via the official FB page :

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?fref=nf

FAQs eh?
All right, let’s knuckle down and do this.
What one (just one, there’s rather a lot of you guys…) rules question do you want answered or clarified? Jot it down in the comments and we’ll take them to the Game Designers on your behalf. We’ll even return with answers, we promise. It might take a week or two but a collated list of freshly approved FAQs will be yours post haste

These oppurtunities are somewhat scarce, lets hope good things come from it.


....

Anyone wondering, some of the questions that have been posted:

Does PE grant re-rolls on scatters?
Do Witchfire without profiles (specifically Psychic Scram) roll To Hit?
Do Gargantuan Creatures fire 2 weapons or as many as they have?
Replace 1 weapon with 1 Relic - Limit or Ratio?
Do formation bonuses that target the unit confer to attached ICs?
Does Chaos Psychic Focus and Psychic Focus stack?
Ravenwing with Flyer - can Flyer start in Reserve and rest deploy normally?

There have been a number of repeat questions, so you might want to look through to see if your question was asked.

If we can vote, go for eithe the IC question or the Psychic Scream thing, maybe GCs if we really feel it necessary. Do general brb questions, not codex specific stuff!!!

That didn't last long, turds are already gaking up the thread.

 Ravenous D wrote:
That didn't last long, turds are already gaking up the thread.

What turds?

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
That didn't last long, turds are already gaking up the thread.

What turds?

People asking for dreadnaughts to get additional attacks and other things that aren't rules questions.

I just posted the 'How many spyders in a Canoptek Harvest' question.

I'm impressed, over half the posts so far are questions not nonsense

(although a fair few of them are from people who can't count)

I really hope GW does manage get some FAQs up from them (and as FAQs rather than answers on facebook which the grumpy brigade will probably not consider official)

We need (I want) someone to ask about dual weapon profiles (melee and ranged), and how the Obelisk interacts with FMC's.

OH OHOH and the Tesla Sphere's firing arc!

 Ghaz wrote:
I just posted the 'How many spyders in a Canoptek Harvest' question.

I saw that one and was like "OH GOD YES!"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We need (I want) someone to ask about dual weapon profiles (melee and ranged), and how the Obelisk interacts with FMC's.

OH OHOH and the Tesla Sphere's firing arc!

There're a couple of questions regarding weapon profiles with one of them being Necron specific so maybe you'll get your wish and have an answer.


Also, should this or the other thread be closed since they're the same thing?

 Happyjew wrote:
Anyone wondering, some of the questions that have been posted:

Does PE grant re-rolls on scatters?
Do Witchfire without profiles (specifically Psychic Scram) roll To Hit?
Do Gargantuan Creatures fire 2 weapons or as many as they have?
Replace 1 weapon with 1 Relic - Limit or Ratio?
Do formation bonuses that target the unit confer to attached ICs?
Does Chaos Psychic Focus and Psychic Focus stack?
Ravenwing with Flyer - can Flyer start in Reserve and rest deploy normally?

There have been a number of repeat questions, so you might want to look through to see if your question was asked.

These are all pretty good questions, honestly. I know where I stand on all these but getting official answers is preferred.

If I have to choose JUST ONE, I'd go with the formation bonuses to attached IC's thing, just because I see that one getting majorly abused if people believe that the IC does in fact gain the squad bonus.

Now there is people suggesting their home rule changes. Awesome.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Anyone wondering, some of the questions that have been posted:

Does PE grant re-rolls on scatters?
Do Witchfire without profiles (specifically Psychic Scram) roll To Hit?
Do Gargantuan Creatures fire 2 weapons or as many as they have?
Replace 1 weapon with 1 Relic - Limit or Ratio?
Do formation bonuses that target the unit confer to attached ICs?
Does Chaos Psychic Focus and Psychic Focus stack?
Ravenwing with Flyer - can Flyer start in Reserve and rest deploy normally?

There have been a number of repeat questions, so you might want to look through to see if your question was asked.

These are all pretty good questions, honestly. I know where I stand on all these but getting official answers is preferred.

If I have to choose JUST ONE, I'd go with the formation bonuses to attached IC's thing, just because I see that one getting majorly abused if people believe that the IC does in fact gain the squad bonus.

While I'm on the other side of the argument I just have to agree - it affects so much stuff by now. I'll be happy whichever way they rule it.

Ghaz, your question was already asked. As was weapons with ranged and melee profiles, FMCs vs Obelisks, and GCs and difficult terrain.

 Happyjew wrote:
Ghaz, your question was already asked.

Ghaz, if I may make a request - since your question was already asked, would you mind changing it to something about non-slot units and formations, such as dedicated transports, or Primaris Psykers?

Dang, someone already asked the RW question. I had went up the thread quite a bit and could not find it. Maybe I should ask if Pedro Kantor's Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter for the purposes of Bolter Drill instead.

There's just so much potential for this, and I KNOW there's going to be tons of fething junk being posted by people that, ironically or coincidentally, don't understand rules.

Th on wolves has been asked a few dozen times as well.

I fear the internet cannot handle this.

How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

mhelm01 wrote:
I fear the internet cannot handle this.

Nothing to do with the internet, people will always use opportunities like that to vent their anger / ask questions that matter to them even though they perfectly know that they won't get a response or that they're simply adressing the completely wrong person.
GW will sort it out - they'll just throw away anything that's unrelated / not fitting and hopefully take ALL the actual rules question and answer them. Throwing out another "where are my plastic sisters?" isn't really that much work compared to actually answering the others and removing duplicate questions (there're a ton of those for the most discussed questions).

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

Wow I am starting to like this whole facebook experiment.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Wow I am starting to like this whole facebook experiment.

Too bad it is going to be ruined by morons just like everything else.

Is there a way to search in this facebook post to see if your question has been asked already ( perhaps a 3th party script) ?
It might be a good idea to upvote good questions, and be able to check before posting new ones.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Is there a way to search in this facebook post to see if your question has been asked already ?

Control-F , but it's tedious. I've scrolled through quite a bit now, if you have a specific question I might be able to remember if I've seen it by now

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Wow I am starting to like this whole facebook experiment.

Too bad it is going to be ruined by morons just like everything else.

The internet is why we can't have nice things.

Na control F doesn't work you can't load all 800+ replies at the same time.

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

And the trolls have started.

"What would you rather fight, one Titan-sized Squig or 100 Squig-sized Titans?"

"How does a bolter work?"

 Ravenous D wrote:
And the trolls have started.

"What would you rather fight, one Titan-sized Squig or 100 Squig-sized Titans?"

"How does a bolter work?"

Goddamn trolls, they should rather ask the really important questions like
"What would you rather fight, one Titan-sized Squat or 100 Squat-sized Titans?

 Happyjew wrote:
Ghaz, if I may make a request - since your question was already asked, would you mind changing it to something about non-slot units and formations, such as dedicated transports, or Primaris Psykers?

Sorry, but someone already tried to 'answer' my question

Another good one to ask is if you benefit from the special rules for the Harlequin's Kiss and Embrace if you're not actively using those weapons. The same goes for any of the other countless weapons that give the model a bonus or effect that occurs outside of close combat.

EDIT: Here's an idea Maybe we should accumulate all of these questions here and let Yakface or Lego submit them as a single post from the Dakka Facebook account. Just a thought...

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

Here is questions o haven't seen.
Is it meant for shrike of the Raven guards to not be able to join units because he is forced to infiltrate?
Is Sgt Chronus allowed to be a passanger on another tank. the ambiguity of Sgt. Chronus needing to be taken in an Army with a tank. It doesn't say it counts as being part of his HQ slot... but it also doesn't say that it has to be in the same detachment, OR of the same faction.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Ghaz, if I may make a request - since your question was already asked, would you mind changing it to something about non-slot units and formations, such as dedicated transports, or Primaris Psykers?

Sorry, but someone already tried to 'answer' my question

Another good one to ask is if you benefit from the special rules for the Harlequin's Kiss and Embrace if you're not actively using those weapons. The same goes for any of the other countless weapons that give the model a bonus or effect that occurs outside of close combat.

EDIT: Here's an idea Maybe we should accumulate all of these questions here and let Yakface or Lego submit them as a single post from the Dakka Facebook account. Just a thought...

That question was also asked.

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

I just checked my paper version, and it does not say ANYTHING about effecting units, it states it's a 12" bubble and that's it, so with the words I have in front of me, no the ITC ruling IS not RAW, but HIWPI. I've also checked the FAQ, which has not over ruled the wording, so this is another example of ITC changing the rules for no obvious reason.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Wow I am starting to like this whole facebook experiment.

Too bad it is going to be ruined by morons just like everything else.

I don't think it will be ruined. If anything, Games Workshop will get an earful from people who are so used to being ignored that they don't email GW anymore.

GW management obviously is involved in this, and if they are really trying to respond to the community they would have go to through the list (1000 comments after 4 hours...probably many, many thousands by the end of the week) and sort them out.

Maybe they will finally realize how much of a mess they have on their hands.

More questions to ask:

1. Destroyer weapons do not roll To Wound, so how do you allocate Destroyer hits within a unit?

2. The number of psychic powers a psyker can attempt to manifest 'depends' on its mastery level. What, if any, is the actual correlation between the two?

3. Is Overwatch treated like the Shooting Phase for all purposes (e.g. Number of weapons a model can fire, etc.)?

4. Do Formation special rules apply to Independent Characters that are attached to one of its units but are not purchased as part of the Formation?

I don't think anyone has that first one yet, cheex. The rest have been asked iirc

Chexsta, 2-4 have already been asked.

I haven't checked recently so I don't know if D hits has been asked.

To bad about half of the questions are moron who can't read whining about rules, or asking for massive rules change. Apparently now FAQ means "revert and rewrite"

I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

I just checked my paper version, and it does not say ANYTHING about effecting units, it states it's a 12" bubble and that's it, so with the words I have in front of me, no the ITC ruling IS not RAW, but HIWPI. I've also checked the FAQ, which has not over ruled the wording, so this is another example of ITC changing the rules for no obvious reason.

I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to lying but here is the excerpt. No where does it say models only target/units and this is from the most recent up to date digital codex. Take your false arguments somewhere else. This is rules faqs not about bashing ITC because you don't agree with thier RAW interpretation. I don't know what ganky stolen print out for the void shield you are using, but this is the GW official rule.
“Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault (eBook Edition).” Games Workshop Ltd, 2013-11-27. iBooks.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/gGGVT.l

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

I just checked my paper version, and it does not say ANYTHING about effecting units, it states it's a 12" bubble and that's it, so with the words I have in front of me, no the ITC ruling IS not RAW, but HIWPI. I've also checked the FAQ, which has not over ruled the wording, so this is another example of ITC changing the rules for no obvious reason.

I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to lying but here is the excerpt. No where does it say models only target/units and this is from the most recent up to date digital codex. Take your false arguments somewhere else. This is rules faqs not about bashing ITC because you don't agree with thier RAW interpretation. I don't know what ganky stolen print out for the void shield you are using, but this is the GW official rule.
“Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault (eBook Edition).” Games Workshop Ltd, 2013-11-27. iBooks.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/gGGVT.l

OK, after this I'm dropping it, as your right, we are wandering off topic. However, I suggest since this is a public forum you keep your tone civil, and try to avoid throwing accusations that are false at people you don't know. I read the exact same sentence as you, but obviously don't read it at the same way. "Hits a target within the void shield" is from what you've quoted above. The rest of the void shield rules make it a 12" bubble. To me, the way those two rules interact is that if part of a unit is outside the VSG, they aren't protected, but the models within it are.

 Galef wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

That's easy. They belong to no detachment.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

That's easy. They belong to no detachment.

Which is the point to having a FAQ about it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

That's easy. They belong to no detachment.

FAQs aren't necessarily about stuff that is unclear, it's also supposed to answer stuff that feels odd or unintentional. Like the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics - RAW they clearly never affect e.g. a Rhino, but it seems really odd regardles.

If GW answers this question by saying "oh, well we meant that those summoned units are part of their origin detachment", then that's that.

Except it's not in contention. A unit belonging to no Detavhment is simple. Trivial. It's like asking how far can an infantry model move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it's not in contention. A unit belonging to no Detavhment is simple. Trivial. It's like asking how far can an infantry model move.

So is the Iron Hands CT. It's 100% clear what is the RAW , but the FAQ allows us to ask for the RAI.

I put in a question on Quantum Shielding vs Lance precedence to try and lay that one to rest, even though I haven't seen it for a while.

gungo wrote:
Is it meant for shrike of the Raven guards to not be able to join units because he is forced to infiltrate?

Mostly reasonable, but I find that most having questions on this think "deploy" and "deployment" are synonymous.

For example, Shrike can be deployed in to and join a Scout Squad on the table during deployment, but not deployed Outflanking from Reserves with that unit.

Swampmist wrote:I don't think anyone has that first one yet, cheex. The rest have been asked iirc

Happyjew wrote:Chexsta, 2-4 have already been asked.

I haven't checked recently so I don't know if D hits has been asked.

Thanks guys, must have missed those

I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Does PE grant re-rolls on blast gets hot?
Can passengers disembark from zooming Stormraven and Valkyrie？

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

I can't wait. That's the entire reason I'm even following this occurrence.

I am kind of a jerk.

 Swampmist wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Especially regarding IC joining a unit and gaining the formation rules. My goodness it's like the same 5 guy arguing the same point on every thread that is remotely related to the topic until Each and every one of those topics get shut down. I'll be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums.

Yes, because passive aggression is not also insufferable....

PE and blasts was asked already.

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Coteaz doesn't have that rule anymore, 99% sure. They removed it in the last Codex: Inquisition update.

Indeed, there is no such rule any longer

gungo wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Especially regarding IC joining a unit and gaining the formation rules. My goodness it's like the same 5 guy arguing the same point on every thread that is remotely related to the topic until Each and every one of those topics get shut down. I'll be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums.

I'd say both sides were pretty insufferable at times.

To be honest I really don't care if the FAQ says I'm wrong or right about it. I've never fielded a list where the whole IC+Formation thing was an issue, if there's an official answer to that I'll just adhere to that one and that's that. Same goes for all the other open questions, e.g. Scatter / Prefered Enemy and so on. Just give us a clear ruling, that's all I've ever wanted.

Indeed - fro scatter and PE all that was needded was to repeat the examples of an "abiilty" from Gets Hot. That would have stymied many attempted arguments,

I asked about IC librarians and brotherhood of pyschers -- the whole "how many warp charges debate"

I read through nearly 1000 comments and didnt see it.. (there were 3k at the time)... so I also apologized lol.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The biggest issue.. They need an active rep to be reading through all these comments and deleting all the ones that: Don't follow the instructions, and are not questions.

Tey started off monitoring. I'm not sure they realised how many resposnes there would be...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tey started off monitoring. I'm not sure they realised how many resposnes there would be...

It definitely escalated quickly. As most have stated already, I hope that they don't run away scared by all this.

The bigger question that me and my local group have is.... will this cause a massive FAQ / errata or .. will they realize their are some core faults and write an 8th ed. instead ?

 Grizzyzz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tey started off monitoring. I'm not sure they realised how many resposnes there would be...

It definitely escalated quickly. As most have stated already, I hope that they don't run away scared by all this.

The bigger question that me and my local group have is.... will this cause a massive FAQ / errata or .. will they realize their are some core faults and write an 8th ed. instead ?

They should be working on 8th anyway. That said whatever they write from now on needs to pass through a competent editorial process - which alsoincludescontinual fact checking through an editions lifecycle with regards to codex and new unit rules interactions.

OK a rough cut stripping out what I can easily

here are the first 1600 in a text file

it doesn't contain anything after the "show more" but should give a reasonable list.

Can you deepstrike a monolith, and then use the eternity gate?
It feels like that ruling keeps changing.

If a Skimmer Deepstrikes and scatters over enemy/friendly models, does it mishap OR does the "if forced to move over models" clause reduce the scatter to prevent the Skimmer from landing on (or 1'' of) the enemy/friendly models?

Has that been asked?

It's been asked.

Also answer known, as mishap happens before the move has ended, so it mishaps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also answer known, as mishap happens before the move has ended, so it mishaps.

The issue is because nothing I am aware of in the core rules can "force" a Skimmer to involuntarily move, so the implication is that it applies to Deep Strike. So I am glad it was asked already. I would love for GW to errata that to apply to the only logical time it would matter (or just to ignore the clause entirely)

--

gungo wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Especially regarding IC joining a unit and gaining the formation rules. My goodness it's like the same 5 guy arguing the same point on every thread that is remotely related to the topic until Each and every one of those topics get shut down. I'll be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums.

So you expect it to go nowhere?

Or where you inferring the same 5 guys all said an answer you didn't like?

Which oddly enough, for some the reason they offer the same points in every thread is because nothing has actually changed. Why would a different point be brought up?

Mine will always be about Psychic units:
Is a psychic unit in the Psychic phase rules referring to the unit entry on a datasheet, or the tabletop unit?

 Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Especially regarding IC joining a unit and gaining the formation rules. My goodness it's like the same 5 guy arguing the same point on every thread that is remotely related to the topic until Each and every one of those topics get shut down. I'll be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums.

So you expect it to go nowhere?

Or where you inferring the same 5 guys all said an answer you didn't like?

Which oddly enough, for some the reason they offer the same points in every thread is because nothing has actually changed. Why would a different point be brought up?

no my point was the same 5 guys hijack every thread that remotely had anything to do with IC and formation just to continue thier argument until that thread was locked. Then they look for the next thread to hijack and rinse and repeat. I'm not saying I agreed with you or others but I certainly didn't jump into every thread that remotely had any discussion that touched upon it. There were enough people who agreed with my view I never needed too. Buy it was obvious a few individuals felt the need to force thier view on anyone who would engage them. Over and over. There is a reason why IC and formations were a running joke on this forum. Maybe you were on the wrong end of the joke and couldn't see it. But there were plenty of people who claimed oh no not this again every time you hi jacked a thread. It's funny how defensive you got knowing Who I was talking about even though. I never stated my point of view in this thread or which individuals I was talking about but you automatically got defensive. That alone should prove my point.

gungo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Especially regarding IC joining a unit and gaining the formation rules. My goodness it's like the same 5 guy arguing the same point on every thread that is remotely related to the topic until Each and every one of those topics get shut down. I'll be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums.

So you expect it to go nowhere?

Or where you inferring the same 5 guys all said an answer you didn't like?

Which oddly enough, for some the reason they offer the same points in every thread is because nothing has actually changed. Why would a different point be brought up?

no my point was the same 5 guys hijack every thread that remotely had anything to do with IC and formation just to continue thier argument until that thread was locked. Then they look for the next thread to hijack and rinse and repeat. I'm not saying I agreed with you or others but I certainly didn't jump into every thread that remotely had any discussion that touched upon it. There were enough people who agreed with my view I never needed too. Buy it was obvious a few individuals felt the need to force thier view on anyone who would engage them. Over and over. There is a reason why IC and formations were a running joke on this forum. Maybe you were on the wrong end of the joke and couldn't see it. But there were plenty of people who claimed oh no not this again every time you hi jacked a thread. It's funny how defensive you got knowing Who I was talking about even though. I never stated my point of view in this thread or which individuals I was talking about but you automatically got defensive. That alone should prove my point.

Who is being defensive?

I was merely pointing out that there are people who bring up the same points on both sides, so there was no way this could be fulfilled that you will "be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums."

And there has been one person who always intrudes on several forums just to yell at the same people for bringing up the same points, sometimes before an opposing thought is presented,. I was trying to remember if that was you or not. Could you be the one who is defensive, then?

As to hijacking a thread, I do not recall doing so, personally. I may post a lot in them, but that is not the same thing. I do not take them hostage nor override the OP. If you don't like those threads, don't visit them.

It's a bit to late for you to play coy, lol, but nice try.

And I have no idea which person you're implying about if such a person even exists but I've only responded a handful of times on the topic there were plenty of people who engaged In your constant debate to be heard but it's cute you are trying to flip the target.

Try harder next time... In the end it doesn't matter which way GW rules this topic I am quite certain you will still be here arguing regardless.

Is it ironic that you guys are arguing about people hijacking threads in this thread about FAQs, which has nothing to do with people hijacking threads, or is it just dumb?

Insert meme about hey dawg, I heard that you like hijacking threads...

Any interesting tidbits from faq request posters? I kinda stopped reading when people started making requests for miniatures to come back or changing units to something else...not really faq questions.

gungo wrote:It's a bit to late for you to play coy, lol, but nice try.

And I have no idea which person you're implying about if such a person even exists but I've only responded a handful of times on the topic there were plenty of people who engaged In your constant debate to be heard but it's cute you are trying to flip the target.

Try harder next time... In the end it doesn't matter which way GW rules this topic I am quite certain you will still be here arguing regardless.

Ah, so you are one so filled with malice you just assume everyone else's actions is based on malice, hidden or explicit. That explains much. To put it bluntly, in most cases, I really do not care enough, but I do care when I get misrepresented and I do not care for liars.

If you honestly do not know who that is then it isn't you. I have seen that person pop in to a thread just to complain about the same people saying the same thing and apparently very offended by it. They offer no content and just try to bully others in to shutting up. I have seen this here, Warseer, and Bolter and Chainsword. They may have shown up to do that on Bell of Lost Souls, too, but I cannot recall. It has been a while since I seen someone make that post, admittedly.

Honestly, I found your original post regarding this train of thought rather belligerent and more intended to hijack this thread than anything I may have posted in one of those IC vs Special Rules debates. I do know that you were meaning me as one of the five, and I was not discounting that (now nor earlier). It is one of the reasons I tried to respond with levity at first, i.e. the fact that nothing was done, to indicate that there is more than one side of this debate who could have been insufferable. If both were dissatisfied, than that would require both sides to be wrong. An interesting take on such a concept and I would find it very fascinating to discover how that would be accomplished. Would you rather I considered it an indirect attack at me personally?

Elric Greywolf wrote:Is it ironic that you guys are arguing about people hijacking threads in this thread about FAQs, which has nothing to do with people hijacking threads, or is it just dumb?

I find it ironic, yes, even while participating in it. Thank you for trying to bring some levity in this thought train.

I do hope we get some positive results from this. Many of those questions were ridiculous, and some have no place in an FAQ (though some were directed at getting a good errata going for the Marines left behind, and those are presented in the same documents).

RULE #2 is STAY ON TOPIC.

On topic - here is a spread sheet with the first 1950 responses. If you put in a word in cell A1 eg "wraith" column A will show whether or not the text includes that word. It could be handy for those who still want to ask something

Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

That is exactly the debate, whether it does that or not.

Fragile wrote:

That is exactly the debate, whether it does that or not.

Ha! Fair enough, I guess my local group has just assumed the way I explained and was ignorant otherwise

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

Split Fire is a bit different. The single model's sequencing is completed and the rest of the unit's target is afterward. It is the only one that actually spells it out.

I have a quick question. When assulting does the initial charger need to get into base contact? or just within 1 inch? It maybe be stupid but the rule book doesn't give certain clarification from what i can find. Thanks.

Explicitly covered, page 46, move initial charger.

 vorrax-ghul wrote:
I have a quick question. When assulting does the initial charger need to get into base contact? or just within 1 inch? It maybe be stupid but the rule book doesn't give certain clarification from what i can find. Thanks.

Covered in The Assault Phase chapter, Move Initial Charger section, 2nd graph.

Cheers ^ looks like contact.

I'd like to know what GW's stance on raw and rai is, just cos

 Formosa wrote:
I'd like to know what GW's stance on raw and rai is, just cos

The rules are more like guidelines than actual rules. Everything pales in comparison with FORGING THE NARRATIVE ©.

 Formosa wrote:
I'd like to know what GW's stance on raw and rai is, just cos

123 RAW
456 RAI

 Formosa wrote:
I'd like to know what GW's stance on raw and rai is, just cos

It's not obvious from the way they write their rules?

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I'd like to know what GW's stance on raw and rai is, just cos

123 RAW
456 RAI

Please don't post with no content

Fragile wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

That is exactly the debate, whether it does that or not.

question asked was

Logan MacLaren Do Gargantuan Creatures/Super Heavy Vehicles need to declare all of the shooting from all of their weapons at the same time, or does it resolve 1 weapon at a time (as is implied in the Shooting rules)?

and

Ed Laberge How does firing multiple weapons on a super heavy work? Do you have to select all targets before any dice are rolled? If that is the case part 2: are one time use weapons used up if a previous weapon destroyed the target that the one time use weapon was going to shoot.

Thanks RFHolloway.

I asked about what constitutes "best save available" in relation to having a rerollable save vs a numerically lower static save.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I'd like to know what GW's stance on raw and rai is, just cos

It's not obvious from the way they write their rules?

Actually it is yes

Raaaawgflabbybullbob +1 inch

Whut?

I don't use FB, but I am sure that these questions must have been asked.

#1: does psychic shriek require a roll to hit?

#2: do CSM with mark of Tzeentch have to take a Tzeentch power, or does chaos psychic focus cover this, Allowing them to choose from another discipline?

Does anyone have these answers?

#1 was definitely asked.
I don't recall seeing #2, but I haven't looked back since the post count was around 500 or so.

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

That was indeed my one question

Out of curiosity, why are we going over what has already been asked. If they truly are doing an FAQ, then the more times a question gets asked, the higher the probability it gets included, I would think we want that Psychic Shriek question itself to generate a couple hundred posts.....

@battlesong: the reason that I was asking was because I do not use Facebook. I was curious as to whether these questions had been asked and answered.

There is no reason to ask the same question twice the face book community rep guy said to like the questions you want answered the most. This also might be a way for him to determine which questions are the most important.

A question never asked is a question never answered. I for one want as many questions answered as possible.

So has anything happened with this whole thrust yet? I feel like it was all the hype and then .... silence

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So has anything happened with this whole thrust yet? I feel like it was all the hype and then .... silence

Well, divesting the list of redundancies, flaming, vitriol, trolling, and irrelevant requests will take a quarter...

 Charistoph wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So has anything happened with this whole thrust yet? I feel like it was all the hype and then .... silence

Well, divesting the list of redundancies, flaming, vitriol, trolling, and irrelevant requests will take a quarter...

I would imagine so lol. Just didn't know if anyone heard any news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did notice the other day they took down a bunch of FAQ links... so that is definite progress!

 Charistoph wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So has anything happened with this whole thrust yet? I feel like it was all the hype and then .... silence

Well, divesting the list of redundancies, flaming, vitriol, trolling, and irrelevant requests will take a quarter...

Unfortunately, the GW designers are probably under the gun putting together all the new AOS stuff. It's not like GW is going to allocate anyone full-time to 40K FAQs.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So has anything happened with this whole thrust yet? I feel like it was all the hype and then .... silence

Well, divesting the list of redundancies, flaming, vitriol, trolling, and irrelevant requests will take a quarter...

Unfortunately, the GW designers are probably under the gun putting together all the new AOS stuff. It's not like GW is going to allocate anyone full-time to 40K FAQs.

True, but they have to have an actual list first, and that's where interns come in... and the quarter.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I did notice the other day they took down a bunch of FAQ links... so that is definite progress!

Those links have been down for a while, long before their request for questions for the new FAQ.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So has anything happened with this whole thrust yet? I feel like it was all the hype and then .... silence

Same here. Did this ever amount to anything?

Guys, these things take time. I'm currently a project manager with a spouse who has worked in publishing. It's going to take months, at a minimum, to collate the posts into an actual list of questions, weed out the duplicates, fix the wording of each question, coordinate the people able to answer the questions, get them to actually spend time answering the questions and then prepare the document for publication. It's not like this is something that can happen in a week, or even a month. Honestly, three months is a stretch if this either isn't a major priority (I doubt it is) or if it's been given to someone relatively new or without much in the way of resources. Plus, whoever is managing this particular exercise probably doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Warhammer 40k. I've been doing this for ages, but still have to reference my rulebooks all the time because I have no idea what all of the rules are for the factions I rarely see played.

 Kriswall wrote:
Guys, these things take time. I'm currently a project manager with a spouse who has worked in publishing. It's going to take months, at a minimum, to collate the posts into an actual list of questions, weed out the duplicates, fix the wording of each question, coordinate the people able to answer the questions, get them to actually spend time answering the questions and then prepare the document for publication. It's not like this is something that can happen in a week, or even a month. Honestly, three months is a stretch if this either isn't a major priority (I doubt it is) or if it's been given to someone relatively new or without much in the way of resources. Plus, whoever is managing this particular exercise probably doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Warhammer 40k. I've been doing this for ages, but still have to reference my rulebooks all the time because I have no idea what all of the rules are for the factions I rarely see played.

Agreed. It'll take time folks. We were lucky enough that they acknowledged receiving over 2000 responses! If we're very lucky, they'll give us an update within the next couple of weeks. But I wouldn't expect to see anything in print for months.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm currently a project manager with a spouse who has worked in publishing.

Could you run that by me again?

Anyway, what he said...

Have they cut off questions now and are going through the process of addressing FAQ's?

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm currently a project manager with a spouse who has worked in publishing.

Could you run that by me again?

Anyway, what he said...

Sigh...

I am a project manager. I have a spouse who has worked in publishing. I.e. I have both project management experience and fairly in depth knowledge of what it takes to create a publication. I didn't think that sentence was impossible to decode.

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm currently a project manager with a spouse who has worked in publishing.

Could you run that by me again?

Anyway, what he said...

Sigh...

I am a project manager. I have a spouse who has worked in publishing. I.e. I have both project management experience and fairly in depth knowledge of what it takes to create a publication. I didn't think that sentence was impossible to decode.

In his defense, that could have also been read as "I am a project manager, I have a spouse, and I worked in publishing" (though the second item in that list would seem like extraneous information). It falls under the same category as the newspaper headlines you see sometimes such as "Man hit by train in hospital".

 EnTyme wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm currently a project manager with a spouse who has worked in publishing.

Could you run that by me again?

Anyway, what he said...

Sigh...

I am a project manager. I have a spouse who has worked in publishing. I.e. I have both project management experience and fairly in depth knowledge of what it takes to create a publication. I didn't think that sentence was impossible to decode.

In his defense, that could have also been read as "I am a project manager, I have a spouse, and I worked in publishing" (though the second item in that list would seem like extraneous information). It falls under the same category as the newspaper headlines you see sometimes such as "Man hit by train in hospital".

Thanks, but I read it correctly. I just thought that he didn't need to provide that information, what he wrote made sense without mentioning his role or spouse. Now you probably will read more to my response than what I actually mean with it. I respect Kriswall's opinions and experience even though sometimes we are at odds.

In summary, it was a lame attempt to lighten up the thread in agreement with what he said, because, as you pointed out, it may have been interpreted incorrectly.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Have they cut off questions now and are going through the process of addressing FAQ's?

Warhammer 40,000 Facebook Page wrote:Hey guys,
We wanted to say a big thank you to all of you who took the time to send in your questions for the next round of FAQs.
There were a lot of them (over 2,000!), so bear with us — we'll get the answers back to you as quickly as we can.

If you didn't get a chance to ask your question, there are good odds someone already did, so don't worry too much. While you're waiting, feel free to resolve any rules disputes in the time-honoured tradition of Rock, Paper, Chainsword.

Yes.

Was/is there going to be a list of what was requested? And has there been any sort of rough guess time time for publication?

On page 3 of this thread you'll find a file RFHolloway created of the first 1950 comments. The Facebook post said there were over 2000 they had to sift through, so that should at least be most of them. You'll have to sift through a lot of complaining and garbage to accurately list all the legitimate questions though.

As for a timeline, if you look at the quote in the OP of this thread, it states "a week or two" for responses. Given the large volume of questions they received I highly doubt they'll be able to address all of them within 2 weeks, but perhaps they'll post a "first wave" if we're lucky? Optimistic thinking I suppose.

There hasn't been any further communication about the subject from the WH40k Facebook page since the post thanking everyone for their questions.

Not sure if you guys saw this tidbit.. of course taken with a grain of salt..

In the BoLs article that just went out about the Age of Sigmar FAQs, they mention 40k FAQs coming next week! Wow!

 Grizzyzz wrote:
Not sure if you guys saw this tidbit.. of course taken with a grain of salt..

In the BoLs article that just went out about the Age of Sigmar FAQs, they mention 40k FAQs coming next week! Wow!

Yeah, no.

This is what the AOS page said:

Hey everyone,
Our rules guys have been hard at work sorting and answering the questions you all sent in for our FAQ thread a few weeks back.
They’ve just finished their first draft, and before we enshrined them as official, we wanted to get your thoughts on them.
Do the answers all make sense? Are they clear?

(We’re looking for whether you understand them rather than if you like the answer.)

We’ll leave these up over the weekend so you can try them out in your games, and then on Monday, we’ll pass on your comments to the rules guys for the final FAQs.

Oh, and if you’re waiting on the Warhammer 40,000 FAQ’s, we’re hopefully going to be doing the same in the next week or so.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
Not sure if you guys saw this tidbit.. of course taken with a grain of salt..

In the BoLs article that just went out about the Age of Sigmar FAQs, they mention 40k FAQs coming next week! Wow!

Yeah, no.

This is what the AOS page said:

Hey everyone,
Our rules guys have been hard at work sorting and answering the questions you all sent in for our FAQ thread a few weeks back.
They’ve just finished their first draft, and before we enshrined them as official, we wanted to get your thoughts on them.
Do the answers all make sense? Are they clear?

(We’re looking for whether you understand them rather than if you like the answer.)

We’ll leave these up over the weekend so you can try them out in your games, and then on Monday, we’ll pass on your comments to the rules guys for the final FAQs.

Oh, and if you’re waiting on the Warhammer 40,000 FAQ’s, we’re hopefully going to be doing the same in the next week or so.

Ok? That sounds plenty good to me! I don't know how you feel about it

Point is, progress is being made, and they are looking for immediate feedback before a final draft is issued. All good things in my book.

Here's a question regarding the new "Crimson Slaughter" supplement.

The original supplement said that no units other than Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines could take Veternas of the Long War. The new one states that ONLY Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines can HAVE VoTLW, which would disallow named characters, Rubric Marines, and Daemon Princes. Was this intentional? The Daemonheart relic still states it can't be taken by Daemon Princes, which would only be possible if they could be taken in the first place, making it ambiguous as the the original intent.

 Vlad_The_Obliterator wrote:
Here's a question regarding the new "Crimson Slaughter" supplement.

The original supplement said that no units other than Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines could take Veternas of the Long War. The new one states that ONLY Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines can HAVE VoTLW, which would disallow named characters, Rubric Marines, and Daemon Princes. Was this intentional? The Daemonheart relic still states it can't be taken by Daemon Princes, which would only be possible if they could be taken in the first place, making it ambiguous as the the original intent.

Look at the Tau relic (earth caste array).. it specifically states that it allows for reroll riptide nova charges... yet riptide are no longer allowed to take it anymore.

It seems like a bad cut and paste job there to me.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Vlad_The_Obliterator wrote:
Here's a question regarding the new "Crimson Slaughter" supplement.

The original supplement said that no units other than Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines could take Veternas of the Long War. The new one states that ONLY Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines can HAVE VoTLW, which would disallow named characters, Rubric Marines, and Daemon Princes. Was this intentional? The Daemonheart relic still states it can't be taken by Daemon Princes, which would only be possible if they could be taken in the first place, making it ambiguous as the the original intent.

Look at the Tau relic (earth caste array).. it specifically states that it allows for reroll riptide nova charges... yet riptide are no longer allowed to take it anymore.

It seems like a bad cut and paste job there to me.

Isn't there that one special character Riptide that comes with it?

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Vlad_The_Obliterator wrote:
Here's a question regarding the new "Crimson Slaughter" supplement.

The original supplement said that no units other than Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines could take Veternas of the Long War. The new one states that ONLY Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines can HAVE VoTLW, which would disallow named characters, Rubric Marines, and Daemon Princes. Was this intentional? The Daemonheart relic still states it can't be taken by Daemon Princes, which would only be possible if they could be taken in the first place, making it ambiguous as the the original intent.

Look at the Tau relic (earth caste array).. it specifically states that it allows for reroll riptide nova charges... yet riptide are no longer allowed to take it anymore.

It seems like a bad cut and paste job there to me.

Isn't there that one special character Riptide that comes with it?

There is, however the only way to bring him, is with a 1500 point formation of "the eight".

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Vlad_The_Obliterator wrote:
Here's a question regarding the new "Crimson Slaughter" supplement.

The original supplement said that no units other than Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines could take Veternas of the Long War. The new one states that ONLY Khorne Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines can HAVE VoTLW, which would disallow named characters, Rubric Marines, and Daemon Princes. Was this intentional? The Daemonheart relic still states it can't be taken by Daemon Princes, which would only be possible if they could be taken in the first place, making it ambiguous as the the original intent.

Look at the Tau relic (earth caste array).. it specifically states that it allows for reroll riptide nova charges... yet riptide are no longer allowed to take it anymore.

It seems like a bad cut and paste job there to me.

Isn't there that one special character Riptide that comes with it?

There is, however the only way to bring him, is with a 1500 point formation of "the eight".

Which is really not unusual for GW.

Fragile wrote:

Which is really not unusual for GW.

Definitely not. And I don't want to tangent this thread and make it seem like I am complaining. It really doesn't matter to me, i rarely field riptides now with ghostkeel. And if I do, its in the riptide wing, which gets nova rerolls anyway. lol

Did anybody ask about the Dark Angels Formations?
Specially Flyers + Ravenwing and Landraiders + Deathwing?