as if they had been targeted, but that by that point the scatter has already happened.
Qlanth wrote: Like for instance, a RP unit in a decurion with cryptek who is hit by something with ID. Is the RP a 5+ or a 4+? I've seen it argued for both and I personally fall on the 4+ side of the things. But I would hope for an official ruling on that.
I would think that the case of Multiple Modifiers would be in consideration. Set Values are always processed last, and I would consider limiters under that title. When processing additive and subtractive modifiers, limiters are not noted as being a factor while processing either this type or the multiplier and divisive modifiers. So, the only place that they would qualify would be the final set value since it is a specific number.
"Q: Does the gitfinda work with Relentless, i.e. can you move and still get Ballistic Skill 3?
A: No.
Q: Can a model benefit from a gitfinda if it moved but is on a Relentless platform, or under the effects of Slow and Purposeful (e.g. warbikes or mega armour)?
A: No."
Players: "Did you really mean to make the ork codex this awful? This is your chance to partially make things right"
GW: "Yup! Working as intended!"
Mob rule not affecting fear, boyz somehow hitting themselves at S4, no stacking FNP from cybork bodies, S&P having no effect on gitfindas, etc. To be fair, those are clearly stated in the codex, but they don't really make any damned sense.
Good news, they did clarify KFFs affecting enemy models (they do), effect of breaking 'eads if only characters are left in a unit (auto pass with no ill effects), and yes, tankbusta nobz can take power klaws (they come with choppas now). And the green tide is usable again, for people who were fired up about that, I suppose.
Overall, it's a fair FAQ clarification, I suppose. I still just can't believe the calls they made in the original codex that they stand by two years later.
Question: What is the purpose of the blitz brigade errata? It doesn't seem any different than the rule is now, though to be honest, I don't use that formation, so I'm not super familiar with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Being able to use a grabbin' klaw on a super heavy walker to prevent it from charging is pretty silly, but I suppose a fitting reward to anyone who brings one of them.
Players: "Did you really mean to make the ork codex this awful? This is your chance to partially make things right"
GW: "Yup! Working as intended!"
Mob rule not affecting fear, boyz somehow hitting themselves at S4, no stacking FNP from cybork bodies, S&P having no effect on gitfindas, etc. To be fair, those are clearly stated in the codex, but they don't really make any damned sense.
Good news, they did clarify KFFs affecting enemy models (they do), effect of breaking 'eads if only characters are left in a unit (auto pass with no ill effects), and yes, tankbusta nobz can take power klaws (they come with choppas now). And the green tide is usable again, for people who were fired up about that, I suppose.
Overall, it's a fair FAQ clarification, I suppose. I still just can't believe the calls they made in the original codex that they stand by two years later.
Question: What is the purpose of the blitz brigade errata? It doesn't seem any different than the rule is now, though to be honest, I don't use that formation, so I'm not super familiar with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Being able to use a grabbin' klaw on a super heavy walker to prevent it from charging is pretty silly, but I suppose a fitting reward to anyone who brings one of them.
Just like BA and Tyranids, a simple FAQ isn't going to fix Orks. Hell, it's going to take more than a few errata for that matter. Orks (again like BA and Tyranids) are a choppy army in a shooty edition. At the minimum, some changes to the assault phase and overwatch would need to occur for any of these codices to truly be competitive. Come to think of it, you can probably add CSM to this statement.
You're not wrong entyme, but just making mob rule trigger on fear tests would have been the simplest errata ever to make and would help a TON. There's nothing more embarrassing than a warboss and meganobz piss their pants when charging nurglings. And, I mean, what other dedicated half-assed melee unit in the game has to worry about fear tests? CSM would be next closest, but at least they have plenty of fearless HQ selections, and unit selections to boot. We don't have either, just a random warlord trait and then it's back to being afraid of everything.
Well at least all the ork players out there have their answer. This wasn't a mistake. Yes, the Ork Codex was actually intended to be that awful. Gives me hope of closure for my Tyranids.
PS: That justification for Mad Dok Grotsnik was borderline snarky.
pm713 wrote: Got to love how multiple FNP's is different for SM and Orks.
In what way? If I run Pedro Kantor(5+ FNP) with ano Apothecary, I don't get Pedro with better than 5+ FNP. Same goes for any other SM character with FNP running around with other units granting FNP. Iron Hands are an exception because their rule explicitly states it stacks. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not explicitly say they stack.
pm713 wrote: Got to love how multiple FNP's is different for SM and Orks.
In what way? If I run Pedro Kantor(5+ FNP) with ano Apothecary, I don't get Pedro with better than 5+ FNP. Same goes for any other SM character with FNP running around with other units granting FNP. Iron Hands are an exception because their rule explicitly states it stacks. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not explicitly say they stack.
You can get Fnp 2+ with Iron Hands can't you. Iron Hands come from which codex?
pm713 wrote: Got to love how multiple FNP's is different for SM and Orks.
In what way? If I run Pedro Kantor(5+ FNP) with ano Apothecary, I don't get Pedro with better than 5+ FNP. Same goes for any other SM character with FNP running around with other units granting FNP. Iron Hands are an exception because their rule explicitly states it stacks. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not explicitly say they stack.
You can get Fnp 2+ with Iron Hands can't you. Iron Hands come from which codex?
And you can't do anything similar with any other faction of Space Marines. Just Iron Hands. Because that is one of their special rules. Iron Hands function different because of a special rule. Orks do not have that special rule. Why should Orks gain a unique ability of the Iron Hands without a special rule?
Between this and the article by Jervis about how you're not "supposed" to play balanced missions, I can only assume that the Ork codex was put together to LITERALLY be a beating stick. I wouldn't be surprised if Jervis in the office says "Oh, but Orks are supposed to win by numerical advantage - they only win when there's a LOT of them! Orks aren't supposed to win in a merely even match. If you want Orks to win, you have to let that player use more points to represent just how many more Orks there are than the other player's forces! Simple!"
pm713 wrote: Got to love how multiple FNP's is different for SM and Orks.
In what way? If I run Pedro Kantor(5+ FNP) with ano Apothecary, I don't get Pedro with better than 5+ FNP. Same goes for any other SM character with FNP running around with other units granting FNP. Iron Hands are an exception because their rule explicitly states it stacks. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not explicitly say they stack.
You can get Fnp 2+ with Iron Hands can't you. Iron Hands come from which codex?
And you can't do anything similar with any other faction of Space Marines. Just Iron Hands. Because that is one of their special rules. Iron Hands function different because of a special rule. Orks do not have that special rule. Why should Orks gain a unique ability of the Iron Hands without a special rule?
I'm more annoyed at the justification they used for it. Like Cybork Bodies are bad in themselves, but the way they justified Mad Dok having both is infuriating, considering it changed from a 5++ to the FnP version.
pm713 wrote: Got to love how multiple FNP's is different for SM and Orks.
In what way? If I run Pedro Kantor(5+ FNP) with ano Apothecary, I don't get Pedro with better than 5+ FNP. Same goes for any other SM character with FNP running around with other units granting FNP. Iron Hands are an exception because their rule explicitly states it stacks. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not explicitly say they stack.
You can get Fnp 2+ with Iron Hands can't you. Iron Hands come from which codex?
And you can't do anything similar with any other faction of Space Marines. Just Iron Hands. Because that is one of their special rules. Iron Hands function different because of a special rule. Orks do not have that special rule. Why should Orks gain a unique ability of the Iron Hands without a special rule?
I'm more annoyed at the justification they used for it. Like Cybork Bodies are bad in themselves, but the way they justified Mad Dok having both is infuriating, considering it changed from a 5++ to the FnP version.
I don't see why they couldn't have given the Mad Dok a special rule in the Errata that gave him 4+ FNP. It would've required about the same amount of effort and pissed a lot less people off.
Lol! Orks hit themselves harder then the enemy. And it's designed that way! Why should I continue buying models that hit themselves harder then the enemy? What fething sense does that make?
I can kind of see why you'd make it S4. Orks have furious charge to show they hit harder when they start a fight. They are starting the fight therefore they get S4. So there is a reason.
So it's a tiny tiny bit less stupid than we thought...
gungo wrote: To be fair a tankhunter pk is nice however does this mean a tankbusta nob can take a tank-hammer?
No, since Tankbustas can take Tank Hammers, the Nob is a 'Boss Nob' not a 'Tankbusta'. PK option is nice though.
Didn't feel much for this FAQ. Orks needed more than an FAQ as a fix. At least it further justifies my decision to leave the 40k hobby.
Well to be fair it implies a tankbusta upgraded to a nob keeps all the tankbusta gear AND gets a choppa.
So what stops you from taking a tank busta giving it a tankhammer and then nob upgrade.
You basically get an ap3 instead of ap2 powerklaw for 10pts less.
gungo wrote: To be fair a tankhunter pk is nice however does this mean a tankbusta nob can take a tank-hammer?
No, since Tankbustas can take Tank Hammers, the Nob is a 'Boss Nob' not a 'Tankbusta'. PK option is nice though.
Didn't feel much for this FAQ. Orks needed more than an FAQ as a fix. At least it further justifies my decision to leave the 40k hobby.
Well to be fair it implies a tankbusta upgraded to a nob keeps all the tankbusta gear AND gets a choppa.
So what stops you from taking a tank busta giving it a tankhammer and then nob upgrade.
You basically get an ap3 instead of ap2 powerklaw for 10pts less.
The FAQs which state that a Veteran upgraded to a Apothecary can't have Veteran upgrades for one.
gungo wrote:Well to be fair it implies a tankbusta upgraded to a nob keeps all the tankbusta gear AND gets a choppa.
So what stops you from taking a tank busta giving it a tankhammer and then nob upgrade.
You basically get an ap3 instead of ap2 powerklaw for 10pts less.
The possibility that the Nob's Wargear resets to his default when he is upgraded.
Also, if you think about it, if you're handing out Tankhammers, wouldn't 2 Tankhammers + 1 PK be better than just 2 Tankhammers (provided points available)?
Ghaz wrote:The FAQs which state that a Veteran upgraded to a Apothecary can't have Veteran upgrades for one.
Not really. The Nob upgrade is after the Tankhammers are purchased, and the Apothecary was a one word, binary answer with no explanation with nothing addressing how unit purchasing works (final check versus top down). In a way, this question is closer to the Camo Cloaks for the Wolf Scouts Wolf Guard Leader question than the Apothecary question.
Ya the tankbusta errata strongly suggests the wargear list for all tabkbustas is the same for a tankbusta nob except we now add choppa (nob only) to the wargear list.
If the nobs gear was set to a standard nob there would be no need to errata a choppa into a tankbusta nob as by default a nob already has a choppa.
I guess my question is what exactly tells us the tankbusta nob gear is reset once purchased?
And a reason I would like a tankhammer instead of pk is I probably don't have the points to waste 10pts on for just ap2.
A nob already has more atks then a standard tankbusta so it's better on him then a regular tabkbusta.
gungo wrote:
"..I guess my question is what exactly tells us the tankbusta nob gear is reset once purchased?.."
lets wait for gw to decide. theyll take away his rokkitlauncha, just you wait and see.
i say it should not reset, that doesnt make any sense.
i am aware its raw, not feels, but it does feel wrong not to allow the nob to do what he likes. just imagine the scene.
also i wanted to say, that tankhammers have a lower to no chance to explode something(very good for orks, that)
a klaw and 2 hammers are way to expensive on those 6+ guys(youll need a trukk/ram, bosspole, bombsquigs as well and we are at 180ish points for 5 orks) as you said yourself.
gungo wrote:Ya the tankbusta errata strongly suggests the wargear list for all tabkbustas is the same for a tankbusta nob except we now add choppa (nob only) to the wargear list.
If the nobs gear was set to a standard nob there would be no need to errata a choppa into a tankbusta nob as by default a nob already has a choppa.
Note, I did not state nor suggest that his gear is set/reset to a standard nob. There is nothing to suggest we take the information and options from another datasheet for this like the Space Wolf Wolf Guard did in 5th Edition or same Edition Necron Royal Court. I did say "his default Wargear", meaning everything listed in the Wargear section of the datasheet that either is not specified (no parentheses with a model name) AND listed with his model name in parentheses. So specifically speaking Choppa (from Errata), Rokkit launcha, Stikkbombs, and Tankbusta bombs.
gungo wrote:I guess my question is what exactly tells us the tankbusta nob gear is reset once purchased?
And a question could be reversed, what says it doesn't? When you upgrade to a Nob, do you just add what Wargear is specific to him on the Wargear list, or do you set his Wargear to the defaults listed on the datasheet.
As I said earlier and several times in the previous discussion dedicated to this "order of purchasing" concept for Space Wolf Scouts, there is nothing to support either interpretation as being RAW, so it is what the other game organizers will let you get away with.
gungo wrote:And a reason I would like a tankhammer instead of pk is I probably don't have the points to waste 10pts on for just ap2.
I did state that if points were available.
FreshMeat wrote:i say it should not reset, that doesnt make any sense.
i am aware its raw, not feels, but it does feel wrong not to allow the nob to do what he likes. just imagine the scene.
Maybe reset isn't the right word. More like "set up with the default Wargear associated with the Nob on that datasheet while ignoring any other". In short, it is the "final verification" concept for list building in play. The Nob cannot take a Tankhammer, so he cannot be fielded with it. I am not sold on this as a concept, either, just aware of how there is absolutely nothing defining it.
i understand the problem:
different designers make different codexes/rules and nobody in between has the supervision, id even say, a concept to begin with.
older books are being neglected on top of that and suddenly you have 30 different ways to equip units.
and if we had a guideline, it could really help, or just make up some errata for it.
FreshMeat wrote: i understand the problem:
different designers make different codexes/rules and nobody in between has the supervision, id even say, a concept to begin with.
older books are being neglected on top of that and suddenly you have 30 different ways to equip units.
and if we had a guideline, it could really help, or just make up some errata for it.
It appears like the faq team doesn't talk to anyone either, or have any oversight. They are all over the place, and some of their rulings literally make certain units/rules completely useless or unusable because it conflicts with their rulings. The lack of consistency is also quite jarring.
I'd have thought if they hadn't returned to the crappy Armoury system there'd be less chance of this happening if "champion" upgrades were listed in the unit entry for each unit as they had been.
Frozocrone wrote: I understand that the FAQ isn't meant to fix anything, just clarify.
A lot of Ork players are aggrieved though because GW pretty much confirmed that, yes, the Codex was written to be bad.
yes, they are asking the community what to do. imagine a police officer asking you how to do their job.
the game wasnt designed to be competitively played to begin with, and then there came the new gamebreaker-dexes;
this design change and its(again) poor, seemingly CLUELESS execution might one day destroy the game entirely.
they effectively frikkin ENHANCED the already good books, and nerfed all the others, because no access to similar abilities.
orks were not written to be bad, they had the bad luck to be written before gw changed their concept(in the middle of a new edition.)
Its not the orks or dark eldar being entirely rubbish, its the lack of up-to-date-rules for them that is the main issue(the orkurion is nowhere near what the others have).
and sisters and chaos(the godsdamned bad guys!!) and nids? they might do well too, but again: outdated by supershooty bs5 armys that ignore cover or get free transports or have just the cheapest/best units(thats tau, sm and eldar, respectively). and necrons too oc. and what comes next? autowin on a 4+? two consecutive turns of shooting in one? there is not very much space in that direction.
had the fates wanted it we might now complain that orks are totally op, and why did they not update spacewolves for 2 editions??
People bitch and moan when GW does not offer FAQs and bitch and moan when they do. As a BA player it never occurred to me to expect GW to make changes to my Codex with these clarifications.
Yes, we orks, BA, tyranids and CSM are not going to see change for the better until a new codex comes out and even then I suspect we get the short stick.
I'm glad GW is clarifying things. They have inconsistencies but then again they have a gazillion special rules and the intent of those rules is what matters to me here.
People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.
(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)
Alcibiades wrote: People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.
(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)
Prepare for the coming doom.
215 for 6 S6 shots in the air doesn't seem worth it now...
If the Wings do take up one pair of Talons, I could certainly see Tyranids taking the crown from CSM for 'Worst Codex'.
Alcibiades wrote: People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.
(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)
Prepare for the coming doom.
I don't see why the Wings Biomorph would replace a set of Scything Talons. The default kit allows you to build with Wings and 2 sets of Scything Talons. One set is on the second pair of arms. The other set is on the feet. Also, Games Workshop (via Forgeworld) sells a set of Twin-Linked Devourer arms. Just because the weapon configuration isn't in the plastic box doesn't mean it isn't available. It just costs a little more.
Alcibiades wrote: People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.
(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)
Prepare for the coming doom.
I don't see why the Wings Biomorph would replace a set of Scything Talons. The default kit allows you to build with Wings and 2 sets of Scything Talons. One set is on the second pair of arms. The other set is on the feet. Also, Games Workshop (via Forgeworld) sells a set of Twin-Linked Devourer arms. Just because the weapon configuration isn't in the plastic box doesn't mean it isn't available. It just costs a little more.
Naw wrote: People bitch and moan when GW does not offer FAQs and bitch and moan when they do.
It isn't that the FAQ's are fine. Its the missed Errata opportunity that I feel strongly about.
Just a few simple errata's like:
-Models with Boss poles can also re roll LD test. -Add boss poles to any mek or mekboys equipment list.
Would have made a world of a difference for the army. And we all know that they have had bigger errata's for a smaller issues in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And that is even if we ignore the most obvious ones such as. Add the following special rules to the nauts profile:Super heavy, Assault vehicle.
Simple lines like these would, change that model from being a joke to being sold out for the next few weeks.
Alcibiades wrote: People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.
(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)
Prepare for the coming doom.
I don't see why the Wings Biomorph would replace a set of Scything Talons. The default kit allows you to build with Wings and 2 sets of Scything Talons. One set is on the second pair of arms. The other set is on the feet. Also, Games Workshop (via Forgeworld) sells a set of Twin-Linked Devourer arms. Just because the weapon configuration isn't in the plastic box doesn't mean it isn't available. It just costs a little more.
I have a strong hunch that this is going to happen. We shall wait and see.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me ask this. Have you ever see, anywhere, in any Tyranids model photos or artwork in any GW product, a Flyrant with two sets of weapons?
I'm 90% sure they're not intended to be able to. That's why the Wings are relatively cheap.
Some simple fixes from this FAQ could have made orks a bit more playable, a few Erratas would allow orks to compete a bit more until our next codex comes out in 2020.
FAQ Fixes: Git finda works no matter what, doesn't have to stand still. Boom, Flash gitz become slightly less garbage.
Cybork adds +1 to FNP, 6+ with nothing, 4+ when in a painboy unit.
Mob rule can be used to negate Fear tests.
Erratas: Lootas D3+1 shots a turn. Can purchase Git finda for 3pts a model. Moved to Elite slot where they belong.
Meganobz +1 Toughness. (makes their 2+ save and 2 wounds worth something).
Nobz: Reduce price by 2pts a model, can purchase PKs for 20pts. Nobz come standard with Eavy Armor. Suddenly Nobz aren't laughable.
Boyz: S4, Eavy armor is 2pts a model.
I could keep going on but really its just sad how little love GW has for Orks. If you honestly don't think the Ork army is meant as the NPC race for 7th edition then you don't know what your talking about.
And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.
There are usually quality of life or balance corrections, such as the misprint of the Hellbrute price, the Dreadnought Attacks for non-Dark Angels/Codex Marines, etc.
To a point, I can understand why they don't, that leaves the major changes in print, which requires less on the owner to account for. Unfortunately, you deal with the current situation where armies, especially the first 2-3 codices in an Edition, get overrun by crazy design concepts which either weren't thought of by the time they were sent to print, or had too little time to implement them. And they generally don't redo a codex in an Edition (3rd was an exception).
Charistoph wrote: And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.
I have to disagree on that one. The old ork codex and most of other codexes had some quite heavy (and game changing) errata's at the end of the 6th edition. Allowing bosspoles also to reroll ld doesnt come close to some of those changes. I do agree with you that the suggestions of SemperMortis go beyond what they did then. That list is just the suggestion of a new codex disguised as a FAQ.
Charistoph wrote: And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.
I have to disagree on that one. The old ork codex and most of other codexes had some quite heavy (and game changing) errata's at the end of the 6th edition.
Allowing bosspoles also to reroll ld doesnt come close to some of those changes. I do agree with you that the suggestions of SemperMortis go beyond what they did then. That list is just the suggestion of a new codex disguised as a FAQ.
After having several factions FAQ'ed with no or very few changes by way of errata I need to ask again: Why would the Orks get a special treatment?
They didn't and here we are. Your opinion has been agreed with but it's not going to change anything.
Charistoph wrote: And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.
I have to disagree on that one. The old ork codex and most of other codexes had some quite heavy (and game changing) errata's at the end of the 6th edition.
Allowing bosspoles also to reroll ld doesnt come close to some of those changes. I do agree with you that the suggestions of SemperMortis go beyond what they did then. That list is just the suggestion of a new codex disguised as a FAQ.
Considering that it was updating a 5th Edition codex to 6th Edition mechanics, that part isn't unusual. Necron's was almost as big, and they were the last codex before 6th Edition!
But for a codex in the middle of an edition? Or even to an edition where the mechanics were minimally changed? No, they have not made such extensive changes as what are being proposed.
As I have been saying quite a bit lately, the correct forum to address needed changes is the GWFBFAQ thread, which they are actively watching and are quick to respond with changes. GW has zero interest in proposed changes being voiced here in this forum. If you dislike an FAQ response, or don't a need being address, let them know over there! If you don't, these FAQs will go from draft to official as is.
jeffersonian000 wrote: As I have been saying quite a bit lately, the correct forum to address needed changes is the GWFBFAQ thread, which they are actively watching and are quick to respond with changes. GW has zero interest in proposed changes being voiced here in this forum. If you dislike an FAQ response, or don't a need being address, let them know over there! If you don't, these FAQs will go from draft to official as is.
SJ
I have already posted there several times. I am only doing that to cover all my bases, but having sent in letters, e-mails and called several times in the past not to mention posting on their new facebook page a few times I know that nothing useful will come out of that. Orks this edition are the NPC race.
Kap'n Krump wrote:Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.
I too was positive that it was only in challenges. I'll have to check when I get home. It may have been that the rule for rolling on Chaos Boons table was in the same section as the "must accept and issue challenges" section, in which case we all thought it meant that the rule to roll for killing characters only applied in those challenges. Even still, it's odd, but yeah I'm game for this change.
Lord Blackscale wrote:So I guess you would have to roll the champion's overwatch separately, and hope it kills a character?
Aye. Separate attacks, separate shots, separate everything. On the plus side, Ahriman's got a much better reason for using psychic shooting attacks than previously.
Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.
The confusion came from the fact that the rule states in the same paragraph that you must always issue or accept challenge and (it's another sentence) that you can roll on the table whenever you kill a character.
Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.
The confusion came from the fact that the rule states in the same paragraph that you must always issue or accept challenge and (it's another sentence) that you can roll on the table whenever you kill a character.
It's funny, isn't this the exact opposite of how it was ruled for KDKs getting blood tithes from characters dying?
i was wondering, concerning the question about the deep strinking helbrute: It just means that I have to run when there are no enemies in 12'', but when there are enemies within 12'' I can shoot instead, since I can't charge after deep striking. Right?
Kap'n Krump wrote: CSM still need an actual codex, but some nice stuff in there. Kharn hitting invisible units on 2+ is nice, as giving helbrutes +2 attacks.
So, Kharn's rule gets to have precedence instead of just canceling out like Quantum Shielding does with Lance? Gotta love the insanity of the drunken monkeys.
Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.
The confusion came from the fact that the rule states in the same paragraph that you must always issue or accept challenge and (it's another sentence) that you can roll on the table whenever you kill a character.
It's funny, isn't this the exact opposite of how it was ruled for KDKs getting blood tithes from characters dying?
Kdk rule is entirely different. At no point does the character have to be in a challenge, close combat or otherwise.
4th ruling for FnP/RP vs Special Rules that trigger at the same time which "Remove From Play" after a test. We now have:
- Feel No Pain before Helfrost
- Player chooses the order of Reanimation and Helfrost
- Reanimation and Stasis Bomb cancel each other out
- Feel No Pain and Reanimation before Black Mace
That's 2 rulings towards the potential wound negation effect first. Guess that's how I'm gonna house rule all of them for now, until they decide on a consistent ruling.
No, the old official FaQs still apply (as indicated by some of the answers of these new draft FaQs referencing them) so the Helbrute is still 100pts, rather than 105.
Lord Blackscale wrote: So I guess you would have to roll the champion's overwatch separately, and hope it kills a character?
I've always played it this way. It's also why I'm somewhat intested inthe black legion warband formation. The yuranthos artefact is sure way to become mutated/ascended, assuming you don't kill yourself due to perils first.
Wow. So the Termagants spawned from a Tervigon count as being a Troop Choice in the detachment of the Tervigon that spawned them. Objective Secured Spawned Gaunts. That's awesome.
Tyrannocytes are treated like Vehicles for shooting arcs.
Yarium wrote: Wow. So the Termagants spawned from a Tervigon count as being a Troop Choice in the detachment of the Tervigon that spawned them. Objective Secured Spawned Gaunts. That's awesome.
Tyrannocytes are treated like Vehicles for shooting arcs.
Those two are the big ones I'm reading from this.
First one is an awesome change, the second is rather lame. (though people played it like that anyway. now I'm sad I modeled it with Deathspitters)
I see GW's FAQ team is still contradicting themselves between codexes. The BRBFAQ clarifies that a unit with deep strike in on going reserves can Deep Strike the turn they return to the board, yet the Tyranid FAQ specifically denies this to Tyranid unit and references the BRB. Good job staying consistently inconsistent, GW!
I'll have to check the BRB one later on, but it looks to me like they're just talking about respawn rules not being able to use deep strike in this one.
After a quick run-through of the BRBFAQ - I didn't see it. Were they talking about ongoing reserves that left the board of their own volition though? As opposed to being killed and respawning, I mean.
BossJakadakk wrote: I'll have to check the BRB one later on, but it looks to me like they're just talking about respawn rules not being able to use deep strike in this one.
After a quick run-through of the BRBFAQ - I didn't see it. Were they talking about ongoing reserves that left the board of their own volition though? As opposed to being killed and respawning, I mean.
When the unit "Respawns" it is just placing an identical unit (at purchase) as to what died into ongoing reserves. I don't understand how that is different from say Swooping Hawks Skyjump(?) or the Mawlocs Burrow abilities that allow them to return via deep strike?
Tyranid players, please take this chance to complain on Facebook that forcing normally deepstriking units to footslog after they have been returned to ongoing reserves is terrible.
flukezor wrote:When the unit "Respawns" it is just placing an identical unit (at purchase) as to what died into ongoing reserves. I don't understand how that is different from say Swooping Hawks Skyjump(?) or the Mawlocs Burrow abilities that allow them to return via deep strike?
adamsouza wrote:Tyranid players, please take this chance to complain on Facebook that forcing normally deepstriking units to footslog after they have been returned to ongoing reserves is terrible.
Because they aren't returning. It is a functionally new unit being brought to the field via Ongoing Reserves. This isn't Skyleap, Burrow, or a Flyer where a unit that existed at the beginning of the game has left in to Reserves to return again. Much like Conjuring Daemons or the Tervigon's Brood, it is a brand new unit as far as the game is concerned.
That having been said, Ongoing Reserves is functionally the same as Reserves aside from timing of return. And when you put a unit with all models having the Deep Strike special rule in Reserves, you can declare it to be Deep Striking (but not Outflank, Outflank specifically restricts this), which is often called Deep Strike Reserves.
I dont have any references on me, but as a long time tyranid player, why am I thinking that I read somewhere that Tyrants are not allowed to leave Tyrant Guard? I dont remember ever thinking they were allowed to, so I am wondering why the contradiction.
BossJakadakk wrote: I'll have to check the BRB one later on, but it looks to me like they're just talking about respawn rules not being able to use deep strike in this one.
After a quick run-through of the BRBFAQ - I didn't see it. Were they talking about ongoing reserves that left the board of their own volition though? As opposed to being killed and respawning, I mean.
When the unit "Respawns" it is just placing an identical unit (at purchase) as to what died into ongoing reserves. I don't understand how that is different from say Swooping Hawks Skyjump(?) or the Mawlocs Burrow abilities that allow them to return via deep strike?
The only other reference to deep striking new units I could find in the BRBFAQ was asking if new units (this exact example I believe) could deep strike if the original unit *didn't* deep strike. The answer was no, but that's it. They could have gone into more detail then to describe why, and they could have done so with the Tyranid-specific FAQ. My only answer is similar to Charistoph said, it's a new unit being created, and not something leaving the board per its own special ruling. I also don't know why they wouldn't allow it, but I don't see the inconsistency (for respawning units) because I couldn't find the ruling that was being contested in the post I quoted.
Zach wrote: I dont have any references on me, but as a long time tyranid player, why am I thinking that I read somewhere that Tyrants are not allowed to leave Tyrant Guard? I dont remember ever thinking they were allowed to, so I am wondering why the contradiction.
I think that was a previous edition that specifically stated this. The current rule allows the Tyrant to join like an Independent Character, but doesn't say anything about leaving, one way or another.
Yeah, literally all 4 answers are to questions that no one needed to have asked. I'm not if GW is just being redundant, or if some players really aren't that smart.
adamsouza wrote:Tyranid players, please take this chance to complain on Facebook that forcing normally deepstriking units to footslog after they have been returned to ongoing reserves is terrible.
Because they aren't returning. It is a functionally new unit being brought to the field via Ongoing Reserves. This isn't Skyleap, Burrow, or a Flyer where a unit that existed at the beginning of the game has left in to Reserves to return again. Much like Conjuring Daemons or the Tervigon's Brood, it is a brand new unit as far as the game is concerned.
That having been said, Ongoing Reserves is functionally the same as Reserves aside from timing of return. And when you put a unit with all models having the Deep Strike special rule in Reserves, you can declare it to be Deep Striking (but not Outflank, Outflank specifically restricts this), which is often called Deep Strike Reserves.
I understand that it is a new unit, which is exactly why I think they should be able to deploy via deepstrike.
Are you trying to make the argument that they can ? I'm confused about what your intent is with the second paragraph.
Do you guys think the Necron Obelisk will be more competitive if they rule the Tesla Sphere has a 360 degree firing arc? I'm sitting on the fence about getting one.
Wow...what a worthless GKFAQ. Was hoping for an Errata. "Purifiers should have the deep strike special rule." Not just 3 questions everyone already knew the answer to.
adamsouza wrote:Tyranid players, please take this chance to complain on Facebook that forcing normally deepstriking units to footslog after they have been returned to ongoing reserves is terrible.
Because they aren't returning. It is a functionally new unit being brought to the field via Ongoing Reserves. This isn't Skyleap, Burrow, or a Flyer where a unit that existed at the beginning of the game has left in to Reserves to return again. Much like Conjuring Daemons or the Tervigon's Brood, it is a brand new unit as far as the game is concerned.
That having been said, Ongoing Reserves is functionally the same as Reserves aside from timing of return. And when you put a unit with all models having the Deep Strike special rule in Reserves, you can declare it to be Deep Striking (but not Outflank, Outflank specifically restricts this), which is often called Deep Strike Reserves.
I understand that it is a new unit, which is exactly why I think they should be able to deploy via deepstrike.
Are you trying to make the argument that they can ? I'm confused about what your intent is with the second paragraph.
You said that they are "forcing normally deepstriking units to footslog after they have been returned to ongoing reserves". There is nothing returning, so this scenario isn't playing out.
They should be able to be put in Deep Strike Reserves when placed in Ongoing Reserves. Unlike Outflank, Deep Strike does not have a restriction against putting a unit going in to Ongoing Reserves in to Deep Strike Reserves. And you declare a unit to be Deep Striking when you put it in Reserves. Ongoing Reserves IS Reserves with a change of timing (both of entry and arrival from), and it says so itself.
JimOnMars wrote:How many times have we been through this? NO BUFFS in the FAQs, except dreads for some reason.
Explaining the targeting range of the Tesla Orbs would not fit in to the usual definition of "buffs" that people have been calling for. Remember the Hell drake and it's 360 degree mouth for the Bale Flamer?
Kap'n Krump wrote: Boy, list of needed FAQs is getting pretty short. Think it's down to necrons and demons now.
Wonder what they're going to do with all this information and updates.
In the comments they said were working hard at compiling the final faqs, based on feedback, so some answers may change.
Don't get your hopes up they are not changing rules or reversing faqs.
Warhammer 40,000
Necrons and Daemons.
"Our rules guys are already working on the final versions, compiling all your feedback and extra questions for the final official versions."
JimOnMars wrote: How many times have we been through this? NO BUFFS in the FAQs, except dreads for some reason.
There have been several Erratas. We are talking about stuff that is obviously a misprint - like the warpspiders errata. Grey-knights teleport into battle - all of them do. There is no reason why purifiers shouldn't have deep strike just like strike squads. This would be akin to GKT having deep strike but Paladins not having it.
JimOnMars wrote: How many times have we been through this? NO BUFFS in the FAQs, except dreads for some reason.
There have been several Erratas. We are talking about stuff that is obviously a misprint - like the warpspiders errata. Grey-knights teleport into battle - all of them do. There is no reason why purifiers shouldn't have deep strike just like strike squads. This would be akin to GKT having deep strike but Paladins not having it.
JimOnMars wrote: How many times have we been through this? NO BUFFS in the FAQs, except dreads for some reason.
There have been several Erratas. We are talking about stuff that is obviously a misprint - like the warpspiders errata. Grey-knights teleport into battle - all of them do. There is no reason why purifiers shouldn't have deep strike just like strike squads. This would be akin to GKT having deep strike but Paladins not having it.
Why is the Warp Spider rule obviously a misprint?
Because it allowed a unit to move infinite times in it's opponents turn? Clearly a misprint.
Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed? Spider lose Flickerjump Dragons lose Assured Destruction Hawk lose Intercept Avengers Lose Counter Tactics Spear lose 4+ cover rule
I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.
Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump
Galef wrote: Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Spider lose Flickerjump
Dragons lose Assured Destruction
Hawk lose Intercept
Avengers Lose Counter Tactics
Spear lose 4+ cover rule
I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.
Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump
-
Maybe? I mean, I disagree with you at least. I think there's a lot of flavor in their special snowflake rules. Some can be toned down (like flickerjump, obviously), but having something special gives them a lot of cool-factor. Otherwise, it's basically taking the same profile and just calling it Aspect Warriors, then you select a loadout of gear for the whole unit.
Galef wrote: Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Spider lose Flickerjump
Dragons lose Assured Destruction
Hawk lose Intercept
Avengers Lose Counter Tactics
Spear lose 4+ cover rule
I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.
Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump
-
Really it's just dragons and spiders that are over the top.
Okay, I'm feeling dense today so I have to ask about one of the GK answers - the one where they say a unit can't start in an allied transport. I know they can't start in a dedicated transport, but (until the FAQ), where did it say you couldn't have the unit start in an allied transport if a) they were battle brothers and b) it was purchased not as a dedicated transport? Battle Brothers says you can embark on allied transports, this ruling seemed to negate that (maybe they were thinking only of dedicated transports and forget there's another type?)
doctortom wrote: Okay, I'm feeling dense today so I have to ask about one of the GK answers - the one where they say a unit can't start in an allied transport. I know they can't start in a dedicated transport, but (until the FAQ), where did it say you couldn't have the unit start in an allied transport if a) they were battle brothers and b) it was purchased not as a dedicated transport? Battle Brothers says you can embark on allied transports, this ruling seemed to negate that (maybe they were thinking only of dedicated transports and forget there's another type?)
This ruling isn't new. They stated the same in the main rulebook draft FAQ posted back at the beginning of May.
Galef wrote: Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Spider lose Flickerjump
Dragons lose Assured Destruction
Hawk lose Intercept
Avengers Lose Counter Tactics
Spear lose 4+ cover rule
I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.
Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump
-
Really it's just dragons and spiders that are over the top.
Agreed, but all the others are meh at best. So we have 2 over the top powers and a bunch of meh ones. Lets just drop them entirely.
No one thought anything was missing from Aspects in the 6th ed Eldar Codex. I'm not suggesting to get rid of all the Aspect specific stuff, just suggesting that the PLs are the one that grant it to their Aspect. Like Drazhar does for Incubi.
The Aspects themselves should just have Wargear differences. What makes Dragons unique? Melta-guns.
Exarchs can provide a slight special rule to make them "cool". Buy an Exarch for those Dragons, now they have Tank-Hunter.
PLs would them provide special snow-flake rules like "Assured Destruction"
But the ruling in the GKFAQ does reaffirm the ruling in the BRBFAQ... so that probably won't be overturned in the final release. So good-bye BA Taxicabs
Galef wrote: Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Spider lose Flickerjump
Dragons lose Assured Destruction
Hawk lose Intercept
Avengers Lose Counter Tactics
Spear lose 4+ cover rule
I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.
Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump
-
Really it's just dragons and spiders that are over the top.
Agreed, but all the others are meh at best. So we have 2 over the top powers and a bunch of meh ones. Lets just drop them entirely.
No one thought anything was missing from Aspects in the 6th ed Eldar Codex. I'm not suggesting to get rid of all the Aspect specific stuff, just suggesting that the PLs are the one that grant it to their Aspect. Like Drazhar does for Incubi.
The Aspects themselves should just have Wargear differences. What makes Dragons unique? Melta-guns.
Exarchs can provide a slight special rule to make them "cool". Buy an Exarch for those Dragons, now they have Tank-Hunter.
PLs would them provide special snow-flake rules like "Assured Destruction"
JimOnMars wrote: How many times have we been through this? NO BUFFS in the FAQs, except dreads for some reason.
There have been several Erratas. We are talking about stuff that is obviously a misprint - like the warpspiders errata. Grey-knights teleport into battle - all of them do. There is no reason why purifiers shouldn't have deep strike just like strike squads. This would be akin to GKT having deep strike but Paladins not having it.
Why is the Warp Spider rule obviously a misprint?
Because it allowed a unit to move infinite times in it's opponents turn? Clearly a misprint.
Not really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Spider lose Flickerjump
Dragons lose Assured Destruction
Hawk lose Intercept
Avengers Lose Counter Tactics
Spear lose 4+ cover rule
I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.
Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump
-
I like the rules. They just need to rebalance a few and give them to the Phoenix Lords IMO.
Galef wrote: Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Are you also in favor of all units in the game losing their special rules? Units having unique unit rules is hardly an Aspect Warrior only concern.
Most of those rules are based on other rules older than most of the players.
I've played Eldar for their last 2 previous codices and Aspect Warriors did not have the special rules I am referencing. Their Exarchs could give the unit some special rules, but they did not come with an automatic unnecessary rule just for existing.
The Aspects in those books were:
Aspect profile with X armour and X wargear.
Take an Exarch for X special rule and optional X wargear for the Eaxarch
But now you have:
Aspect profile with X armour, X wargear AND X special rule(s)
Take a 2W Exarch for X special rule, Y special rule and X optional wargear
Oh, and most of them got CHEAPER than the previous books.
There are just too dang many special rules. I am all for adding something fun and unique to a unit, but GW has taking it too far, which is why so many FAQs are needed
Too many unit's special abilities are coming into conflict with either the BRB, or another unit's special abilities.
I am really glad GW is doing these FAQ's as a Draft and I hope that they use the feedback for 8th ed. I also hope that they don't "trickle" the official FAQ's like thsy had done for the drafts.
#1 - Lance vs Quantum Shield; Previous FAQ said they cancelled out, now it says Lance works against the Quantum Shield. So which is it? AV12 or AV11?
#2 - Yes people, it is just 1 Canoptek Spyder. Just the one. Not a unit, but a single model. I understand that some people would state that, by the RAW, it couldn't exist, but the RAI was so crystal clear it was unfathomable to me that someone would actually attempt this.
#3 - The effects last until the start of your next Movement phase, even if the Spyder is destroyed! Ouch. That hurts. Was hoping to turn that aura off immediately.
#4 - The Obelisk still forces the test against Flying Monstrous Creatures, despite the fact that they would auto-pass that test. They did not answer this properly, and should have stated that the Flying Monstrous Creatures cannot auto-pass this test, but the RAI on this seems clear.
#5 - They say for all the effects +1 and -1 effects to RP saves to be applied simultaneously, and the "never reduced below" is just applied to the end result.
#6 - Eternity Gate CAN'T be used on the turn the Monolith Deep Strikes. That's odd, but sure, I'm down.
#7 - I really don't want to check this new Helfrost ruling against the others. Anyone else care to do that?
CrownAxe wrote: Unfortunately the Obelisk's firing arc still isn't really answered because sponsons aren't actually defined as to what firing arc they give.
Isn't there a diagram in the BRB that shows a sponson's arc? It literally shows that the sponson can see to the edge of the vehicle it's mounted on. On a Land raider that is just past 180 degrees since it's mounted on the flat side. But for the Obelisk, that would be about a 270 degree arc of sight since they are mounted on a corner.
#2 - Yes people, it is just 1 Canoptek Spyder. Just the one. Not a unit, but a single model. I understand that some people would state that, by the RAW, it couldn't exist, but the RAI was so crystal clear it was unfathomable to me that someone would actually attempt this. #3 - The effects last until the start of your next Movement phase, even if the Spyder is destroyed! Ouch. That hurts. Was hoping to turn that aura off immediately.
That's pretty big. #3 makes #2 mot so bad. Sure there is only 1 Spyder, but killing it doesn't matter until the turn after wards.
On the flip side of this, if the Wraiths are outside 12" of the Spyder at the beginning of the turn (because they charged and had to pile in on the prior turn) than they would not benefit from RP even if they move into 12" later in the turn. They'd have to be in range when the power is activated.
Mr Morden wrote: Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.
Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.
Artefacts of the Aeons have always been limited to one per model as that is clearly noted in the Necron Wargear List. What the FAQ does is clarify that you can't have both an Artefact of the Aeons and a Relic of the War in Heaven on the same model.
Galef the diagrams show that sponsons see the the gun physically does. On the land raider that's 270 but in the diagram for the leman Russ it's only 100 degrees because the gun can't physically move that much.
For the obelisk that would mean 45 degrees because the gun can't move at all
Mr Morden wrote: Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.
Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.
Actually all the faqs are still draft and not official so you go by the codex and how your group interprets it currently regardless, however it is another nail in the coffin as how GW is going to rule the final version of the faqs and the relic equivilant signature systems. We will all wait and see how it's finally clarified but if I were you I wouldn't get my hopes up as GW felt the need to clarifiy equivilant systems.
Mr Morden wrote: Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.
Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.
Actually all the faqs are still draft and not official so you go by the codex and how your group interprets it currently regardless, however it is another nail in the coffin as how GW is going to rule the final version of the faqs and the relic equivilant signature systems. We will all wait and see how it's finally clarified but if I were you I wouldn't get my hopes up as GW felt the need to clarifiy equivilant systems.
Most of the other Codexes had ambiguous wording that could allow for one or many depending on your interpretation. The Tau Codex isn't ambiguous. Tau Crisis Suits are also generally "blank templates" that you add lots of gear to. I can't think of any other Codex that uses a similar "hard point" system. Anecdotally, this supports the idea of adding multiple items to one suit.
Mr Morden wrote: Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.
Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.
Actually all the faqs are still draft and not official so you go by the codex and how your group interprets it currently regardless, however it is another nail in the coffin as how GW is going to rule the final version of the faqs and the relic equivilant signature systems. We will all wait and see how it's finally clarified but if I were you I wouldn't get my hopes up as GW felt the need to clarifiy equivilant systems.
Most of the other Codexes had ambiguous wording that could allow for one or many depending on your interpretation. The Tau Codex isn't ambiguous. Tau Crisis Suits are also generally "blank templates" that you add lots of gear to. I can't think of any other Codex that uses a similar "hard point" system. Anecdotally, this supports the idea of adding multiple items to one suit.
Odd i swear page 74 explicit says only 1 signature system can be taken per army. Or you guys speaking about farsight ones?
Mr Morden wrote: Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.
Signature Systems are not relics, nor are they equivalent. They simply fulfill the same role with similar but not the same limits. Tau rules not only allow for multiple Sig Systems on the same model, GW gave us 8 specific builds that incorporate multiple Sig Systems on each model, and the Tau FAQ errata'd Riptides to be able to take ECP in a FSE, making the ability to build your own O'Vasa legal.
Well at least they cleared up FNP/RP which is undoubtedly taken before other tests. (Do not remember them addressing FNP specifically in an earlier FAQ).
Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Can Necron models benefit from their Reanimation Protocols special rule before testing to see if is removed from play by attacks such as Space Wolves’ Helfrost weapons or the Ravenwing Dark Talon’s stasis bomb?
A: Yes. Necron Reanimation Protocols are taken at the same time as Feel No Pain rolls would be, to potentially avoid suffering unsaved Wounds (and any ensuing tests that suffering an unsaved Wound may cause).
if they keep it that way, no reason they shouldn't though because of the nature of RP/FNP
DeathReaper wrote: Well at least they cleared up FNP/RP which is undoubtedly taken before other tests. (Do not remember them addressing FNP specifically in an earlier FAQ).
Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Can Necron models benefit from their Reanimation Protocols special rule before testing to see if is removed from play by attacks such as Space Wolves’ Helfrost weapons or the Ravenwing Dark Talon’s stasis bomb?
A: Yes. Necron Reanimation Protocols are taken at the same time as Feel No Pain rolls would be, to potentially avoid suffering unsaved Wounds (and any ensuing tests that suffering an unsaved Wound may cause).
if they keep it that way, no reason they shouldn't though because of the nature of RP/FNP
They previously ruled that the player whose turn it is decides which comes first. Which of course means no RP would be allowed. I wish these were more consistent.
CrownAxe wrote: Galef the diagrams show that sponsons see the the gun physically does. On the land raider that's 270 but in the diagram for the leman Russ it's only 100 degrees because the gun can't physically move that much.
For the obelisk that would mean 45 degrees because the gun can't move at all
From the BRB: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."
So now that the FAQ has stated the Tesla Sphere are sponsons (which we all agree can move side to side and are only blocked by the hull of their vehicle) if is more than fair to say the Spheres can "rotate or swivel on their mounting".
Why would they bother answering the question about the Tesla Spheres and say they specifically aren't hull mounted if they intend for them to be locked in place with a 45 degree angle. If that was what they wanted they would have just ruled it as hull mounted. There is literally no point in even saying they are sponsons otherwise.
I think it's pretty obvious what they intend they just failed to clarify it correctly.
Qlanth wrote: Why would they bother answering the question about the Tesla Spheres and say they specifically aren't hull mounted if they intend for them to be locked in place with a 45 degree angle. If that was what they wanted they would have just ruled it as hull mounted. There is literally no point in even saying they are sponsons otherwise.
I think it's pretty obvious what they intend they just failed to clarify it correctly.
Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.
Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.
Are you sure that the bit that you think is the bolt projector isn't anything more than housing for the sphere, and the bolts don't come from the surface of the sphere itself? Kind of like the inner sphere of a plasma ball.
Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.
Are you sure that the bit that you think is the bolt projector isn't anything more than housing for the sphere, and the bolts don't come from the surface of the sphere itself? Kind of like the inner sphere of a plasma ball.
Do you have support for your claims that the entire surface of the sphere is the barrel?
Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.
Are you sure that the bit that you think is the bolt projector isn't anything more than housing for the sphere, and the bolts don't come from the surface of the sphere itself? Kind of like the inner sphere of a plasma ball.
Do you have support for your claims that the entire surface of the sphere is the barrel?
Has it ever been said what that piece is? I don't have the model so can't check the instructions. It is called a Tesla Sphere though, not a gun, cannon or projector. The description in the fluff is "glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning". Why would they iris open if they had a barrel?
Also, google image search Tesla sphere. Maybe GW didn't realise there would be any need to specify judging by those images.
Ghaz wrote: There is nothing else on the Tesla Sphere which could realistically be a barrel and resembles the barrel of the tesla carbine/cannon/destructor.
If we are basing how a weapon "looks" to determine how far it can swivel, then the Spheres clearly have a 270 degree arc. It doesn't matter that those pieces are "set in place" since Necron vehicles are made of "Living metal" and those pieces could easily morph away Terminator 2 style.
Ghaz wrote: There is nothing else on the Tesla Sphere which could realistically be a barrel and resembles the barrel of the tesla carbine/cannon/destructor.
If we are basing how a weapon "looks" to determine how far it can swivel, then the Spheres clearly have a 270 degree arc. It doesn't matter that those pieces are "set in place" since Necron vehicles are made of "Living metal" and those pieces could easily morph away Terminator 2 style.
-
Except the barrel is on a track which does not move.
Ghaz wrote: There is nothing else on the Tesla Sphere which could realistically be a barrel and resembles the barrel of the tesla carbine/cannon/destructor.
And my point was that the tesla sphere may not actually need or have a barrel. It's only an assumption that the cross shaped piece is a barrel rather than part of the sphere housing.
And again, why would what looks like a barrel on every other Tesla weapon not be a barrel on a Tesla Sphere? You want to have a weapon with absolutely no barrel and draw line of sight from any part of the weapon without a rule to support that interpretation.
Galef wrote: The "barrel" may only move up & down the "track", but the whole Sphere can move side to side....ya know, like a sponson
And again, please support your claims with actual rules. Where does being listed as a 'sponson' suddenly mean that it can turn further than physically possible. Page and paragraph please.
Ghaz wrote: And again, why would what looks like a barrel on every other Tesla weapon not be a barrel on a Tesla Sphere? You want to have a weapon with absolutely no barrel and draw line of sight from any part of the weapon without a rule to support that interpretation.
Because it doesn't actually look like a barrel? And it looks nothing like the barrels of the other tesla weapons. In fact the tesla sphere looks nothing like the other tesla weapons, or any other weapon for that matter.
If it were a barrel the tesla sphere would be a weapon that does not have skyfire, yet is physically incapable of shooting ground targets due to the angle of the Obelisk's upper surface and the model's height.
The metallic section at the top center of the sphere most definitely looks like the barrel of other Tesla weapons. The blank side of the sphere does not. Whether it can shoot at ground targets or not doesn't matter.
Why would the faq call out the sphere as a sponson weapon rather than hull mounted if it doesn't change the intended arc of fire? Especially given the rarity of sponson mounts on xeno vehicles.
And as I asked Galef, please support your claims with actual rules. Where does being listed as a 'sponson' suddenly mean that it can turn further than physically possible. Page and paragraph please.
Torquar wrote: Why would the faq call out the sphere as a sponson weapon rather than hull mounted if it doesn't change the intended arc of fire? Especially given the rarity of sponson mounts on xeno vehicles.
why didn't they say it was turret mounted if they wanted to give it the full range of LoS?
Torquar wrote: Why would the faq call out the sphere as a sponson weapon rather than hull mounted if it doesn't change the intended arc of fire? Especially given the rarity of sponson mounts on xeno vehicles.
why didn't they say it was turret mounted if they wanted to give it the full range of LoS?
Because they didn't intend for 360 arc. The arc is limited by the hull as is the case with sponson-mounted turrets.
And my point was that the tesla sphere may not actually need or have a barrel. It's only an assumption that the cross shaped piece is a barrel rather than part of the sphere housing.
If it doesn't have a barrel, there is no way provided by the rules to draw LOS with it.
Torquar wrote: Why would the faq call out the sphere as a sponson weapon rather than hull mounted if it doesn't change the intended arc of fire? Especially given the rarity of sponson mounts on xeno vehicles.
Probably because whoever wrote the FAQ didn't look closely enough at the model.
I would suspect that it was intended to rotate freely in its mount in the original concept discussions, but the model just didn't actually turn out that way. But the end result is a model that functions extremely poorly under 40K's rules for vehicle shooting.
It's certainly not alone there ... see 'roof-mounted, short-ranged heavy weapons on the roof of stormravens' as exhibit A in similar silliness...
And my point was that the tesla sphere may not actually need or have a barrel. It's only an assumption that the cross shaped piece is a barrel rather than part of the sphere housing.
If it doesn't have a barrel, there is no way provided by the rules to draw LOS with it.
And my point was that the tesla sphere may not actually need or have a barrel. It's only an assumption that the cross shaped piece is a barrel rather than part of the sphere housing.
If it doesn't have a barrel, there is no way provided by the rules to draw LOS with it.
Like the Monolith's Particle Whip?
Thanks. Added a comment to the Facebook page asking for clarification on how to draw line of sight and what the firing arc is for the particle whip.
col_impact wrote: The metallic section is the muzzle. The green sphere is the barrel.
You shoot the Tesla Sphere.
You are not shooting a Tesla cannon mounted on a Tesla Sphere.
weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon. Its called a tesla sphere but it isn't a physical sphere at all.
Also muzzle is the end of the barrel, so you are admitting you measure from the metallic section now since you measure "....along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models."?
col_impact wrote: The metallic section is the muzzle. The green sphere is the barrel.
You shoot the Tesla Sphere.
You are not shooting a Tesla cannon mounted on a Tesla Sphere.
weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon. Its called a tesla sphere but it isn't a physical sphere at all.
Also muzzle is the end of the barrel, so you are admitting you measure from the metallic section now since you measure "....along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models."?
The barrel is the Sphere. The metallic stuff is the muzzle so you measure along any vector within the green sphere and you can freely rotate the sphere within the mountings.
col_impact wrote: The metallic section is the muzzle. The green sphere is the barrel.
You shoot the Tesla Sphere.
You are not shooting a Tesla cannon mounted on a Tesla Sphere.
weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon. Its called a tesla sphere but it isn't a physical sphere at all.
Also muzzle is the end of the barrel, so you are admitting you measure from the metallic section now since you measure "....along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models."?
The barrel is the Sphere. The metallic stuff is the muzzle so you measure along any vector within the green sphere and you can freely rotate the sphere within the mountings.
col_impact wrote: The metallic section is the muzzle. The green sphere is the barrel.
You shoot the Tesla Sphere.
You are not shooting a Tesla cannon mounted on a Tesla Sphere.
weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon. Its called a tesla sphere but it isn't a physical sphere at all.
Also muzzle is the end of the barrel, so you are admitting you measure from the metallic section now since you measure "....along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models."?
The barrel is the Sphere. The metallic stuff is the muzzle so you measure along any vector within the green sphere and you can freely rotate the sphere within the mountings.
Proof the sphere is the barrel? Name =/= rule. You are saying the muzzle is the metallic circle, meaning it is the barrel. you don't measure along the sphere, you would measure along the barrel, since you had said the metallic stuff is the end of the barrel that means that the tube connected to the sphere is the barrel, which is what is measured along. you don't measure from the sphere part at all.
Proof the sphere is the barrel? Name =/= rule. You are saying the muzzle is the metallic circle, meaning it is the barrel. you don't measure along the sphere, you would measure along the barrel, since you had said the metallic stuff is the end of the barrel that means that the tube connected to the sphere is the barrel, which is what is measured along. you don't measure from the sphere part at all.
I shoot the thing called a Tesla Sphere. Do you see anything else on the Obelisk that is a sphere?
A muzzle is just the very end of the barrel and is not the barrel itself. The sphere is the barrel.
Since its spherical you can project vectors from within the sphere through the muzzle onto a fairly large 120 degree cone, and if you add the 45 degrees you get for free with the rules that's 210 degrees.
And if you rotate per the Tesla Sphere being defined as a sponson, which is a side-mounted turret you get more along the lines of 270 degrees.
Proof the sphere is the barrel? Name =/= rule. You are saying the muzzle is the metallic circle, meaning it is the barrel. you don't measure along the sphere, you would measure along the barrel, since you had said the metallic stuff is the end of the barrel that means that the tube connected to the sphere is the barrel, which is what is measured along. you don't measure from the sphere part at all.
I shoot the thing called a Tesla Sphere. Do you see anything else on the Obelisk that is a sphere?
A muzzle is just the very end of the barrel and is not the barrel itself. The sphere is the barrel.
Since its spherical you can project vectors from within the sphere through the muzzle onto a fairly large 120 degree cone, and if you add the 45 degrees you get for free with the rules that's 210 degrees.
And if you rotate per the Tesla Sphere being defined as a sponson, which is a side-mounted turret you get more along the lines of 270 degrees.
Still no proof the sphere is the barrel but you're still saying A muzzle is still part of the barrel, the end of the barrel in fact, where objects shoot out from. This is where you measure from, NOT from the sphere. You're statement that the sphere is the barrel has no proof to it and is incorrect, and even if the sphere is part of the barrel you still have to measure along the barrel to the muzzle which means you STILL measure from the silver part. "....along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models." If you aren't measureing along the barrel to the "muzzle" you aren't measuring along its barrel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
adamsouza wrote: So I should simply model mine with just the spheres ?
That would completely bypass this argument.
See those green spheres ? Those are the Tesla Spheres.
Except now you are modeling for advantage which is cheating at that point.
Still no proof the sphere is the barrel but you're still saying A muzzle is still part of the barrel, the end of the barrel in fact, where objects shoot out from. This is where you measure from, NOT from the sphere. You're statement that the sphere is the barrel has no proof to it and is incorrect, and even if the sphere is part of the barrel you still have to measure along the barrel to the muzzle which means you STILL measure from the silver part.
Per the fluff description
Yet wonder turns swiftly to horror as the Obelisk’s weapons cycle up, glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning that reduce those nearby to blackened, twitching husks
You have no choice but to point to the sphere as the actual weapon (as the 'barrel') and the LOS vectors being drawn from the back wall of the sphere through the iris/sphinctor.
As already pointed out this provides a 120 degree cone all its own and the 90 degrees on top of that make it 210 degrees.
And if you further take the directive of the FAQ to treat the Tesla Sphere as sponson-mounted, then you can rotate the Tesla Sphere in its 'eye socket'.
Still no proof the sphere is the barrel but you're still saying A muzzle is still part of the barrel, the end of the barrel in fact, where objects shoot out from. This is where you measure from, NOT from the sphere. You're statement that the sphere is the barrel has no proof to it and is incorrect, and even if the sphere is part of the barrel you still have to measure along the barrel to the muzzle which means you STILL measure from the silver part.
Per the fluff description
Yet wonder turns swiftly to horror as the Obelisk’s weapons cycle up, glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning that reduce those nearby to blackened, twitching husks
You have no choice but to point to the sphere as the actual weapon (as the 'barrel') and the LOS vectors being drawn from the back wall of the sphere through the iris/sphinctor.
As already pointed out this provides a 120 degree cone all its own and the 90 degrees on top of that make it 210 degrees.
And if you further take the directive of the FAQ to treat the Tesla Sphere as sponson-mounted, then you can rotate the Tesla Sphere in its 'eye socket'.
So my proof far outweighs your zero proof.
Fluff isn't a rules source.
You can't rotate the tesla sphere at all so you can't pretend that its rotating in its socket
You can't rotate the tesla sphere at all so you can't pretend that its rotating in its socket
The weapon is a tesla sphere and not referred to with proper noun usage (as Tesla Sphere) so it really is a physical sphere.
So until you start dealing with it as a physical sphere you have no argument.
You can trace LOS from the inner wall of the sphere through the iris sphinctor. That's a sizeable cone which is going to give you 210 degrees of firing arc.
You can't rotate the tesla sphere at all so you can't pretend that its rotating in its socket
The weapon is a tesla sphere and not referred to with proper noun usage (as Tesla Sphere) so it really is a physical sphere.
So until you start dealing with it as a physical sphere you have no argument.
You can trace LOS from the inner wall of the sphere through the iris sphinctor. That's a sizeable cone which is going to give you 210 degrees of firing arc.
No, the weapon is called a Tesla Sphere. Nothing proving that it is just a sphere. Still no proof that the sphere is the barrel of the gun
Yet wonder turns swiftly to horror as the Obelisk’s weapons cycle up, glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning that reduce those nearby to blackened, twitching husks
You have no choice but to point to the sphere as the actual weapon (as the 'barrel') and the LOS vectors being drawn from the back wall of the sphere through the iris/sphinctor.
As already pointed out this provides a 120 degree cone all its own and the 90 degrees on top of that make it 210 degrees.
And if you further take the directive of the FAQ to treat the Tesla Sphere as sponson-mounted, then you can rotate the Tesla Sphere in its 'eye socket'.
So my proof far outweighs your zero proof.
As others have already said fluff =/= rules. You have stated yourself that the metal part is the muzzle which means its part of the barrel. The only part you can trace from is along the barrel to the muzzle.
LOS vectors being drawn from the back wall of the sphere through the iris/sphinctor
If by iris/sphinctor you mean the metal part you have been calling a muzzle then there is no more debate here. You are straight up saying that is where you trace along the barrel from. Nothing more to say on the matter.
1. You need a "barrel" to draw LoS. Eiher the sphere or the "muzzle" that looks like the head of a Tesla carbine must be the barrel
2. Sponsons are not well defined in the BRB. At best, the arc is how far the weapon "could" physically move. For Leman Russ tanks, this is about 100 degrees, for Land Raiders this is about 190-200 degrees. RAW you literally have to look at the model and determine what it "CAN" do. Honestly this is getting into "fluff" territory since high technology "could" allow a lot.
So given that GW has defined it as a Sponson, we now have to determine 1 & 2. I personally don't see why #1 matters as much *IF* we figure out #2. As has been shown, the "muzzle" is fixed on a track that appears to only allow up & down movement, which would indicate "hull mounted". But GW didn't say "hull mounted", they said "sponson". So clearly we cannot treat it as hull mounted.
So the basic argument here has little to do with rules interpretation, and more to do with what we all "think" the Sphere can do. Some are saying that it can only move up & down because they see the logically "fixed" metal pieces. Others, like myself, realize that Necron tech does not have to fit the logic of Imperial tech. They have a rule called "Living Metal" afterall. So when I look at the model, I can easily imagine (because that is what we do with our plastic soliders: we "imagine") that when the Sphere goes to turn left or right, the vertical track dissipates (T:2 style) into the Sphere and a horizontal track appears to allow side to side movement. If you check the model again, you can see 2 horizontal pieces at the left and right of the Sphere that look just like those at the ends of the vertical "track"
RAW you look at what the model can do. The above is a movement the Necron tech could allow. THAT is my RAW proof.
Qlanth wrote: Why would they bother answering the question about the Tesla Spheres and say they specifically aren't hull mounted if they intend for them to be locked in place with a 45 degree angle. If that was what they wanted they would have just ruled it as hull mounted. There is literally no point in even saying they are sponsons otherwise.
I think it's pretty obvious what they intend they just failed to clarify it correctly.
Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.
You and I are in agreement. RAW makes this very confusing.
However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.
There is already a rule in place for when a weapon to fixed to the hull and cannot move. That is Hull-Mounted weapons. The FAQ clearly states they are not hull-mounted, but sponson mounted... in reality when you and I look at this we say, "it seems fixed in place, it must be 45 degrees only?". But I think that it's clear that by NOT ruling it hull mounted, they must believe that it could swivel or move somehow. Therefor it is not a 45 degree angle of fire. If they intended it to be a weapon which is fixed to the hull and has a 45 degree angle of fire, they would have ruled it as a Hull-Mounted weapon.
RAW - extremely confusing. RAI - Seems very clear.
They need to make this much more clear in the final draft.
Qlanth wrote: However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.
There are several examples in this very thread where we believed we knew what GW intended and yet the draft FAQ proved otherwise.
Qlanth wrote: However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.
There are several examples in this very thread where we believed we knew what GW intended and yet the draft FAQ proved otherwise.
And there have been a few cases where a following FAQ actually reversed the answer or changed it to something else.
I think the most recent example I can think of is the Heldrake's mouth cannon. Admittedly, it happened at the beginning of 7th Edition, but it DID happen.
Qlanth wrote: However, I think if we step back and remember that the people who wrote this are humans, and humans make mistakes, we can deduce what they intended by this call.
There are several examples in this very thread where we believed we knew what GW intended and yet the draft FAQ proved otherwise.
Why would they specifically say it is not a hull-mounted 45 degree arc of fire if it is instead a sponson-mounted 45 degree arc of fire? Just for semantics? They have words for things that are fixed to the hull and only fire one way. They specifically say it is not that thing.
It's a bad answer, through and through. I can clearly see why they answered the way they did but they need to clarify. I posted on FB so hopefully the final draft will clarify specifically using degrees of movement.
And the more I think about this the more I think sponson-mounted is an arbitrary ruling and they need to review that entire rule for the next edition. These conversations aren't fun I don't think anybody wants to have these debates. Every codex should clearly show the arc of fire on every vehicle. It would take 5 minutes in photoshop to throw this together.
I would like to point out that the claim that "A weapon needs a barrel" is completely untrue and does not prove anything.
And quite honestly, people don't have to prove that the metallic protusion is not the barrel, you have to prove that it IS a barrel.
For all I care, the lightning shoots directly from the sphere without the need of a barrel, there're precedents of weapons not needing a barrel, why would a Tesla sphere need one? I say the lightning shoots forth from the sphere itself. Can anyone prove me that this is not the case?
As has been noted numerous times already, just being called 'sponson' doesn't give it a specific arc. The arc is still based on how fat the weapon can physically turn.
DaPino wrote: I would like to point out that the claim that "A weapon needs a barrel" is completely untrue and does not prove anything.
And the vehicle rules say that you draw line of sight "... from each weapon's mounting and along it's barrel...". No barrel means you have no way to determine line of sight without resorting to house rules.
Ghaz wrote: As has been noted numerous times already, just being called 'sponson' doesn't give it a specific arc. The arc is still based on how fat the weapon can physically turn.
Or perceived to turn if physically immobilized when built (either deliberately, by accident, or due to repairs to the model).
The question on this, and not actually answered, is what is the mounting for the Tesla Sphere? Is it the green sphere behind that silver piece in the picture, or just the black supporting piece over the sphere? Or is it both?
Options it boils down to.
A tesla sphere has something that looks like a barrel. You can measure along this to get a 45 fire arc that is 100% playable but people don't like.
Or you can say that it doesn't have a barrel, which makes the weapon unplayable without resorting to house rules. At this point you could just skip a step and house rule the fire arc!
The problem is that too many people are trying to use Option C and are claiming that the written rules for Sponsons allow the greater arc than what is physically possible and are denying that what looks *exactly* like the muzzle on one tesla weapon isn't a muzzle on another tesla weapon and therefore get to draw line of sight from anywhere on the sphere.
JimOnMars wrote: I hope you guys are having as much vigorous debate on the FB page as you are here. There is no reason to leave GW out of the pain they have caused.
The problem with the Tesla Spheres being 'sponsons' have been brought up numerous times, starting almost as soon as the FAQ dropped.
Ghaz wrote: The problem is that too many people are trying to use Option C and are claiming that the written rules for Sponsons allow the greater arc than what is physically possible and are denying that what looks *exactly* like the muzzle on one tesla weapon isn't a muzzle on another tesla weapon and therefore get to draw line of sight from anywhere on the sphere.
I have no issue with using that muzzle/barrel thing for drawing LoS. My issue is with what it "looks" like it could do. That is so subjective it is ridiculous. Why does that center beam that the muzzle is on HAVE to restrict its left-to-right movement? Couldn't that just be a structutre used to containt the sphere? Couldn't the "muzzle", which is clearly a focus point for the Tesla energy, float freely left-to-right at any point on the sphere, but the designers just left it in the center? What if the pieces to the left and right of the sphere are actually meant to extent toward the center and allow the focal point to move left-to-right?
None of us are Necron engineers and have no idea how the technology is supposesd to work. Since the RAW for sponsons are to draw an Arc within the range of the ACTUAL weapon's movement from left to right, how are we supposed to agree on that? Group A thinks the muzzle has to stay on the track, limiting it's movement to 45 degrees Group B thinks it can float around the sphere (like a sponson) and gain left to right movement.
Again, please provide an actual rule to back up your claims. So far you've refused to do so. The only rule we have to determine a weapon's arc is what it could physically turn to face when properly assembled. I have a rule to back up my position. You do not. Either support your claims or stop wasting everyone's time with baseless assumptions.
Ghaz wrote: Again, please provide an actual rule to back up your claims. So far you've refused to do so. The only rule we have to determine a weapon's arc is what it could physically turn to face when properly assembled. I have a rule to back up my position. You do not. Either support your claims or stop wasting everyone's time with baseless assumptions.
I am not "refusing to provide rules" I just don't have my BRB with me to quote them properly. I am going off of the same rule you are using: "look at the model to judge how the weapon is supposed to move" I am trying to assert the point that we cannot do so in this context because the model's design
It is easy to see how a Leman Russ or Land Raider weapons can move. You just move them side to side. But since the design of the Tesla Sphere is effectively "glued in place" we are left to imagine how it is supposed to move, just as we would for a LR that has its weapons glued. Initially it looked Hull mounted, which was unfortunate. Now we are give information that they should be sponsons. So how are they supposed to move side to side like a sponson? The only way I can think of is that the focus point can float left to right around the sphere, which it actually CAN be properly assembled with that focal piece at any point on the sphere, not just on the center track
I have to agree with Ghaz, sponson mounted means what it can be pointed at *NOT* what it looks like it should be able to point at. (RAI what you are saying is perfectly valid)
The relevant passage
"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to swivel on their mountings. In the rare case where it matters assume the guns can swivel 45 degrees vertically"
There is no mounting for a sphere to swivel on, as it's a single moulded piece.
If someone assembles a model incorrectly a mobile sponson may be prevented from swiveling, and this stops someone claiming that you get a smaller fire arc for assembling wrong.
It only gives you a contingency for immobile sponsons from model assembly not model design, because they shouldnt have sponsons immobile by design because they arent sponsons then.
"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to swivel on their mountings. In the rare case where it matters assume the guns can swivel 45 degrees vertically"
There is no mounting for a sphere to swivel on, as it's a single moulded piece.
So we are ignoring that fact that the "muzzle" actually IS a separate piece that can be glued onto any part of the sphere, not just on the center track?
And the rule you quoted doesn't say WHY it's impossible to move the gun. Why do we have to assume it is because it was "glued", rather than how it was "designed"? How the model is "assembled" could apply to either situation, whether assembled by design (a single piece) or by gluing multiple piece.
The funny thing is that I have no idea why I am so vested in this discussion. I don't even play Necrons and have never actually seen anyone play this thing. (though I have seen the model in person)
"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to swivel on their mountings. In the rare case where it matters assume the guns can swivel 45 degrees vertically"
There is no mounting for a sphere to swivel on, as it's a single moulded piece.
So we are ignoring that fact that the "muzzle" actually IS a separate piece that can be glued onto any part of the sphere, not just on the center track?
And the rule you quoted doesn't say WHY it's impossible to move the gun. Why do we have to assume it is because it was "glued", rather than how it was "designed"?
How the model is "assembled" could apply to either situation.
-
You can glue the muzzle anywhere on the sphere the same way you can glue the demolisher cannon anywhere on the tank, but you are explicitly instructed otherwise in the instructions.
"on some models, It will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled."
Impossible to move because of the way the model is assembled. It isn't assembly that prevents the "sponson" swiveling, as there is literally no way to assemble it so that it can swivel. Its the design of the model, how the pieces are moulded and how they are instructed to be fit together.
Ok, so I think I need to bow out of this discussion for 3 reasons.
1) I see this issue as RAI & RAW having the same outcome, but just can't seem to adequately express this 2) I don't really need vindication when the FAQ has given that already 3) I don't even play Necrons.
See you gents (and possibly ladies) in the next debate. Have a great day.
Nightlord1987 wrote: So tesla spheres being sponsons are unfair, but breaking the heldrakes neck is just fine right?
The issue with the Tesla Sphere isn't that it's unfair. It's that they're trying to make an immobile weapon mount count as a sponson without providing any clarification on just how that's supposed to work.
Nightlord1987 wrote: So tesla spheres being sponsons are unfair, but breaking the heldrakes neck is just fine right?
The issue with the Tesla Sphere isn't that it's unfair. It's that they're trying to make an immobile weapon mount count as a sponson with providing any clarification on just how that's supposed to work.
Pretty much. Which part is the mounting that moves? Can it move across the entire sphere or is it just that metal track on top of the sphere?
Nid-Veng wrote: I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.
Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes
How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?
Thanks
We don't know. It was criminally under-specific.
Currently, I'm working on the assumption that the invasion beam works both ways, so the same process you use for disembarking is the one you use for embarking. I don't have a Necron codex, but I believe that's by passing over the unit with the flyer.
Nid-Veng wrote: I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.
Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes
How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?
Thanks
The base counts as an access point for flyer transports.
That's where, not how.
A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer. A Night Scythe either Zooms, is in Reserves (Ongoing or normal), or Crashed, it cannot Hover. Invasion Beams only provide access to Disembarking from the Night Scythe, not getting back on.
I am glad that they finally recognized that Praetorians have them as a Dedicated Transport, though. One less argument if that Errata makes it live.
Nid-Veng wrote: I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.
Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes
How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?
Thanks
The base counts as an access point for flyer transports.
That's where, not how.
A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer. A Night Scythe either Zooms, is in Reserves (Ongoing or normal), or Crashed, it cannot Hover. Invasion Beams only provide access to Disembarking from the Night Scythe, not getting back on.
I am glad that they finally recognized that Praetorians have them as a Dedicated Transport, though. One less argument if that Errata makes it live.
My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.
My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.
My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.
Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.
The matter should be handled by errata. But in the absence of a proper errata the FAQ answer stands in place of an errata.
My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.
Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.
The matter should be handled by errata. But in the absence of a proper errata the FAQ answer stands in place of an errata.
Only by people who will accept the House Rule. That is how House Rules operate, after all.
My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.
Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.
The matter should be handled by errata. But in the absence of a proper errata the FAQ answer stands in place of an errata.
Only by people who will accept the House Rule. That is how House Rules operate, after all.
GWFAQ are not house rules.
The GWFAQ is an official rules source and the FAQs are official updates and once finalized are an official part of the game and read as if they are actually written in the codex itself. So the GWFAQ is the opposite of a House Rule, in fact.
An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up.
The GWFAQ is an official rules source and the FAQs are official updates and once finalized are an official part of the game and read as if they are actually written in the codex itself. So the GWFAQ is the opposite of a House Rule, in fact.
An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up.
We've been over this. Care to point out where it states that "An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up."?
The GWFAQ is an official rules source and the FAQs are official updates and once finalized are an official part of the game and read as if they are actually written in the codex itself. So the GWFAQ is the opposite of a House Rule, in fact.
An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up.
We've been over this. Care to point out where it states that "An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up."?
The FAQ is a document that is an official inclusion to the codex.
jeffersonian000 wrote: FAQs are in fact GW's houserules, RAI to clarify RAW ambiguities. Errata are official rules, that replace printed rules.
SJ
What this guy said....
People don't understand the difference of a faq and errata.
Both can change the RAW however an errata replaces or adds words in the rulebook whereas a faq clarifies ambiguities in the rules.
The second problem people have is accepting the fact thier reading of the rules is not what GW rules as intended and the failure for those players to admit they could possibly be wrong. Instead they just continue arguing how they read the rule correctly and GW is changing the rules and those faqs should be erratas..no im sorry you're just wrong and are too stubborn to admit it.
jeffersonian000 wrote: FAQs are in fact GW's houserules, RAI to clarify RAW ambiguities. Errata are official rules, that replace printed rules.
SJ
The faq portion of the GWFAQ are official answers to questions that come up in a game. They are not house rules.
A house rule is defined as "a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place."
So the faq portion of the GWFAQ is in fact the opposite of a house rule since they are official answers meant to be officially in place anywhere the game is played.
My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.
Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.
Other armies have many rulings that also should be handled by an errata. This one is no different than those.
WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX:
DARK ELDAR
Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.1
Continuing on, skipping a paragraph for pertinence:
Each update is split into three sections: Aemendments, Errata and 'Frequently Asked Questions'. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly asked question about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your codex, this is by no means necessar - just keep a copy of the update with your codex.
Nothing about the FAQs being "an official inclusion to the codex" or changes their original stance on them being nothing more than House Rules on HTWPI.
col_impact wrote:The faq portion of the GWFAQ are official answers to questions that come up in a game. They are not house rules.
A house rule is defined as "a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place."
So the faq portion of the GWFAQ is in fact the opposite of a house rule since they are official answers meant to be officially in place anywhere the game is played.
It is House Rules. It is how GW plays it in their House. FAQs, like any House Rule, only have any power to those who abide by them. Nothing in them states that they replace the written word in the books.
FAQs are houserules because they do not officially change how the rules are written, only suggesting how they would play it. If the actual authors of the rules wrote the FAQs, then we could say with certainty that FAQs are official Rules as Intended. However, we know that the people answering these rules questions are the marketing department, and quite a few of their answers contradict or out right change the rules as written. A glaring example is the recent Nightscythe ruling that allows units to embark, without addressing how, given that the rules as written expressly do not allow units to embark a zooming flyer.
That is why FAQs are never more than GW's houserules, while the Errata is an official rewrite of the rules.
col_impact wrote:The faq portion of the GWFAQ are official answers to questions that come up in a game. They are not house rules.
A house rule is defined as "a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place."
So the faq portion of the GWFAQ is in fact the opposite of a house rule since they are official answers meant to be officially in place anywhere the game is played.
It is House Rules. It is how GW plays it in their House. FAQs, like any House Rule, only have any power to those who abide by them. Nothing in them states that they replace the written word in the books.
Dude, you are off your rocker. By definition the faq portion of the GW cannot be House Rules. They are the official answers to rules questions and is an official update to the codex. They are the opposite of House Rules.
What you do with your buddies under your house and that deviates from GW officially endorsed rules, those are House Rules.
Stick to English, please. Or cite where GW is calling the faq portion of the GWFAQ a collection of House Rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: FAQs are houserules because they do not officially change how the rules are written, only suggesting how they would play it. If the actual authors of the rules wrote the FAQs, then we could say with certainty that FAQs are official Rules as Intended. However, we know that the people answering these rules questions are the marketing department, and quite a few of their answers contradict or out right change the rules as written. A glaring example is the recent Nightscythe ruling that allows units to embark, without addressing how, given that the rules as written expressly do not allow units to embark a zooming flyer.
That is why FAQs are never more than GW's houserules, while the Errata is an official rewrite of the rules.
SJ
They are officially part of the game.
And you need to stick to English as well . . .
House Rule - "a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players."
I guess the codex, the rulebook and everything else is just "house rules" now too, since they all come from the same source and that's how they would be playing this game.
This made some sense for the ITC rules since they weren't made by the company but the same argument can't be used for the company that produced the game. This has now officially devolved into "I don't like it therefore it's not canon" territory.
col_impact wrote: Dude, you are off your rocker. By definition the faq portion of the GW cannot be House Rules. They are the official answers to rules questions and is an official update to the codex. They are the opposite of House Rules.
What you do with your buddies under your house and that deviates from GW officially endorsed rules, those are House Rules.
Stick to English, please. Or cite where GW is calling the faq portion of the GWFAQ a collection of House Rules.
I am not off my rocker, but apparently, you need to get off my lawn (in other words, I've been reading the FAQs for far longer than you have). Learn to read English and remember what people have stated, it is the only language I have used (Spanish is my next best communicative language, but it is horrible).
And last time I DID state where GW called the FAQ portion of the GWFAQ a collection of House Rules. It was in the explanation of their errata page before 6th Edition hit. I am trying to look up an archive page to link for you right now. The old URL apparently is: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019, but it doesn't seem to be archived properly and a current access will just take you to GW's homepage.
For present day, please show how an FAQ is allowed to change a rule when an Errata and Amendment is stated to be doing that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I guess the codex, the rulebook and everything else is just "house rules" now too, since they all come from the same source and that's how they would be playing this game.
This made some sense for the ITC rules since they weren't made by the company but the same argument can't be used for the company that produced the game. This has now officially devolved into "I don't like it therefore it's not canon" territory.
Source is not the problem, especially when the source has stated that they are House Rules themselves. They no longer have that posted on their website, but they really haven't stated that the FAQs are official rules changes like the Errata and Amendments, either.
col_impact wrote: Dude, you are off your rocker. By definition the faq portion of the GW cannot be House Rules. They are the official answers to rules questions and is an official update to the codex. They are the opposite of House Rules.
What you do with your buddies under your house and that deviates from GW officially endorsed rules, those are House Rules.
Stick to English, please. Or cite where GW is calling the faq portion of the GWFAQ a collection of House Rules.
I am not off my rocker, but apparently, you need to get off my lawn (in other words, I've been reading the FAQs for far longer than you have). Learn to read English and remember what people have stated, it is the only language I have used (Spanish is my next best communicative language, but it is horrible).
And last time I DID state where GW called the FAQ portion of the GWFAQ a collection of House Rules. It was in the explanation of their errata page before 6th Edition hit. I am trying to look up an archive page to link for you right now. The old URL apparently is: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019, but it doesn't seem to be archived properly and a current access will just take you to GW's homepage.
For present day, please show how an FAQ is allowed to change a rule when an Errata and Amendment is stated to be doing that?
The GWFAQ is the official last word on the matter.
You are free to make up your own house rules but if you stray from the GWFAQ then you are not playing the game the way it is officially to be played.
For present day, please show how an FAQ is allowed to change a rule when an Errata and Amendment is stated to be doing that?.
It doesn't. An FAQ is a clarification of what the written rules mean.
So if the FAQ seems to contradict the RAW, we're left with two obvious conclusions: Either the FAQ is wrong, or the original written rule doesn't say what it is meant to say.
The former leaves us having to figure out which FAQ answers to accept and which to disregard, which is going to come down pretty much to whether or not we agree with them personally.
The latter lets us just take the FAQ as is and get on with the game.
Well, aside from where the FAQ contradicts itself, in which case what we're actually supposed to do is anyone's guess...
The current FAQ documents available on GW's website make no mention of them being house rules, merely that they're answers to "Frequently Asked Questions" about the rules.
Older, 4th Edition FAQs that I have archived equally says that they're meant to be used alongside existing publications. The only time they don't apply is if you're challenged for using a FAQ ruling, but didn't bring the actual FAQ to prove it (since you have no proof of the ruling).
Finally nothing on their facebook page (although it is massive so I might have missed something) indicates that these are just "House Rules". They even said that these questions are passed on to the Game Designers. Whether or not you believe they really do get passed on, this is quite literally the writers of the rules making these rulings. It's the equivalent of telling an author he doesn't understand his own book.
However I can see the whole thing as an elaborate hoax concocted by a bunch of bored teenagers, but that's an argument for another time.
The current FAQs are drafts, not official releases. The only official rules so far is the Errata stating all Astartes Dreadnoughts have 4 attacks base.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The current FAQs are drafts, not official releases. The only official rules so far is the Errata stating all Astartes Dreadnoughts have 4 attacks base.
SJ
Not 4 attacks, +2, pedantic but it brings murderfang up to a possible 12 on the charge.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The current FAQs are drafts, not official releases. The only official rules so far is the Errata stating all Astartes Dreadnoughts have 4 attacks base.
SJ
Not 4 attacks, +2, pedantic but it brings murderfang up to a possible 12 on the charge.
col_impact wrote:
The GWFAQ is the official last word on the matter.
You are free to make up your own house rules but if you stray from the GWFAQ then you are not playing the game the way it is officially to be played.
This should be patently clear.
As usual, you present nothing to support your claim when asked to present it.
Tenet #1, Quote it..
insaniak wrote:It doesn't. An FAQ is a clarification of what the written rules mean.
So if the FAQ seems to contradict the RAW, we're left with two obvious conclusions: Either the FAQ is wrong, or the original written rule doesn't say what it is meant to say.
The former leaves us having to figure out which FAQ answers to accept and which to disregard, which is going to come down pretty much to whether or not we agree with them personally.
The latter lets us just take the FAQ as is and get on with the game.
Well, aside from where the FAQ contradicts itself, in which case what we're actually supposed to do is anyone's guess...
So, when the rules say that a Battle Brother can Embark on a Transport, the hidden language in the invisible ink states "except for deployment"?
When it boldly goes in the face of written rules at times, I cannot see it as a clarification, but as a change. Changes are made by Amendments and Errata, not FAQs, by GW's word in their current live documents.
Well, I can't find a quote in the rulebook that says to use the rules, so I guess you and I can't play 40k then. Unless you agree to the house rules of The Warhammer 40k Rulebook. Just to warn you, I use the rules given by GW as house rules. Since GW also released an faq for these house rules, I also use those. But don't bother playing, because they also don't say they're the official rules.
So rather than a debate about the contents of a FAQ, this has devolved into a debate about what a FAQ actually is and does? I might as well read forums about gun control arguments. At least then I'd learn something concrete like Jesus does support my right to have an AR-15.
deviantduck wrote: So rather than a debate about the contents of a FAQ, this has devolved into a debate about what a FAQ actually is and does? I might as well read forums about gun control arguments. At least then I'd learn something concrete like Jesus does support my right to have an AR-15.
Pretty sure Jesus has anti-death penalty, anti-scourge stance, while his Dad is pro-abortion. But that's RAW, while the current FAQ seems to contradict. Still waiting on an an Errata.
GW provides its GWFAQs as official updates. (e.g. "Necrons Official Update for 7th Edition 1.0")
The FAQ section "answers commonly asked questions about the rules".
Liar. I provided my support. Counter properly according to the tenets and quote, or properly reference, where it states that FAQs may change the written rules.
Nowhere does GW indicate that the FAQ section is a set of House Rules.
You are literally making that up!
Quit making stuff up!
I am not making it up, and if you'd bother to listen to others, you'd know that.
Back during the days of 5th Edition, and a bit after, on their guide to their erratas specifically stated that the FAQs were House Rules and how THEY played the game. I am not the only one who remembers this, as Jeffersonian has also stated this, and no doubt remembers. And it was even pointed out with a link to the old site here posted by Buffo back in 2010, when one of the 5th Edition FAQs went live, that it stated the FAQs are not rules changes, but House Rules, on their own site which stated how to read them.
Now, that has been removed from the site (and I have stated as such), and nothing has been posted which changes this, nor has anything been posted by GW that FAQs are rules replacements.
In short, I am not making this stuff up. I posted the relevant data. You ignored it. Semantics do not work if you ignore what is stated.
But they also have not stated that the FAQs are changes to the game, either, unlike what you have stated. The only one making things up here is you, which is why I asked you to provide proper references to demonstrate otherwise.
Nowhere does GW indicate that the FAQ section is a set of House Rules.
You are literally making that up!
Quit making stuff up!
I am not making it up, and if you'd bother to listen to others, you'd know that.
Back during the days of 5th Edition, and a bit after, on their guide to their erratas specifically stated that the FAQs were House Rules and how THEY played the game. I am not the only one who remembers this, as Jeffersonian has also stated this, and no doubt remembers. And it was even pointed out with a link to the old site here posted by Buffo back in 2010, when one of the 5th Edition FAQs went live, that it stated the FAQs are not rules changes, but House Rules, on their own site which stated how to read them.
Now, that has been removed from the site (and I have stated as such), and nothing has been posted which changes this, nor has anything been posted by GW that FAQs are rules replacements.
In short, I am not making this stuff up. I posted the relevant data. You ignored it. Semantics do not work if you ignore what is stated.
But they also have not stated that the FAQs are changes to the game, either, unlike what you have stated. The only one making things up here is you, which is why I asked you to provide proper references to demonstrate otherwise.
So basically you have nothing backing up your argument.
Whereas, as already proven, the GWFAQ is an official update to the codex.
By definition, the GWFAQ provides official answers to rule questions.
col_impact wrote: So basically you have nothing backing up your argument.
Whereas, as already proven, the GWFAQ is an official update to the codex.
By definition, the GWFAQ provides official answers to rule questions.
I'd hardly call historical precedence "nothing". I would hardly call a case of "not actually changing the rule, but clarifying it for purposes" as a case of "House Ruling", nothing.
No support from you that FAQs are actual rules changes or an inclusion in the codex, though, or anything else you said FAQs are, aside from them being official (that was never in argument). You'd rather just demean your opponent and not follow Tenet #1 to support your statements.
Charistoph, call anyone in this thread or any other thread I see you in a liar like that again purely to dismiss their point and you won't be participating any further.
To the thread in general, keep up being polite, you're mostly doing a good job so far. Remember, if you don't feel you can engage with a user because of how they are behaving, just flag their post and a mod will look into it. If you can't engage without maintaining your politeness, then you're better off putting them on your ignore list.
motyak wrote: [color=red]Charistoph, call anyone in this thread or any other thread I see you in a liar like that again purely to dismiss their point and you won't be participating any further.
PM sent regarding this.
I have not called anyone a liar to purely dismiss their point, only when they have misrepresented my case or position and have been warned.
Historical record is one thing, but current rules is another. Historically my Obliterators had access to autocannons instead of assault cannons, and nothing explicitly say they no longer have access to this, but I'd be getting weird looks from people when I insist they still have autocannons.
It doesn't matter what rules were considered what back then. I don't remember anything like that from that era, but no record I have shows that GW intended the FAQs to be House Rule. If the final Draft explicitly spells this out, I will eat my words, but I won't apologize for it; as it stands at the present nothing says they're House Rules. GW is always free to change their minds on the stance, but that's their decision to make.
It appears that some of you guys are using the term FAQ incorrectly. Those that are using the term correctly seem to be having trouble getting their points across.
The core rule books are official rules. Suppliments are official rules. Addendum are official rules. Errata are official updates to the official rules. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) are clarifications that offer possible intent as to what the original authors might have meant. There is no difference between core rules, suppliments, addendum, and Errata as each one is "rules as written". FAQs differ in that they are not written by the original authors, and at best count as "rules as intented". The major problem with rules updates is that they can contradict the rules as written; however, in the case of suppliments, addendum, and Errata, we are informed that the newer version takes precedence. FAQs unfortunately do not have the same weight when a contradiction occurs, unless a reason for the answer is given. When an FAQ response gives a single word or very short answer that contradicts the rules as written, no clarification occurs, just more follow-up questions being asked.
However, what I see from many posters above is the use of "FAQ" as the name of the document the information appears in, which is causing circular arguments when one side refers to the response as RAW while other side refers to them as houserules. The people calling the FAQ responses "houserules" are not calling the document "houserules", they are calling the answers given "houserules" because the FAQ format is neither a suppliment, addendum, nor Errata.
FAQ responses are RAI when they include an explanation, or do not contradict RAW.
FAQ responses are useless when they condradict a written rule without explanation.
By the above, anyone can decide they do not want to adhere to what a FAQ might say regarding a rule. (eg. Night Scythes now able to pickup occupants).
... good luck, TOs and judges out there that are going to have to deal with all the TFGs who will try to argue the "FAQs are just house rules" defense.
The problem is the current FAQs, going by the statements on the GW facebook page, are indeed written by the original authors of the rules (they are passed to the Game Designers).
And herein lies the issue with the impasse: Whether or not you agree with the answers given in a FAQ, they are indeed given by the Game Designers, the original Authors of the rules. And as with any game, even if the contradiction renders the situation worse, you cannot simply cherry pick moments to follow the FAQ or moments not to; that is no different than cherry picking which rules you wanna follow or not.
In the above example, there is technically no contradiction (this is a very technical reading of that specific ruling); If the Nightscythe does somehow get rendered not zooming but also not crashed by some external buff, then yes, the necron warriors can re-embark on it despite, in-universe, the beam being only a teleporter and the actual flyer not physically having the space to fit it. The Nightscythe innately has this ability like any other transport, it doesn't mean it needs to come into play during the actual game nor does it mean the nightscythe has any way of activating it on it's own. It might be an utterly useless rule for it to have, but then again the Bloodcrusher has a 6+ armor save when it already has a 5+ invul save.
I do admit that this ends up opening more questions than it answers, and an Errata to the actual Invasion Beam rule would have been better, but at the current moment in time this is what we have. The fact that this question came up at all means that there were enough ambiguous situations that somehow occurred during gameplay that it was worth an answer. We will never know what caused these situations, but they did apparently happen. Just because a FAQ has a seemingly useless application does not immediately turn them into "house rules" and optional to gameplay. They must still be adhered to and are no less valid than any other rules written by the game designers, even if they themselves end up ambiguous and open to debate (however that is something for specific cases such as the Nightscythe's ability).
Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.
(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)
jeffersonian000 wrote: It appears that some of you guys are using the term FAQ incorrectly. Those that are using the term correctly seem to be having trouble getting their points across.
The core rule books are official rules. Suppliments are official rules. Addendum are official rules. Errata are official updates to the official rules. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) are clarifications that offer possible intent as to what the original authors might have meant. There is no difference between core rules, suppliments, addendum, and Errata as each one is "rules as written". FAQs differ in that they are not written by the original authors, and at best count as "rules as intented". The major problem with rules updates is that they can contradict the rules as written; however, in the case of suppliments, addendum, and Errata, we are informed that the newer version takes precedence. FAQs unfortunately do not have the same weight when a contradiction occurs, unless a reason for the answer is given. When an FAQ response gives a single word or very short answer that contradicts the rules as written, no clarification occurs, just more follow-up questions being asked.
However, what I see from many posters above is the use of "FAQ" as the name of the document the information appears in, which is causing circular arguments when one side refers to the response as RAW while other side refers to them as houserules. The people calling the FAQ responses "houserules" are not calling the document "houserules", they are calling the answers given "houserules" because the FAQ format is neither a suppliment, addendum, nor Errata.
FAQ responses are RAI when they include an explanation, or do not contradict RAW.
FAQ responses are useless when they condradict a written rule without explanation.
I hope this helps the discussion.
SJ
You and Charistoph are misusing the term "house rules".
The contents of an official document provided by the makers of 40k that officially updates the codex cannot by definition be a house rule.
Back during the days of 5th Edition, and a bit after, on their guide to their erratas specifically stated that the FAQs were House Rules and how THEY played the game.
Something for which they were fairly widely ridiculed, and which they appear to have not carried over to the current FAQs.
Regardless, even back then, most players accepted that FAQs from the studio were about as official as rules answers were going to get, regardless of what the studio chose to call them.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I always assumed the Nightscythe's Invasion Beam to be sort of a gun that uses infantry as ammunition, but that's just my interpretation.
The way the codex describes the beam, it sounds more like the orange side of a portal gun to me with the blue side of the portal on the Tomb World.
editor's note: EnTyme really needs to learn to proofread before he posts, though he is stunningly handsome.
skoffs wrote: Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.
(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)
There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport. The FAQ response to the question no one has ever asked implies that rules exist allowing for a Necron unit to embark on a zooming Night Scythe; unfortunately, no explanation is give as to how a unit does this, nor are there rules added to allow it, nor an Errata granting Hover to the Night Scythe. This makes the FAQ response useless, as it cannot be used outside of houseruling it. But I'm pretty sure that point is lost on this audience.
skoffs wrote: Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.
(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)
There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport. The FAQ response to the question no one has ever asked implies that rules exist allowing for a Necron unit to embark on a zooming Night Scythe; unfortunately, no explanation is give as to how a unit does this, nor are there rules added to allow it, nor an Errata granting Hover to the Night Scythe. This makes the FAQ response useless, as it cannot be used outside of houseruling it. But I'm pretty sure that point is lost on this audience.
SJ
Again. You are misusing the term house ruling. Please open up a dictionary.
If the Draft FAQ were official in its present form, the official ruling would be that units can embark on a zooming Night Scythe.
If you and your blokes play it so that units cannot embark on a zooming Night Scythe then you would be the ones house ruling.
It is impossible for GW to house rule their own game. They are the official providers of the rules.
There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport.
In which case they follow the same rules as a non-zooming transport.
The only thing preventing it normally is the rule that says that units can't embark on a zooming flyer unless otherwise stated. The FAQ provides that 'otherwise stated'.
No additional rules are required beyond that point... the physical action of embarking would be the same as for any other flyer transport.
It is impossible for GW to house rule their own game. They are the official providers of the rules.
The fact that they write the rules doesn't make it impossible for them to create house rules for their own game. They can very easily create rules that apply to their own games without making those rules 'official' releases, which would make them house rules.
However, once those rules are published as an official update to the game, as these FAQs will presumably be eventually, they become official rules rather than house rules... unless, of course, they choose to label them as house rules, as they did with the 5th edition FAQs.
skoffs wrote: Regardless, I'm hoping everyone is voicing their concerns over these controversial rulings, Necron or otherwise, on the respective Facebook pages.
The more comments about a particular thing that an answer receives, the more likely they are to address it properly in the final draft, after all.
(PS. fluff discussion, but on the Night Scythe example, if it can beam a unit down while zooming, would it not make sense that it could beam a unit up as well going the same speed?)
There are no rules covering how a unit can embark on a zooming transport. The FAQ response to the question no one has ever asked implies that rules exist allowing for a Necron unit to embark on a zooming Night Scythe; unfortunately, no explanation is give as to how a unit does this, nor are there rules added to allow it, nor an Errata granting Hover to the Night Scythe. This makes the FAQ response useless, as it cannot be used outside of houseruling it. But I'm pretty sure that point is lost on this audience.
SJ
Again. You are misusing the term house ruling. Please open up a dictionary.
If the Draft FAQ were official in its present form, the official ruling would be that units can embark on a zooming Night Scythe.
If you and your blokes play it so that units cannot embark on a zooming Night Scythe then you would be the ones house ruling.
It is impossible for GW to house rule their own game. They are the official providers of the rules.
Please, support your point with citation covering how a unit embarks on a zooming transport.
