I am really impressed with all the questions answered, and they went after some which were contentous among the gaming community such as ICs joined to skyhammer, how may powers can a psyker cast, does psychic shriek roll to hit?
The one drawback to this is now we can't have 17 pages arguements about if an IC joined to an unit gets its "unit rules" or not, or whether a psychic power without a profile rolls to hit or not, and if it does how many dice.
Well done GW, this is actually very impressive.
It will be interesting to see how tournaments change their rules based on this, if at all.
I know ITC allows ICs attached to NSF to deploy first turn, this specifically calls that out as not allowed. I also believe ETC allows attached ICs to benefit from formation rules/unit rules where it does not specify the IC benefits.
This could change a lot of tournament lists, and shift the meta somewhat.
Spoiler:
Well they answered psychic shriek being a to hit roll or not, well done GW.
surprise to me was QS and Lance rules canceling each other and using the base AV without QS. Lance buff right there.
They also clarified the axe of khorne that causes you to strike last and harlequins kiss working when not using them.
The gets hot roll is not a to hit roll..
Units in transports are only affected by things in range if the thing affecting them specifies it does so- this is pretty huge.
Clarified units entering play from DS transport are also entering play by deep strike.
VSG- all models in unit must be within range to benefit. -huge.
VSG- models do not benefit from cover saves before shield is stripped- huge.
Tank shock- not intended as a way to remove enemy models. clarified.
Jinking+ stealth and shrouded- not clarified. They do say jinking and in cover are different saves. somewhat intendeing in the same section that stealth and shrouded affect cover saves from cover, not jink but do not say such.
Psykers cannot try to manifest more powers than their ML in a turn- clarification- this is a pretty big deal
Psykers use the combined ML of the psykers in the unit for determing WC generated.
Veil of darkness ruling- is strange. If you go into ongoing reserves from VoD(which also means gate) and do not have the deep strike rule, you may not come back in by deep strike.
Overwatch- if you get extra shots in the normal shooting phase, you get extra shots in the overwatch phase- clarification
Novas- each unit hit suffers the hits, ie cleansing flame causes 2d6 hits to each unit affected, and roll separately for each unit.
GMC- can fire all weapons, at different targets if desired. As per SHV they have to call out what is firing before resolving.
GMC- can still stomp if all enemies dead at I1 step.
GMC- do not get hit by blasts, but can be targetted by skyfire blasts/templates(I assume they get hit by them too if they can be targetted but not specifically stated)
FMC- get DS special rule
Pivoting of anything to gain movement is illegal
Infiltrate- you are allowed to not use it and deploy normally, this affects some ICs with Infiltrate.
Rules for detachments/formations only apply to those detachments/formations- Specifically calls out that an IC attached to NSF cannot benefit from first turn deep strike. Huge.
Do rules applying to an unit, such as dunestrider, or skyhammer anhillation force rules apply to attached ICs? answer is no. This is huge.
Graviton- Uses majority armor save when firing at mixed units.
Flyers cannot bomb and go into reserves on the same turn.
Flyers can fire 4 weapons at full BS and others as snapshots- nice.
Units containing multiple psykers cannot attempt to cast the same power more than once. Big deal.
If something states 1 model for a detachment it means 1, uses tomb spyders for necron canoptek spyder formation
Relics/artifacts- models may only be given 1 unless noted otherwise.
Q : The coverage range of the Void Shield Generator's void shields is 12". If a unit is not entirely within the 12" range, does it still benefit form the Projected Void Shield special rule?
A : No
Oh snap. Does that mean if one guy is out of 12" the entire unit does not get the VSG or just that guy? It seems that the entire unit.
blaktoof wrote: The one drawback to this is now we can't have 17 pages arguements about if an IC joined to an unit gets its "unit rules" or not, or whether a psychic power without a profile rolls to hit or not, and if it does how many dice.
Don't worry, we'll find other things to have 17 page arguments about just as soon as they drop a new codex or supplement ('Death From the Skies' is coming soon )
labmouse42 wrote: Q : The coverage range of the Void Shield Generator's void shields is 12". If a unit is not entirely within the 12" range, does it still benefit form the Projected Void Shield special rule?
A : No
Oh snap. Does that mean if one guy is out of 12" the entire unit does not get the VSG or just that guy? It seems that the entire unit.
That is indeed what it says. If one guy is outside 12", then the unit isn't covered.
Q : Does a void shield intercept Psychic Shriek?
A : No
Q: Do Gauss, Melta, Haywire, and Graviation special rules affect void shields?
A : Yes. Gravitation hits cause the field to collapse on a 6.
And on the stormsurge.
Q: Do you have to select all targets before any dice are rolled for the weapons mounted on a Super-Heavy vehicle? If that's the case, are One Use Only/One Shot weapons used up if a previous weapon destroyed the target?
A : Yes to both.
No more double stacks of cursed earth. Only one flickering fire form a screamer star.
Q : If there are 2 Daemon Psykers who cast Cursed Earth and they are within 12" of each other, do they have a +2 bonus to their invuln save?
A : No. Modifiers from identical psychic powers do not stack.
Q : If a unit includes multiple IC psykers, can they cast the same power (Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC A : No.
In other news...
Q : How does a Gargantuan Creature move through difficult terrain?
A : Roll 3d6 and double the highest result.
Q : If a MC is also an IC, can it join other units? Can other ICs then join the unit that the MC is now a part of?
A : Yes, and No.
(What MCs are ICs)
Q : Can Swooping FMCs be hit with blast or Template attacks that don't target them, such as scattered Blasts and vehicle explosions?
A : No
Q : Can swooping FMCs be hit by nova and beam powers ?
A : Yes for nova powers, no for beam powers.
labmouse42 wrote: No more double stacks of cursed earth. Only one flickering fire form a screamer star.
Q : If there are 2 Daemon Psykers who cast Cursed Earth and they are within 12" of each other, do they have a +2 bonus to their invuln save?
A : No. Modifiers from identical psychic powers do not stack.
Q : If a unit includes multiple IC psykers, can they cast the same power (Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC A : No.
In other news...
Q : How does a Gargantuan Creature move through difficult terrain?
A : Roll 3d6 and double the highest result.
Q : If a MC is also an IC, can it join other units? Can other ICs then join the unit that the MC is now a part of?
A : Yes, and No.
(What MCs are ICs)
I think theres a riptide character from farsight that is a MC and IC.
"However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon profile (such as the Telepathy power Psychic Shriek); where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required -- the weapon hits automatically.
This means that there is no price for jinking for your farseer. Jink away and still shriek all day.
hehe, finally a end to the argument about PE and rerolls. Sorry NOS, you backed the wrong horse. It's not a reroll, you can't even reroll the gets hot die.
Interestingly enough, the notes put in to the GW comment associated with the ICs contradicts the picture.
The picture states things like an IC joined to the NSF can arrive with the NSF unit. The comment says they cannot.
I am very surprised by the QS vs Lance ruling. Some replies to it have already pointed out that QS is a codex rule, and Lance is an Advanced Rulebook rule.
I am also surprised that some one asked regarding BB and Transports during Deployment and taking a Dedicated Transport in Unbound that the unit does not have access to. Some people, what are you going to do?
So, we may see some adjustments for Second/Final Draft.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, I'll be a runty squig. They actually made a FAQ.
A unit's special rules (e.g. skyhammer) confers to attached to ICs.
Q: If I’m using a special Detachment, such as the Nemesis Strike Force Detachment, and add Independent Characters from Battle Brother Factions (e.g. the Librarius Conclave), can they all still benefit from the first turn deployment and come in together?
A: No, the rules for Detachments and Formations only apply to models/units that are part of the Detachment or Formation.
Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.
You might have misread that one there.
Independent character page, 3rd entry from the top, says yes, you can, and specifically references skyhammer. Though it is a draft, and I did see some typos, maybe some stuff is contradictory.
Your right, my apologies.
under their comments edit is this:
The last couple of questions on the image here are a glitch. Unfortunately, Facebook won't let us update it, so please go off this text, rather than the image:
Which makes it confusing, but the text is right and image is wrong
Whelp, they seem to have come down on the opposite side to me on nearly all of the contentious issues. I'm still glad they've finally done some FAQ's though.
sirlynchmob wrote: hehe, finally a end to the argument about PE and rerolls. Sorry NOS, you backed the wrong horse. It's not a reroll, you can't even reroll the gets hot die.
Lance versus Quantum Shields... I'm still reeling. They also pulled another of these "two things affect exact same thing? bam! neither applies!". It's very against "whose turn is it?" ruling, but one I'm happy to see.
Yarium wrote: Lance versus Quantum Shields... I'm still reeling. They also pulled another of these "two things affect exact same thing? bam! neither applies!". It's very against "whose turn is it?" ruling, but one I'm happy to see.
Whose turn is it only matters with rules that state a timing, neither of which applies in the case of Quantum Shielding or Lance.
It is interesting that the Canoptek Harvest answer doesn't really answer the Demi-Company Captain answer completely.
Q: How does a power that targets ‘the Psyker’ but not his unit work on a unit with Brotherhood of Psykers? If, for example, a Wyrdvane Psyker squad casts Iron Arm, does one model nominated as ‘the caster’ receive the benefits?
A: The power applies to all ‘Brotherhood of Psykers’ models in the unit.
Dope.
Q: Using grenades in the Assault phase. Can every model replace their close combat attacks with a single grenade attack or just one model in the unit? Like in the Shooting phase e.g. a unit of 5 Tau Pathfinders charge a Knight. Do 5 Pathfinders make close combat haywire grenade attacks?
A: Only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the Assault phase. Per Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, ‘Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase’.
WHAT THE HELL?!?
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
YAY!!!
Now if they would just errata invisibility out of the game, get rid of stomp, and dis-allow units from different factions to join into a single unit, we would be back to a much more balanced gamestate...
Btothefnrock wrote: Q: How does a power that targets ‘the Psyker’ but not his unit work on a unit with Brotherhood of Psykers? If, for example, a Wyrdvane Psyker squad casts Iron Arm, does one model nominated as ‘the caster’ receive the benefits?
A: The power applies to all ‘Brotherhood of Psykers’ models in the unit.
Dope.
Q: Using grenades in the Assault phase. Can every model replace their close combat attacks with a single grenade attack or just one model in the unit? Like in the Shooting phase e.g. a unit of 5 Tau Pathfinders charge a Knight. Do 5 Pathfinders make close combat haywire grenade attacks?
A: Only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the Assault phase. Per Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, ‘Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase’.
WHAT THE HELL?!?
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
YAY!!!
Now if they would just errata invisibility out of the game, get rid of stomp, and dis-allow units from different factions to join into a single unit, we would be back to a much more balanced gamestate...
Different factions can join but none of the "unit" special rules work for models outside of the original unit or detachment/formation according to the faq. Which greatly neuters the different factions joining into the same unit.
labmouse42 wrote: No more double stacks of cursed earth. Only one flickering fire form a screamer star.
Q : If there are 2 Daemon Psykers who cast Cursed Earth and they are within 12" of each other, do they have a +2 bonus to their invuln save?
A : No. Modifiers from identical psychic powers do not stack.
Q : If a unit includes multiple IC psykers, can they cast the same power (Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC A : No.
In other news...
Q : How does a Gargantuan Creature move through difficult terrain?
A : Roll 3d6 and double the highest result.
Q : If a MC is also an IC, can it join other units? Can other ICs then join the unit that the MC is now a part of?
A : Yes, and No.
(What MCs are ICs)
Q : Can Swooping FMCs be hit with blast or Template attacks that don't target them, such as scattered Blasts and vehicle explosions?
A : No
Q : Can swooping FMCs be hit by nova and beam powers ?
A : Yes for nova powers, no for beam powers.
Well, if you go to the independent character FAQ, it states that if they are different independent characters they can cast the same power twice!
labmouse42 wrote: No more double stacks of cursed earth. Only one flickering fire form a screamer star.
Q : If there are 2 Daemon Psykers who cast Cursed Earth and they are within 12" of each other, do they have a +2 bonus to their invuln save?
A : No. Modifiers from identical psychic powers do not stack.
Q : If a unit includes multiple IC psykers, can they cast the same power (Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC A : No.
In other news...
Q : How does a Gargantuan Creature move through difficult terrain?
A : Roll 3d6 and double the highest result.
Q : If a MC is also an IC, can it join other units? Can other ICs then join the unit that the MC is now a part of?
A : Yes, and No.
(What MCs are ICs)
Q : Can Swooping FMCs be hit with blast or Template attacks that don't target them, such as scattered Blasts and vehicle explosions?
A : No
Q : Can swooping FMCs be hit by nova and beam powers ?
A : Yes for nova powers, no for beam powers.
Well, if you go to the independent character FAQ, it states that if they are different independent characters they can cast the same power twice!
the image of the ICfaq has errors, to the right in the comments from poster section it states to ignore it and use the written comments as the draft.
labmouse42 wrote: No more double stacks of cursed earth. Only one flickering fire form a screamer star.
Q : If there are 2 Daemon Psykers who cast Cursed Earth and they are within 12" of each other, do they have a +2 bonus to their invuln save?
A : No. Modifiers from identical psychic powers do not stack.
Q : If a unit includes multiple IC psykers, can they cast the same power (Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC A : No.
In other news...
Q : How does a Gargantuan Creature move through difficult terrain?
A : Roll 3d6 and double the highest result.
Q : If a MC is also an IC, can it join other units? Can other ICs then join the unit that the MC is now a part of?
A : Yes, and No.
(What MCs are ICs)
Q : Can Swooping FMCs be hit with blast or Template attacks that don't target them, such as scattered Blasts and vehicle explosions?
A : No
Q : Can swooping FMCs be hit by nova and beam powers ?
A : Yes for nova powers, no for beam powers.
Well, if you go to the independent character FAQ, it states that if they are different independent characters they can cast the same power twice!
the image of the ICfaq has errors, to the right in the comments from poster section it states to ignore it and use the written comments as the draft.
In my defense, there was a picture, and text, of course I only looked at the picture
Have they contradicted themselves with regards to the timing of reserves?
One answer states that drop pods arriving from reserves can generate a tactical objective card for an objective it lands on that turn because its still the start of the turn.
Another answer states that moving on from reserve is done at the start of the movement phase
I feel just SO justified in the "psychic powers don't need to roll to hit" department. But what's with the Independent Character not joining squads with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters? What if the IC is already in the squad that the MCIC wishes to join?
Ahh that makes sense, particularly if three people say so!
Still pleased that they did this. Time period might have been better, but the amount of questions they have had to sift through and clarify must have been hard, particularly when they have AoS to think about as well.
Yarium wrote: I feel just SO justified in the "psychic powers don't need to roll to hit" department. But what's with the Independent Character not joining squads with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters? What if the IC is already in the squad that the MCIC wishes to join?
It's in the 'Monstrous & Gargantuan Creatures' FAQ:
Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character, can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: Yes to the first question. No to the second question.
Frozocrone wrote: I also like no more transport sharing among Battle Brothers, as well as no more IC benefitting from detachment rules that they weren't purchased for.
There seemed to be a weekly debate on this forum regarding the IC issue, specifically regarding Skyhammer. Thankfully, GW is answering that one.
Yarium wrote:I feel just SO justified in the "psychic powers don't need to roll to hit" department. But what's with the Independent Character not joining squads with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters? What if the IC is already in the squad that the MCIC wishes to join?
They answered that in a different spot, but basically, "joining" and "joined" are not completely equal. An IC cannot put himself in a position to join a unit in which an MC already exists. However, once joined, an MCIC doesn't kick out any other ICs that are currently joined.
Frozocrone wrote:I also like no more transport sharing among Battle Brothers,
Not true. They just cannot Embark during Deployment.
as well as no more IC benefitting from detachment rules that they weren't purchased for.
A stupid ruling since it basically means that if something like Stubborn is provided by the detachment, then it doesn't work with a joined IC, but Stubborn does work if it was on the unit's datasheet.
I'm sad rhat assassins cant ride in drop pods anymore. But,saying that, they have made invisible units more vulnerable, so the culexus isn't the "must have" that it was
Frozocrone wrote: I also like no more transport sharing among Battle Brothers, as well as no more IC benefitting from detachment rules that they weren't purchased for.
There seemed to be a weekly debate on this forum regarding the IC issue, specifically regarding Skyhammer. Thankfully, GW is answering that one.
It was weekly because the same 5 people argued it constantly in every unrelated thread.
gungo wrote: My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!
Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.
So a CAD Cryptek cannot benefit from a Reclamation Legion's Move Through Cover.
A Blood Angel Captain in a SM Demi-Company Assault Squad doesn't count for Objective Secured.
A LOT of problems with this ruling that I am not sure they considered.
Holy hell man stop arguing about this.
It's ridiculous and sad at this point.
You lost
That ship has sailed
In the immortal words of frozen; let it go!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jokerkd wrote: Lets all just keep in mind that this is a draft. It can, has already, and probably will be changed again before it see official status
It's a draft for clarity not for arguing or opinion
Please don't be that guy. Charistoph is right in that it will affect many rules that were supposed to work that way.
I assume it got changed because they realised that some overpowered gak could be done with it. They may change it again when they realise the other effects the new ruling has
labmouse42 wrote: Q : The coverage range of the Void Shield Generator's void shields is 12". If a unit is not entirely within the 12" range, does it still benefit form the Projected Void Shield special rule?
A : No
Oh snap. Does that mean if one guy is out of 12" the entire unit does not get the VSG or just that guy? It seems that the entire unit.
That is indeed what it says. If one guy is outside 12", then the unit isn't covered.
The vsg is already killed by several rulings however that answer doesn't make sense either. I would assume the shield would trigger once all models outside of the shield died however that's not how it's written.
Regardless void shields are also now effected by gauz, haywire, etc.
So the vsg took a massive hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jokerkd wrote: Please don't be that guy. Charistoph is right in that it will affect many rules that were supposed to work that way.
I assume it got changed because they realised that some overpowered gak could be done with it. They may change it again when they realise the other effects the new ruling has
Nothing got changed
This is not an errata it's a faq.
The formation rules were always clear.
Some people just wanted to read what they want to read about it.
I have no problem with people having a different opinion.
There however is a difference when the person feels the need to force thier opinion on others.
the ic rules arguing has been one of the biggest jokes on this board and it specifically because of a handful of people arguing constantly. Those same people posted constantly on not just this board but nearly every other 40k board. Trying to force and argue thier opinion. All the time. It was insane the amount of posting these people had on the same topic.
I've made my own bad calls with this faq such as blasts and PE. I was wrong on that. Who cares.
I skimmed through the rules errata sheets, didn't find the question I asked about the KFF. (I asked whether or not it affected friendly and enemy models or just friendly models).
KaptinBadrukk wrote: I skimmed through the rules errata sheets, didn't find the question I asked about the KFF. (I asked whether or not it affected friendly and enemy models or just friendly models).
KaptinBadrukk wrote: I skimmed through the rules errata sheets, didn't find the question I asked about the KFF. (I asked whether or not it affected friendly and enemy models or just friendly models).
I might have missed it. Did anyone else see it?
they didn't answer that one, it might come out in the ork faq.
The IC joining a unit and getting first round deployment like with GK or DA in the picture says yes. But in the text explanation says no. Anyone want to clarify that?
I'm excited to see that removing units from the table and then Deep Striking doesn't put them in Reserve, eg. when using GoI. SOME people can no longer make that argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It also really looks like they are pushing this idea that ICs are somehow still a separate unit from the unit they have joined on the tabletop.
Killing an IC but not his unit gives up First Blood. An IC with a different Faction than the joined unit means the unit has two Factions. etc.
...and yet they are somehow they are also the same unit? Two ICs in the same tabletop unit can't cast the same power eg. two Hammerhands? WtF this is inconsistent.
Wait what? What happens then? Which page was this on?
The only reference to this was if you mishapped and went into Ongoing reserves then you could only Deep Strike if all the models in the unit had it. Which was probably OK in Grey Knights, but the Overlord Veil of Darkness had issues.
I'm still going through all of it but for better for worse, this is another good move on their part. They're actually answering some of the tougher questions. Whether or not the actual answer helps game balance or is counter-intuitive is still up in the air, but at least they're trying now. I remember back when they would dodge simple "yes-no" questions just because they knew about the online gakstorm that would ensue if they gave an answer.
For helping game balance, they do note that these are the draft versions. Play-testing them will identify the good and bad FAQs.
I agree, this is another good move on their part. With the AoS stuff, saving money on box sets and the FAQ's, as well as interaction on media, it seems like they are turning things around. Tom Kelly should take notes, haha
gungo wrote:It was weekly because the same 5 people argued it constantly in every unrelated thread.
They were related at some point in the thread. Just because you didn't think they were is no support to this stance.
gungo wrote:
Holy hell man stop arguing about this.
It's ridiculous and sad at this point.
You lost
That ship has sailed
In the immortal words of frozen; let it go!!!
Sounds like YOU need to let it go. I answered when it came up with what knowledge I had. Are you the one who only posted to bemoan the fact that other people kept posting it, and the same people provided the same answers because nothing really changed?
gungo wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
jokerkd wrote: Lets all just keep in mind that this is a draft. It can, has already, and probably will be changed again before it see official status
It's a draft for clarity not for arguing or opinion
They opened themselves up for it, really.
gungo wrote:
Nothing got changed
This is not an errata it's a faq.
The formation rules were always clear.
Some people just wanted to read what they want to read about it.
I have no problem with people having a different opinion.
There however is a difference when the person feels the need to force thier opinion on others.
the ic rules arguing has been one of the biggest jokes on this board and it specifically because of a handful of people arguing constantly. Those same people posted constantly on not just this board but nearly every other 40k board. Trying to force and argue thier opinion. All the time. It was insane the amount of posting these people had on the same topic.
Plenty of things have changed.
Formation rules were largely clear, but some people treated it like Fleet, when its rules were closer to Stubborn's format. This apparently is not how Detachment Special Rules are to be used.
As for trying to "force and argue my opinion", I supported my "opinion" with the facts of the case and no one could really gainsay it effectively with anything in the rules. They used their own opinions on how it should be, but nothing they stated worked properly when considering the full aspects and interactions of the situation.
And YOU are the one who are trying start taking this off-thread trying to attack people who were just commenting on the thread's topic. Keep that in mind.
Some of their rulings are counter intuitive, and a few are just as confusing as always. Like the Tau Seeker hitting at BS5 question, the answer is meaningless.
The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average
jokerkd wrote: The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average
How small can you make it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:
Based off the new FAQ, if you attach an IC to a unit in reserve from a formation that has a reroll to arrive from reserve, what happens to the IC if the first reserve roll is failed?
jokerkd wrote: The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average
How small can you make it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:
Based off the new FAQ, if you attach an IC to a unit in reserve from a formation that has a reroll to arrive from reserve, what happens to the IC if the first reserve roll is failed?
Does the WHOLE unit have the "re-roll to reserve" rule? If not I would think based on the rulings so far that you would not get a reroll. Kind of like mixed movement units moving at the "slowest speed among models"
Frozocrone wrote:Yeah Quantam Shielding or Lance was always a Codex/core rulebook issue.
At least Dark Eldar got a buff.
I would gladly trade back hitting armor 11 on ghost arks for deepstriking fire dragons in venoms and passengers not snapshooting when a vehicle jinks. My medusae weep for their inability to shoot anymore.
labmouse42 wrote:Psychic Shriek gets a buff
"However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon profile (such as the Telepathy power Psychic Shriek); where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required -- the weapon hits automatically.
This means that there is no price for jinking for your farseer. Jink away and still shriek all day.
Is that correct? They say you can't vector strike after jinking. I thought I remembered a rule about not being able to use attacks that autohit if you are snapshooting.
My comment isn't about the type of attack it counts as. I'm saying I don't think you can jink and use psychic shriek because it autohits and I don't think any kind of autohitting attack can be used when you're snapshooting.
Wagz86 wrote: That sucks and kinda ruins the "for all rules purposes" part of the IC rules.
Its becoming more clear that "for all rules purposes" is more like "cant target them separately"
i have always thought of it was all rule purposes for basic rules , movement/shooting/assault/targeting/wound otherwise you might as well go back to unit model count , composition , war gear since that would be included in "all rules" which is silly , so i'm sorta liking where this is headed
jeffersonian000 wrote:Some of their rulings are counter intuitive, and a few are just as confusing as always. Like the Tau Seeker hitting at BS5 question, the answer is meaningless.
It prevents it from being played as a Set Value Modifier. So, I can see a reason for it.
jokerkd wrote:Its just their way of fixing the fact that psychic shriek should never have been witchfire
No, but it does take away from using one of their Shooting Weapons, so I guess that is the correlation.
kambien wrote:i have always thought of it was all rule purposes for basic rules , movement/shooting/assault/targeting/wound otherwise you might as well go back to unit model count , composition , war gear since that would be included in "all rules" which is silly , so i'm sorta liking where this is headed
You may have thought so, but there is nothing in the rules to support this perspective. If it was so, then they would have stated, "counts as part of the unit for all basic rules purposes."
And just because they are considered part of the unit does not mean they get all their Wargear any more than a Sergeant's goes back to his unit's Wargear when the game starts.
Another odd part is, this still is supposed to work when the special rules are on the unit's datasheet, but not the detachments'.
Some of their rulings are counter intuitive, and a few are just as confusing as always. Like the Tau Seeker hitting at BS5 question,
Another odd part is, this still is supposed to work when the special rules are on the unit's datasheet, but not the detachments'.
It does not work for rules from unit datasheet s either, as they state in the faq and reference dunestrider. The rule has to state it affects the IC when joined specifically, or call out it affects all models in the unit. Which is what the rules for ICs joining units with different special rules has always stated.
That some people were of the opinion that saying they count as a member for all rules purposes invalidated the rules for ICs that followed after that statement was their opinion, and the FAQ has clarified that said statement is not the end of the rules for ICs.
They ask for clarifications and etc to be posted to the page. Here's the list I've come up with so far. Feel free to add to it.
Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units? A: Yes. Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units? A: Yes. This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible. Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?
Q: If a unit includes multiple IC Psykers, can they cast the same power (eg. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC [that knows the power]? A: No. Q: How many dice does a ML2 Librarian joined with a ML1 GK Strike Squad generate for their Warp charge pool? A: Three. Can you please explain why you treat the multiple ICs as the same psychic unit (and limit their casting to one attempt at each power), but the IC attached to a unit is treated as two separate psychic units (and add their mastery levels together)? Followup: Can the Librarian and the GK Strike Squad each cast Hammerhand, resulting in a +4 bonus? Note that they are not multiple ICs. And followup followup I’d love to chat with you more one-on-one about this issue, because these two answers seem very inconsistent from a rules standpoint.
Some of your answers seem to indicate that ICs remain a sort of separate unit from the unit they are joined to (Ex: Killing an IC but not his unit gives up First Blood. Ex: A Level 2 GK Librarian joined to a Strike Squad will generate 3 Warp Charges.). But some of your answers seem to indicate that an IC is not at all separate from the unit he is joined to (Ex: Two IC psykers in the same unit cannot separately cast the same power.). This is really inconsistent and confusing. Is there any common sense rule-of-thumb that players can use to solve dilemmas, or are the answers just going to be inconsistent?
The third Destroyer Weapons question is unclear. Can you please revise the answer to address the question?
Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45d. arc of fire from the facing of the model? A: No. Can you explain why this is the case?
The fourth question in “Jink” seems to have had its answer cut off.
The second question under “Grenades” seems to indicate that grenades are thrown in the assault phase, even though they use a profile with the “Melee” special rule. Does this mean that my troops throw their chainswords or CCWs when attacking in close combat? If so, shouldn’t this limit them to one attack each since they are disarming themselves?
Q: Do Gauss, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields? A: Yes, Graviton hits cause the field to collapse on a roll of 6. This goes directly against the rule in Stronghold Assault, which says that Graviton has “no effect” on Void Shields. Is your answer correct? If your answer stands, can you please add an Errata to Stronghold Assault that changes the rules?
The question about area terrain and 25% obscured… Did you mean to say, in the answer, “Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature,” or did you purposefully change the wording in the answer from the wording in the question?
Q: Does Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative? A: No. If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”
Elric Greywolf wrote: Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?
Not really. Just move the model such that the nearer, secondary unit is almost completely obscuring the primary. Then to get to the primary you will need to skim along one model of secondary, constantly engaging it as you slide by to the primary. You CAN get closer than 1" during charges, so that's OK.
Qoes Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative?
A: No.
If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”
Move Through Cover affects movement. It has no effect on Initiative, and never has. This one isn't a new ruling... it's worked this way for as long as Move Through Cover has been a rule, as far as I can remember.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimOnMars wrote: Not really. Just move the model such that the nearer, secondary unit is almost completely obscuring the primary. Then to get to the primary you will need to skim along one model of secondary, constantly engaging it as you slide by to the primary. You CAN get closer than 1" during charges, so that's OK.
This doesn't work.
The Rulebook: Multiple Combats wrote:
...a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
So moving a single model into base contact with models from both the primary and secondary targets is prohibited by the rules. It's not a matter of geometry.... if you can move into base contact with an unengaged model from the primary target, you are specifically forbidden from moving into contact with the secondary target.
blaktoof wrote:
That some people were of the opinion that saying they count as a member for all rules purposes invalidated the rules for ICs that followed after that statement was their opinion, and the FAQ has clarified that said statement is not the end of the rules for ICs.
We did not invalidate those rules. We took the example to its natural conclusion. We took the standard which we were to use and applied it.
Stubborn doesn't specifically mention ICs, so why should other rules? The only place it could include it was by considering the fact that it counts as a part of the unit receiving the benefit. Nothing invalidated, except in your corrupted view of the position that you never really properly understood (as noted by your improper statement of the position).
Cindis wrote: Turns out I was right about heavy weapons disembarking from wrecked vehicles firing normally.
Not surprised at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!
Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.
Was painfully obvious to anyone that could read beforehand, it's actually quite amusing how many topics in the new FAQ that handful got wrong.
It's not about being right or wrong, it was about how the rules as they are written - without commentary from the game developers - are to be read. I'm fine with them ruling it that way, but it wasn't disputed without a reason. There are FAQ answers which clearly contradict the written rules, and that's an indication to how badly written the rules are, not a "commentary" on how stupid people who disagree with you are.
Now that FMCs can target Flyers with Blasts and Templates, something is going to need to be done to balance them since most Flyers lost Skyfire and will not be able to shoot them down. In essence, the already unbalanced relationship between FMCs and Flyers was terrible since most Flyers lost Skyfire, now it is even worse.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that FMCs can target Flyers with Blasts and Templates, something is going to need to be done to balance them since most Flyers lost Skyfire and will not be able to shoot them down. In essence, the already unbalanced relationship between FMCs and Flyers was terrible since most Flyers lost Skyfire, now it is even worse.
I personally don't see the new flyer rules being adopted by many tournaments or gaming groups tbh
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that FMCs can target Flyers with Blasts and Templates, something is going to need to be done to balance them since most Flyers lost Skyfire and will not be able to shoot them down. In essence, the already unbalanced relationship between FMCs and Flyers was terrible since most Flyers lost Skyfire, now it is even worse.
I personally don't see the new flyer rules being adopted by many tournaments or gaming groups tbh
Here is hoping. In my gaming group I was the only one that was negatively affected by the nerf, but I don't think any of us are going to get the book. I would definitely give it a second look if Flyers losing Skyfire only pertained to the Dogfight phase, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
"However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon profile (such as the Telepathy power Psychic Shriek); where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required -- the weapon hits automatically.
This means that there is no price for jinking for your farseer. Jink away and still shriek all day.
Sadly, it doesn't work like that. "Any shooting attacks that does not use ballistic skill cannot be fired as snap-shots". BRB, pg 33. :(
gungo wrote: My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!
Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.
So a CAD Cryptek cannot benefit from a Reclamation Legion's Move Through Cover.
A Blood Angel Captain in a SM Demi-Company Assault Squad doesn't count for Objective Secured.
A LOT of problems with this ruling that I am not sure they considered.
Yeah. They basically said "This doesn't work the way some of you think it works" but then didn't actually tell us how it works. Many of these FAQs flat out contradict the written rules. They would have been better off either rewriting 90% of the rules regarding ICs or abilities that could impact ICs OR just get rid of ICs altogether. Age of Sigmar got rid of "ICs" and it works fine from a gameplay standpoint. You just have to make them more durable since they're easier to target.
Cindis wrote: Turns out I was right about heavy weapons disembarking from wrecked vehicles firing normally.
Not surprised at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!
Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.
Was painfully obvious to anyone that could read beforehand, it's actually quite amusing how many topics in the new FAQ that handful got wrong.
It's not about being right or wrong, it was about how the rules as they are written - without commentary from the game developers - are to be read. I'm fine with them ruling it that way, but it wasn't disputed without a reason. There are FAQ answers which clearly contradict the written rules, and that's an indication to how badly written the rules are, not a "commentary" on how stupid people who disagree with you are.
Agreed. If the rules weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't have been any debates. Plus, many of these debates are between the "this is what the rules actually say" crowd and the "this is what the rules were obviously intended to say" crowd. I think the second crowd tends to suffer from confirmation bias while the first generally doesn't line up with authorial intent and eventual FAQs/Errata.
I am disappointed to see the number of "I told you so" posts. It's juvenile and unnecessary. I argued against many of the rulings that were made in this batch of FAQs when they were brought up on this forum because I felt RaW didn't justify the answer. HOWEVER, I'm ecstatic that GW answered these questions. I think we all just want an unambiguous, balanced rule set. These FAQs and Erratas work on the unambiguous part. The balanced part will probably require a total rewrite of the core rules and all codices at this point. I think GW has painted themselves into a corner with all the detachments/formations/allied shenanigans. I think 30k is so popular because all of this stuff was pretty much eliminated.
Elric Greywolf wrote: They ask for clarifications and etc to be posted to the page. Here's the list I've come up with so far. Feel free to add to it.
Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units? A: Yes. Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units? A: Yes. This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible. Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?
I think this might have been misappropriately answered due to the way the question was asked. I'd ask GW:
"Perhaps the question wasn't clear, so I just want to confirm; Is it possible for a single model unit to charge an enemy unit, but end up locking two units in combat? For example, a Carnifex charges a Space Marine squad with models each 1" away from each other, and with Scouts 1/2" back inbetween them. Currently it seems that I can only come in contact with the Space Marines, but I have to manoeuvre in such a way that I stay 1" away from the Scouts, which is impossible, and thus I can't charge either of them. Or, can I charge the Space Marines, and because I end up being within 1" of the Scouts, even though I don't contact them, I lock both the Space Marines and the Scouts in combat, and count as having made a disordered charge?"
Elric Greywolf wrote: Q: If a unit includes multiple IC Psykers, can they cast the same power (eg. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC [that knows the power]? A: No. Q: How many dice does a ML2 Librarian joined with a ML1 GK Strike Squad generate for their Warp charge pool? A: Three. Can you please explain why you treat the multiple ICs as the same psychic unit (and limit their casting to one attempt at each power), but the IC attached to a unit is treated as two separate psychic units (and add their mastery levels together)? Followup: Can the Librarian and the GK Strike Squad each cast Hammerhand, resulting in a +4 bonus? Note that they are not multiple ICs. And followup followup I’d love to chat with you more one-on-one about this issue, because these two answers seem very inconsistent from a rules standpoint.
The answer here seems pretty clear, though I agree it's not intuitive. Yes, you count their Mastery Levels separately, but no, so long as any model in the unit attempted to cast a power, no one else in the same unit can cast the same power. Shrug.
Elric Greywolf wrote: The third Destroyer Weapons question is unclear. Can you please revise the answer to address the question?
Not sure how it's unclear. If you're going to ask this, try specifying why it's unclear.
Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45d. arc of fire from the facing of the model? A: No. Can you explain why this is the case?
Agreed. This is confusing to me. Feels like both the regular and super-heavy versions should work the same, one way or the other.
The fourth question in “Jink” seems to have had its answer cut off.
The side-bar version answers it. Instead of being "After." it says "Yes.". However, it's good to bring up that the side-bar version and the image version are inconsistent.
The second question under “Grenades” seems to indicate that grenades are thrown in the assault phase, even though they use a profile with the “Melee” special rule. Does this mean that my troops throw their chainswords or CCWs when attacking in close combat? If so, shouldn’t this limit them to one attack each since they are disarming themselves?
This is grasping at straws. It's a clear, if wildly unexpected, answer. Perhaps a better way to ask would be "I thought grenades were "clamped" onto the vehicles in close combat, not thrown. Seems odd that when I purchased grenades and/or Meltabombs for everyone, they would be trying to ration them. Most gaming communities had adopted this as every model being able to make a single attack with a grenade. Perhaps the decision on this answer should be reviewed."
Elric Greywolf wrote: Q: Do Gauss, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields? A: Yes, Graviton hits cause the field to collapse on a roll of 6. This goes directly against the rule in Stronghold Assault, which says that Graviton has “no effect” on Void Shields. Is your answer correct? If your answer stands, can you please add an Errata to Stronghold Assault that changes the rules?
They kind-of answered this; Q: Does Warhammer 40,000: The Rules (7th edition) override Codex: Stronghold Assault? A: Yes. This is an exception to the normal rules, in which expansions override the rulebook.
Which means that the "Graviton has "no effect" on Void Shields" rule in Stronghold Assault is null and void (pun not intended, but funny nonetheless).
The question about area terrain and 25% obscured… Did you mean to say, in the answer, “Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature,” or did you purposefully change the wording in the answer from the wording in the question?
Good observation, and that answer would be appreciated.
Elric Greywolf wrote: Q: Does Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative? A: No. If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”
It means that they don't subtract 2 inches from their charge range, but still suffer the initiative penalty. This is a pretty clear answer, corroborated with the answer to this question;
Q: Are Beasts and Cavalry reduced to Initiative 1 when charging through difficult terrain? A: Yes.
jokerkd wrote: The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average
How small can you make it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:
Based off the new FAQ, if you attach an IC to a unit in reserve from a formation that has a reroll to arrive from reserve, what happens to the IC if the first reserve roll is failed?
Does the WHOLE unit have the "re-roll to reserve" rule? If not I would think based on the rulings so far that you would not get a reroll. Kind of like mixed movement units moving at the "slowest speed among models"
The text is this:
"On a successful Reserves Roll, all of the units in this Formation arrive from Reserve."
Does this prevent an IC from being attached in reserve? It's very confusing and I want to do it correctly.
I know this is an abrupt change, but can we take a moment to appreciate this question:
Q: Can a Fortification Scout?
A: No.
who would ever assume that?
but I now have a mental image of an Aquila Strongpoint slowly crawling while no one is looking...
Elric Greywolf wrote: They ask for clarifications and etc to be posted to the page. Here's the list I've come up with so far. Feel free to add to it.
Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?
Q: If a unit includes multiple IC Psykers, can they cast the same power (eg. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC [that knows the power]?
A: No.
Q: How many dice does a ML2 Librarian joined with a ML1 GK Strike Squad generate for their Warp charge pool?
A: Three.
Can you please explain why you treat the multiple ICs as the same psychic unit (and limit their casting to one attempt at each power), but the IC attached to a unit is treated as two separate psychic units (and add their mastery levels together)?
Followup: Can the Librarian and the GK Strike Squad each cast Hammerhand, resulting in a +4 bonus? Note that they are not multiple ICs.
And followup followup I’d love to chat with you more one-on-one about this issue, because these two answers seem very inconsistent from a rules standpoint.
Some of your answers seem to indicate that ICs remain a sort of separate unit from the unit they are joined to (Ex: Killing an IC but not his unit gives up First Blood. Ex: A Level 2 GK Librarian joined to a Strike Squad will generate 3 Warp Charges.). But some of your answers seem to indicate that an IC is not at all separate from the unit he is joined to (Ex: Two IC psykers in the same unit cannot separately cast the same power.).
This is really inconsistent and confusing. Is there any common sense rule-of-thumb that players can use to solve dilemmas, or are the answers just going to be inconsistent?
The third Destroyer Weapons question is unclear. Can you please revise the answer to address the question?
Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45d. arc of fire from the facing of the model?
A: No.
Can you explain why this is the case?
The fourth question in “Jink” seems to have had its answer cut off.
The second question under “Grenades” seems to indicate that grenades are thrown in the assault phase, even though they use a profile with the “Melee” special rule. Does this mean that my troops throw their chainswords or CCWs when attacking in close combat? If so, shouldn’t this limit them to one attack each since they are disarming themselves?
Q: Do Gauss, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields?
A: Yes, Graviton hits cause the field to collapse on a roll of 6.
This goes directly against the rule in Stronghold Assault, which says that Graviton has “no effect” on Void Shields. Is your answer correct? If your answer stands, can you please add an Errata to Stronghold Assault that changes the rules?
The question about area terrain and 25% obscured… Did you mean to say, in the answer, “Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature,” or did you purposefully change the wording in the answer from the wording in the question?
Q: Does Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative?
A: No.
If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”
They answered your Hammerhand question. Another part of the FAQ says the same blessing can never stack.
It wouldn't just be the reroll though would it? If you only have to roll once for all the units, that would also give the IC a benefit of a rule he doesn't have
It wouldn't be giving him a rule he already didn't have though. You can join an IC to a unit in Reserve and you only make one roll for the combined unit.
jokerkd wrote: The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average
Keep in mind, the conclave is a codex specific thing, so they may errata the wording for it to allow more powers for it.
It seems they really didn't intend on making marines a top tier army. All the cool stuff they could do RAW apparently wasn't RAI.......
Except most of what was being done wasn't even rules as written. People were picking and choosing snippets of rules to justify what they wanted (cheese). Now they have some whine to go with it.
1) The ruling that preferred enemy doesn't allow re-rolls of "gets hot" for blast weapons is odd because the rulebook clearly says that BS6 allows you to do this even though it has the same effect.
2) I am, however, glad they cleared up the old debate about whether preferred enemy permitted re-rolls of scatter dice.
3) I can see the logic of the ruling that only one model in the unit can use a grenade in close combat due to the fact that the rulebook simply says "phase" as opposed to "shooting phase". However, like others I question the use of the word "thrown" in this context as a description of what the units are doing with the grenades in close combat. Mainly I'm just disappointed that my melta bomb units got nerfed, including tankbustas which were one of the few competitive Ork units.
Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.
If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer
They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....
I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.
jokerkd wrote: Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.
If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer
jokerkd wrote: Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.
If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer
What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.
The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.
What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
6th Ed had a specific link between Mastery Level and number of powers that could be cast.
7th ed just says that their is some relationship between the two, without defining it. People coming from 6th ed often just assumed that it was the same as it was in that edition. People coming into the game fresh had less reason to make that link, based on the rules as written in 7th.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.
Tournament organisers making that call doesn't make it RAW.... It just makes it the way that those tournament organisers choose to rule out for their events.
jokerkd wrote: Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.
If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer
What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.
The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.
Insaniak covered the first part. Your second part is just plain false. The very next question after the formation specific one asks if rules that target a unit also affect ICs and the answer was no
and please stop suggesting i am biased. I dont play formations with attached ICs. What I do play is an army of units with Hit and Run. Which, if the new ruling makes it to the final draft, will no longer confer to my HQ because he doesn't have the rule
gungo wrote: The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.
We have only stated that that they share like Stubborn shares. So, I guess if Stubborn is a Detachment rule, it doesn't work between ICs and units.
From last FAQ ERRATA
Page 165- Hammer of Wrath, second paragraph
Add the following sentence:
‘If a model with this special rule charges a Walker，The hit is resolved against the Front Armour Facing unless the Walker is immobilised, In which case it is resolved against the Armour Value of the facing the charging model is touching.'
And from this FAQ Q: Does a Hammer of Wrath attack always hit the front armour of a Walker?
A: No, it hits the armour the attacker is facing.
So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.
MIni MIehm wrote: So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.
It was nearly impossible to do anyways, I doubt anyone really cares enough to worry about it.
What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
6th Ed had a specific link between Mastery Level and number of powers that could be cast.
7th ed just says that their is some relationship between the two, without defining it. People coming from 6th ed often just assumed that it was the same as it was in that edition. People coming into the game fresh had less reason to make that link, based on the rules as written in 7th.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.
Tournament organisers making that call doesn't make it RAW.... It just makes it the way that those tournament organisers choose to rule out for their events.
No my point has little to do with what tournaments decide but the fact people actually read the rule as it was intended to be played and thus the rule was written in a way that some people understood how to play it as intended and thus they read the rule as it was written.
For you to claim it wasn't rules as written is obviously false because some people read it that way.
Elric Greywolf wrote: Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?
I think you are overlooking the fact that the main reason you might want to charge multiple enemy units with a single model is when those units are fleeing and you are trying to have them fail their morale checks.
Also, although entertaining to me, I feel the irony in some of the irony in your 'questions' may cause GW to skip over what you are posting (I particularly enjoyed the thrown chainswords part).
No my point has little to do with what tournaments decide but the fact people actually read the rule as it was intended to be played ...
Did they? Or did they simply choose to keep playing it the way it worked in 6th edition, because that seemed reasonable?
For you to claim it wasn't rules as written is obviously false because some people read it that way.
The fact that some people may have misread a piece of text doesn't mean that the text said something that it didn't. It simply means that some people misread it.
jokerkd wrote: Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.
If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer
What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.
The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.
Insaniak covered the first part. Your second part is just plain false. The very next question after the formation specific one asks if rules that target a unit also affect ICs and the answer was no
and please stop suggesting i am biased. I dont play formations with attached ICs. What I do play is an army of units with Hit and Run. Which, if the new ruling makes it to the final draft, will no longer confer to my HQ because he doesn't have the rule
If the rule is part of a detachment rule it is not transferable.
If the special rule is a unit rule it is not transferable unless that rule calls out other models.
Hit and run specifically calls out other models.
"A unit with at least one model"
This is word for word the same as stubborn which is called out in the IC rules.
The fact you play a detschment that is effected by this rule is literally the definition of bias by the way. Regardless if your opinion is what is likely correct.
MIni MIehm wrote: So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.
Tank Shock was never intended to kill enemy models in any edition of the game in which it has existed. It's supposed to force models to move and/or take leadership tests. It still 'works' just fine.
It was a good way to deal with deathstars, if you didn't have any way to effectively answer them. You could at least whittle the unit down by a model or two, or box them in and hope it sticks the Crunch!
nareik wrote: I think you are overlooking the fact that the main reason you might want to charge multiple enemy units with a single model is when those units are fleeing and you are trying to have them fail their morale checks..
How does that make it any less impossible to actually pull off within the rules as they currently stand?
No my point has little to do with what tournaments decide but the fact people actually read the rule as it was intended to be played ...
Did they? Or did they simply choose to keep playing it the way it worked in 6th edition, because that seemed reasonable?
For you to claim it wasn't rules as written is obviously false because some people read it that way.
The fact that some people may have misread a piece of text doesn't mean that the text said something that it didn't. It simply means that some people misread it.
Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.
I'm honestly flabbergasted you are still arguing how the faq is wrong and the rules are written means something else. Seriously the team of people who wrote the rule litterally said your opinion is wrong this is what it means and yet you still argue it.
MIni MIehm wrote: So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.
Tank Shock was never intended to kill enemy models in any edition of the game in which it has existed. It's supposed to force models to move and/or take leadership tests. It still 'works' just fine.
So, the fact that they have rules to explicitly govern the killing of models via tank shock is...what? A printing error? That's about the stupidest claim I've ever heard.
Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.
No, if people read a direct link between ML and number of powers you can cast in the 7th edition psychic rules, they misread them, as no such link existed in the written rules.
What the devs (or whoever wrote this FAQ) have said is that there is supposed to be such a link.
The original text in this case simply doesn't reflect what the FAQ says is how the game is currently supposed to be played. Whether or not this is how the game was intended to work by the guy who wrote the rulebook is anybody's guess.
I'm honestly flabbergasted you are still arguing how the faq is wrong and the rules are written means something else. Seriously the team of people who wrote the rule litterally said your opinion is wrong this is what it means and yet you still argue it.
I'm not arguing that the FAQ is wrong. I'm arguing that the rules as printed in the rulebook don't match what the FAQ says.
As of the publication of the FAQ, there is now a direct link between ML and the number of powers a psyker can cast.
So, the fact that they have rules to explicitly govern the killing of models via tank shock is...what? .
A rule added for the sake of certain specific situations that might otherwise be unresolvable, as happened occasionally in previous editions where this rule didn't exist.
The potential to kill enemy models is one of the possible outcomes of tank shock. It is not, however, the main purpose of it. So making it harder to kill models with it doesn't mean that tank shock 'no longer works'... it still works, it just won't kill as many models.
Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.
No, if people read a direct link between ML and number of powers you can cast in the 7th edition psychic rules, they misread them, as no such link existed in the written rules.
What the devs (or whoever wrote this FAQ) have said is that there is supposed to be such a link.
The original text in this case simply doesn't reflect what the FAQ says is how the game is currently supposed to be played. Whether or not this is how the game was intended to work by the guy who wrote the rulebook is anybody's guess.
I'm honestly flabbergasted you are still arguing how the faq is wrong and the rules are written means something else. Seriously the team of people who wrote the rule litterally said your opinion is wrong this is what it means and yet you still argue it.
I'm not arguing that the FAQ is wrong. I'm arguing that the rules as printed in the rulebook don't match what the FAQ says.
As of the publication of the FAQ, there is now a direct link between ML and the number of powers a psyker can cast.
So, the fact that they have rules to explicitly govern the killing of models via tank shock is...what? .
A rule added for the sake of certain specific situations that might otherwise be unresolvable, as happened occasionally in previous editions where this rule didn't exist.
The potential to kill enemy models is one of the possible outcomes of tank shock. It is not, however, the main purpose of it. So making it harder to kill models with it doesn't mean that tank shock 'no longer works'... it still works, it just won't kill as many models.
Well enough people read that rulebook and understood it enough to play it the way the faq stated it was intended.
(Btw 7th Ed is 3 years old the rules team who answered the questions are the same guys who wrote the book)
So either your opinion was wrong or a large portion of the community is psychic and knew exactly how to play ML and number of psychic powers. There is a large portion of the community who read this and played the rules the correct way as it was in the rulebook without any faq or any dev telling them. So they obviously came to this understanding somewhere when they read the rules.
The fact you keep claiming it never was written that way is obviously false because a lot of people played it the correct way by only reading the rules.
I'm not the only one with this opinion either the ITC never considered setting the amount of powers cast to ML a rules change. It was thier interpretation of how it was written.
Seriously you are just arguing at this point to say you always were right instead of admitting you didn't read it correctly.
It doesn't matter there was a bunch of rules people didn't play correctly such as grenades and PE and blast rerolls. Who cares.
No, it won't kill any models. The FAQ ruling says that you pick up the unit and move it the minimum distance required to get it out from under the tank and in coherency. This could conceivably force you to teleport a unit behind a tank, or six to eight inches away, depending on just how hard a player has tried to crush some models.
The entire Crunch! rule has been rendered completely unenforcable in any manner, and makes it literally impossible to kill any models with tank shock. Not harder, impossible. It was already hard enough, and there were still instances where tank shocking was worth it, now it's utterly pointless against most of the things that would even be worth tank shocking.
Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.
No, if people read a direct link between ML and number of powers you can cast in the 7th edition psychic rules, they misread them, as no such link existed in the written rules.
What the devs (or whoever wrote this FAQ) have said is that there is supposed to be such a link.
The original text in this case simply doesn't reflect what the FAQ says is how the game is currently supposed to be played. Whether or not this is how the game was intended to work by the guy who wrote the rulebook is anybody's guess.
To be fair, its a very easy and common mistake to make.
Most players (old or new) wouldn't expect a sentence which is specifically called out as important (by being written in bold) to have no rules effect.
You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point.
There were MUCH bigger changes in the FAQ that had absolutely no rules bearing before but are marked as 'FAQ' rather than errata. At least this was a justifiably contentious issue before.
You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..
The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.
We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1...
So no, I don't think it was at all 'rules lawyery' to make that argument. From my experience, most players assumed that the introduction was a copy-paste error from last edition and that GW had fully intended psykers to blast away as long as they had warp charges. This was consistent with the way the psychic rules were written, and fit with the '2nd edition-esque' vibe that GW seemed to be going for with 7th ed.
Sure, some people read the statement about one depending on the other and assumed a direct link... but frankly, I would find arguing for a rule based on an assumption that the rules mean something other than what they actually say to be far more 'rules lawyery' than just going with the actual printed rules, unless there's a really good reason for doing so.
gungo wrote: Seriously you are just arguing at this point to say you always were right instead of admitting you didn't read it correctly. .
You vastly over-estimate how important I find being right about the rules of a game of toy soldiers. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong.
In this case, I claim that the rules said what they did because that's what the rules said. The fact that GW have clarified that they don't want the game to work that way anymore doesn't change what's been written in the book for the last 3 years. It simply means that from now until they change their minds again, the rules have changed.
You're welcome to disagree. Ultimately, it makes little difference at this point whether the rules were always supposed to work this way and people were just playing it wrong, or if it's a change to the rules... the rules from this point on will still be as per the FAQ.
They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....
I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.
Page 57, explicitly states you do NOT take 25% casualties in the assault phase. Absolutely unambiguous
Theyre making changes and calling them a FAQ, same as with mastery levels.
They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....
I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.
Page 57, explicitly states you do NOT take 25% casualties in the assault phase. Absolutely unambiguous
Theyre making changes and calling them a FAQ, same as with mastery levels.
Maybe because until this latest proliferation of Stomp capable units the only way to cause casualties in Assault phase was pretty much being locked in melee and those moral checks had other rules?
You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..
The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.
We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1....
I never read that section as explicitly contradicting the first section. The # of powers depends on ML was pretty clearly spelled out in the beginning and was not "state otherwise" in the later section, The later section was only referring to swapping back & forth between Psykers. No part of that section stated you could cast more than allowed, just that you could continue going back and forth until you ran out of WC, otherwise the first section was pointless.
You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..
The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.
We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1....
I never read that section as explicitly contradicting the first section. The # of powers depends on ML was pretty clearly spelled out in the beginning and was not "state otherwise" in the later section, The later section was only referring to swapping back & forth between Psykers. No part of that section stated you could cast more than allowed, just that you could continue going back and forth until you ran out of WC, otherwise the first section was pointless.
--
I myself who just started as a new player, did indeed read it as though a psyker could cast until he was out of powers or WC, I figured the link to ML was just that it affected number of powers a psyker could have, which affected the number that could be cast. My two friends who also just started read it the same way, so to say it could only be read otherwise is false. Also I actually benefit from the change as I play Tau, so no psykers here, but I still kind of preferred the old way, I feel my friends' psykers are gonna be put away, or at least be much less useful.
They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....
I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.
Page 57, explicitly states you do NOT take 25% casualties in the assault phase. Absolutely unambiguous
Theyre making changes and calling them a FAQ, same as with mastery levels.
Maybe because until this latest proliferation of Stomp capable units the only way to cause casualties in Assault phase was pretty much being locked in melee and those moral checks had other rules?
I've caused morale checks through vehicle explosions in every edition since 4th until 7th. They added this explicit, utterly unambiguous rule in 7th.
Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual
You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..
The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.
We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1....
I never read that section as explicitly contradicting the first section. The # of powers depends on ML was pretty clearly spelled out in the beginning and was not "state otherwise" in the later section, The later section was only referring to swapping back & forth between Psykers. No part of that section stated you could cast more than allowed, just that you could continue going back and forth until you ran out of WC, otherwise the first section was pointless.
--
I myself who just started as a new player, did indeed read it as though a psyker could cast until he was out of powers or WC, I figured the link to ML was just that it affected number of powers a psyker could have, which affected the number that could be cast. My two friends who also just started read it the same way, so to say it could only be read otherwise is false. Also I actually benefit from the change as I play Tau, so no psykers here, but I still kind of preferred the old way, I feel my friends' psykers are gonna be put away, or at least be much less useful.
It was never read just one way or the other. The problem is some people feel like thier interpretation was rules as written. But it was obvious there were quite a few rules not clear. However with people playing it both ways. It was obvious it was never written in a clear way to how the devs intended And obviously not a rules change. It's a bit narsacistic to insist otherwise.
Galef wrote: Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual
Being a new player myself, I also read it as "cast until you run out of Warp Charge". I mostly play Necrons, so this didn't effect me much, but now that I'm finally working on my SM again, it does. It makes for a pretty heft nerf to the Librarius Conclave, but it does make sense. You are giving up the ability to cast more than 2 (3 with Tiggy) psychic powers in exchange for being able to almost guarantee those powers are manifested.
Galef wrote: Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual
As a new player in 7th edition, I figured I could cast all day. "Depends on" does not mean "is equal to." A level of dependency was never actually stated. However, as you say, it really never came into play for me, as I always have several psykers with powers I want to cast, so my wc pool always diminishes quickly and I never cast everything a psyker knows.
Next part isn't at Galef
If people really want to claim it's so obvious, perhaps they'd like to know that in a survey on a facebook group I'm in of 24k people, about 80% of respondents (there were several hundred but I'm not sure the exact figures) thought it worked the way I thought. 80%. Casting = ML was an incredible minority. Ambiguous wording was presented by the rulebook, so I could always see both sides. However, like I said, I always figured it was "cast all you have" because no dependency level was ever clarified (until now). So the dependency the rulebook presented was only in how many spells a psyker knows. The FAQ doesn't bother me because I understand it's ambiguous language.
Friend of mine just brought this up in another forum:
The deep-strike has my attention. Deep striking from the table does not count as deep strike reserves. So I could put my destroyer lord (relic) with some wraiths and deep strike then assault on the same turn! Not sure if the space marines can benefit from this, but I think grey knights can?
No, because DS has its own restriction on assaulting, and not just reliant upon also having arrived from Reserves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote:
It was never read just one way or the other. The problem is some people feel like thier interpretation was rules as written. But it was obvious there were quite a few rules not clear. However with people playing it both ways. It was obvious it was never written in a clear way to how the devs intended And obviously not a rules change. It's a bit narsacistic to insist otherwise.
Depends on does not mean equal to. It can only do so if you add more words. This is indisputable using actual language.
It may not be what they intended, but it is literally what they wrote.
Galef wrote:Well, I have always played it as ML=powers you can cast and I play Eldar, Daemon & GKs, so plenty of psykers. With the way you cast in 7th, I have NEVER had enough WC to go beyond my ML anyway, so this is only a "change" if you were using the other psykers just to generate WC for 1 main psyker to use. If you, like me, were actually trying to use most of your psykers each phase, this should be business as usual
gungo wrote:It was never read just one way or the other. The problem is some people feel like thier interpretation was rules as written. But it was obvious there were quite a few rules not clear. However with people playing it both ways. It was obvious it was never written in a clear way to how the devs intended And obviously not a rules change. It's a bit narsacistic to insist otherwise.
ML had more direct control on how many powers a Psyker could generate than could cast using the words in the rulebook. In fact, Manifesting Psychic Powers states nothing about Mastery Levels. When combined with the facts that a Psyker could have more Powers than their Mastery Level, permission to cast until Warp Charges ran out, and a Psyker unit cannot cast the same power twice, it seems quite reasonable that the "depends" places the restriction on the number of powers cast by restricting the powers generated.
Yarium wrote:Friend of mine just brought this up in another forum:
The deep-strike has my attention. Deep striking from the table does not count as deep strike reserves. So I could put my destroyer lord (relic) with some wraiths and deep strike then assault on the same turn! Not sure if the space marines can benefit from this, but I think grey knights can?
That can't be right... right?
Arriving by Deep Strike specifically states the inability to Charge in its last paragraph, just as much as Moving On From Reserves does.
MIni MIehm wrote: No, it won't kill any models. The FAQ ruling says that you pick up the unit and move it the minimum distance required to get it out from under the tank and in coherency. This could conceivably force you to teleport a unit behind a tank, or six to eight inches away, depending on just how hard a player has tried to crush some models.
The entire Crunch! rule has been rendered completely unenforcable in any manner, and makes it literally impossible to kill any models with tank shock. Not harder, impossible. It was already hard enough, and there were still instances where tank shocking was worth it, now it's utterly pointless against most of the things that would even be worth tank shocking.
One thing needs to be clarified. The ruling currently regards a tank stopping on a unit, but we need them to clarify what happens if the tank stops on PART of a unit. If so, then crunch can still happen, assuming the models that were not tank shocked cannot move, and the others can't fit in coherency.
MIni MIehm wrote: No, it won't kill any models. The FAQ ruling says that you pick up the unit and move it the minimum distance required to get it out from under the tank and in coherency. This could conceivably force you to teleport a unit behind a tank, or six to eight inches away, depending on just how hard a player has tried to crush some models.
The entire Crunch! rule has been rendered completely unenforcable in any manner, and makes it literally impossible to kill any models with tank shock. Not harder, impossible. It was already hard enough, and there were still instances where tank shocking was worth it, now it's utterly pointless against most of the things that would even be worth tank shocking.
One thing needs to be clarified. The ruling currently regards a tank stopping on a unit, but we need them to clarify what happens if the tank stops on PART of a unit. If so, then crunch can still happen, assuming the models that were not tank shocked cannot move, and the others can't fit in coherency.
I guess, but the way it's written heavily implies that you can no longer use tank shock to break up a tight packed unit, and then a few more shocks to start killing off models a few at a time, which was possible in the past. If it only applies to instances of blocking in a unit and then trying to steamroll them, I can live with it. I never had enough tanks to make that viable anyway, but I did have enough to make a good go at using my tanks to pick off a few models here and there, which was never good for my enemies, or their big scary deathstars.
Glad this also answers the issue of declaring all targets for a gargantuan creature before firing. Also glad it was clarified that you can fire all of its weapons and at different targets.
Bhazakhain wrote: Glad this also answers the issue of declaring all targets for a gargantuan creature before firing. Also glad it was clarified that you can fire all of its weapons and at different targets.
But it also clarified that targets are declared before firing, so the age old "can I shoot at the passengers of the transport I just wrecked?" question is still a resounding "NO!"
Cult Mach opened the doors for bounce back attacks not allowing Jink. I could see similar logic applying to stuff like the Hunter's Savant Lock attack. Very interesting. Tau will likely be happy with this precedent if they use the Shield Wall.
Yay! Flip flops.
From the BRBFAQ - This codex rule and Rulebook rule conflict. What happens? They cancel out.
From the Assassin FAQ - These two codex rules conflict. What happens? This rule takes precedence.
Oh boy, another oddity. I might need to join Facebook just to start commenting directly on it!
Assassins wrote:Q: A Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule says that nearby Psykers only harness Warp Charge points on a 6, but some Psykers, like those in a Seer Council Formation, have special rules that let them harness Warp Charge points on a 3+. Which rule takes precedence?
A: In these cases, the Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule takes precedence.
This seems to contradict the earlier FAQ on Special Rules stating that when two special rules both try to modify the same thing, they cancel out. Why are these rulings different?
You are 100% correct, but we really need an explanation of why now, since there's no discernible pattern. The closest pattern I can see is "do what seems fluffiest, unless it's impossible to tell, in which case they cancel each other out". It's fluffy that the Culexus works this way, because he's draining the warp power from the entire Seer Council. By this pattern, my guess in Kharne vs Invisibility is that Invisibility trumps Kharne's "hit a 2+" ability since, hey, they're Invisible and Kharne can't see 'em. That method leaves this really open to fluff arguments though.
Yarium wrote: Oh boy, another oddity. I might need to join Facebook just to start commenting directly on it!
Assassins wrote:Q: A Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule says that nearby Psykers only harness Warp Charge points on a 6, but some Psykers, like those in a Seer Council Formation, have special rules that let them harness Warp Charge points on a 3+. Which rule takes precedence? A: In these cases, the Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule takes precedence.
This seems to contradict the earlier FAQ on Special Rules stating that when two special rules both try to modify the same thing, they cancel out. Why are these rulings different?
Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).
The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.
It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.
Yarium wrote: Oh boy, another oddity. I might need to join Facebook just to start commenting directly on it!
Assassins wrote:Q: A Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule says that nearby Psykers only harness Warp Charge points on a 6, but some Psykers, like those in a Seer Council Formation, have special rules that let them harness Warp Charge points on a 3+. Which rule takes precedence?
A: In these cases, the Culexus Assassin’s Psychic Abomination special rule takes precedence.
This seems to contradict the earlier FAQ on Special Rules stating that when two special rules both try to modify the same thing, they cancel out. Why are these rulings different?
Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).
The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.
It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.
The ruling makes perfect sense.
This was the thought I had. It's not a total change from precedent in the FAQ, rather a different style of problem.
Traditio wrote: Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).
The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.
It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.
The ruling makes perfect sense.
It does not make perfect sense. Perfect sense would mean that something directly follows. Sure, the FAQ points to this being the intention, but without that FAQ, such intention was definitely not obvious. If the rulebook didn't tell you that snapshots are always BS1 even after other modifiers unless specified otherwise, you might think that the signum would benefit people shooting at fliers. The rulebook doesn't do that for psychic powers, not does the Culexus' rules.
I agree that it makes fluff-sense in this case, but things aren't always so clear from that perspective either, and fluff is not a good a representation of the game's rules (else Space Marines would spit acid).
Finally, even if what you said above made perfect sense (which, as stated, I do not believe it does), that still does not provide a guide for answering other situations where there appears to be a conflict between two sets of rules.
Traditio wrote: Psykers ordinarily manifest charges on a 4+. The Eldar formation allows them to manifest charges on a 3+ instead (in effect, their "BS" for psychic powers increases by 1).
The Assassin basically forces psykers to "snapshoot" their psychic powers.
It's basically the same as using a devastator marine sergeant's signum vs. a flier. Yes, sarge increases BS to 5, but it's still a flier. Therefore, snapshots unless skyfire.
The ruling makes perfect sense.
It does not make perfect sense. Perfect sense would mean that something directly follows. Sure, the FAQ points to this being the intention, but without that FAQ, such intention was definitely not obvious. If the rulebook didn't tell you that snapshots are always BS1 even after other modifiers unless specified otherwise, you might think that the signum would benefit people shooting at fliers. The rulebook doesn't do that for psychic powers, not does the Culexus' rules.
I agree that it makes fluff-sense in this case, but things aren't always so clear from that perspective either, and fluff is not a good a representation of the game's rules (else Space Marines would spit acid).
Finally, even if what you said above made perfect sense (which, as stated, I do not believe it does), that still does not provide a guide for answering other situations where there appears to be a conflict between two sets of rules.
I agree, this only raises more questions, they gave us a broad stroke answer, not the best thing in the world but at least consistent and easy to remember. By calling this example out and differing from the broad stroke, they have essentially relegated themselves to having to answer every specific instance like this one, because now, they have mucked up the clarity they had achieved
Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adeptus Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.
Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.
New FAQs added.
And some weird interactions again.
The BS 0 Psychic Shriek one is mentioned in the other current thread on subject, and some pointed out the contradiction.
The alliance level of the Cult with the Tyranids was changed from Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience. This has been pointed out as a contradiction with the original document.
Charistoph wrote: The alliance level of the Cult with the Tyranids was changed from Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience. This has been pointed out as a contradiction with the original document.
Jinking doesn't give you BS0, it gives you snapshots. The FAQ didn't say that snapshots can shoot weapons that hit automatically, it said that ballistic skill 0 can still use psychic shriek as long as they don't have to roll to hit. Snapshots will still prevent you from using psychic shriek.
NightHowler wrote: Jinking doesn't give you BS0, it gives you snapshots. The FAQ didn't say that snapshots can shoot weapons that hit automatically, it said that ballistic skill 0 can still use psychic shriek as long as they don't have to roll to hit. Snapshots will still prevent you from using psychic shriek.
Damn. Oh well. One less tactic to be used AGAINST me.
BTW, I have a quandary for the group. Can I take Gerantius in an Oathsworn detachment? I want that magnificent bastard in my high points army.
Charistoph wrote: The alliance level of the Cult with the Tyranids was changed from Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience. This has been pointed out as a contradiction with the original document.
WD said something to the effect that Genestealer Cults ally in the same manner as Tyranids. A lot of people assumed that meant Battle Brothers. I thought it meant CtA with everyone, including 'Nids. Turns out we were all wrong.
Once you guys have fed back on all of them, well get you official ones.
We'll be trying to get you at least one codex FAQ draft a week.
which means we won't see any of the "official" ones until we cycle through all of the rough drafts. Probably not for a few months yet.
Well they pretty much knocked out all the little ones.
I'm assuming they will likely combine harlequins with dark eldar or eldar.
And combine the supplements (sentinels of terra, waaagh ghaz etc) with thier parent codex.
This now leaves the major codexs to be reviewed next and that should take at least 12 weeks with at least a major codex or two a week. Seeing the complaining about some of the current rules clarifications I fully expect much tears to commence starting next week with the major codex faqs.
Orks+plus supplements
Necrons
Space marines+ supplements
Tyranids
Blood Angels/dark Angels
Space wolves/greyknights
Chaos space marines
Chaos demons/korne demonkin
Eldar+ supplements
Dark Eldar/harlequin
Astra militarum
Tau+ supplements
The BB answer is also contradictory to how the staff where playing it; I assume that GS cults got changed in codex production. Hopefully we see a full alliance chart for them soon...
Charistoph wrote: The alliance level of the Cult with the Tyranids was changed from Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience. This has been pointed out as a contradiction with the original document.
WD said something to the effect that Genestealer Cults ally in the same manner as Tyranids. A lot of people assumed that meant Battle Brothers. I thought it meant CtA with everyone, including 'Nids. Turns out we were all wrong.
That would be ignoring the fact that Tyranids are Battle Brothers with themselves, though. Hence the kerfuffle.
I really didn't see any clarification in the OSC vs Knights interaction. I understand (pre-FAQ) that a Knight must put its shield on the rear armor to protect against the OSC shots. Did the FAQ change that? Or did it validate my view?
Vector Strike wrote: I really didn't see any clarification in the OSC vs Knights interaction. I understand (pre-FAQ) that a Knight must put its shield on the rear armor to protect against the OSC shots. Did the FAQ change that? Or did it validate my view?
If I remember the question right, it was treating it like Melee Attacks against Vehicles. You can be shooting from the Front (and thus be affected by the Shield), but the Armour Penetration Roll is against the Knight's Rear Armour Value.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I see that all of my stances on the Imperial Questions were validated. /bow
SJ
After that post I see that all of my stances on SJ being a git were validated. /bow
Sorry, small typo, I meant Imperial Knight questions. GW ruled exactly as I have advocated in this forum on how to deal with Sanctuary and Barrage, and by extention OSC, amoung other questions.
For the record, they ruled against my interpretation of other rules, it's just that I apparently got the IK ones right.
Vector Strike wrote: I really didn't see any clarification in the OSC vs Knights interaction. I understand (pre-FAQ) that a Knight must put its shield on the rear armor to protect against the OSC shots. Did the FAQ change that? Or did it validate my view?
If the shots in question originate from the front or sides of the Knight, the shield will protect if it is covering that arc. If the shot gets through, it then hits the rear armour.
One question I had about these FAQ's: if GW is bothering to do FAQ's for Genestealer Cult and Deathwatch, does that mean that they are getting an actual codex of some sort soon?
I'm surprised no one has really hit on the changes to knights. While the sanctuary thing was a coin tossdue to bad wording, it's not a huge deal. WHat is a pretty big deal though is the way their weapon arcs are streated now. No more 45 degrees front arcs. We now have full sponson coverage plus a guaranteed 360 on the carapce mounted weapons. That massively opens up the potential targets for knights.
Granted its not that huge for people who include one, but anyone who runs knight formations or uses them as their primary will see an exponential difference in performance, I think.
No idea why but BS0 can shoot again as long as you don't require to hit.
I mean, lore/practically speaking, if you don't have to hit something, you don't really have to aim. So then all you have to do is pull a trigger or whatever. Anything can do that! Psychick shriek is just yelling super loud with your brain. It's kind of silly to think about, "whoops, accidentally missed that dude and yelled at a rock again, dag nabit!"
I am most excited about knights having sponson mounted weapons. Though I am sure that some dude is going to say that the FAQ was only for imperial knights, and my renegade and daemon knights do not have sponson weapons.... Any who, it makes me less worried about the arms rotating mid game, as mine are magnetized.
All the Tyranid players I know are about to riot, the same players who complained about invisibility being broken and should be removed from the game, are now complaining that they can no longer have invisible carnifex broods. I just don't get people.
The issue with BS0 is that it means you cannot make a range attack. Can't throw, can't aim, can't target. The GW ruling is a patch to cover up their error in granting the Genestealer Primarch both Psychic Shriek and BS0.
Sorry I missed the 'Tank Shocking conversation earlier. Tank shocking is not useless...
Tank shocking is a rare occasion that was eluded to that can force an enemy unit move during your player turn movement phase, therefore reducing salvo fire shots incurred during overwatch.
Also if carefully aimed can move the enemy unit closer to your assaulting unit or helping your rapid fire weapons get into range.
Tank shock has always been a way to group enemy models for friendlies to shoot and/or drop templates on. The fact that rules existed that allowed us to use Tank Shock to remove enemy models is the only reason why the topic keeps popping up. The surprise in GW's ruling is that the author of the FAQ appears go have failed to read their own rules, not just with this ruling but with many others. Be that as it may, Tank Shock still works as intended, the FAQ does not address what happens when a unit's models are forced out of coherency due to a well placed Tank Shock, forcing the enemy unit to break and fall back into friendlies, which eliminates the enemy unit.
Hopefully GW will read their own rules before "clarifying" massive rule changes via a late to the game FAQ.
Have there been any answers as to if Conversion Fields affect the unit they are contain in with a Blind test? (Since blind says if a unit hits itself it auto passes.... But does a save count as a hit..?)
I loved the Immolator question. By asking how many models may shoot from the Immolator's top hatch, and getting an answer of 1 model, GW has errata'd a fire point for the Immolator, a thing that has not existed in the game since the Witch Hunter codex was replaced.
Good going GW! Not reading your own rules worked for us for a change!
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
Kriswall, I promise not to nerd rage, as long as no one nerd rages about the majority save value for graviton vs mixed armour ruling.
Capamaru wrote: How to Graviton weapons work against a unit with mixed armor saves.
Use the armor save that is in majority within the target unit. In the case of a tie the controlling player can choose.
Does this mean that if my unit with both a normal and an Invulnerable save is shot at I can choose the grav weapon to wound against my Inv save?
An invulnerable save is not an armour save.
But suddenly, a wild MA Warboss in 30 Slugga Boyz appeared!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: You gotta love the inconsistencies in this one when compared to the Rulebook one.
And interestingly enough, Angels, Wolves, and Knights are considered to have Chapter Tactics now.
Yeah, I imagine it will be clarified. I'm kinda upset that BA 'Chapter Tactics' are Furious Charge (and Fast vehicles, which I will take). It's underwhelming.
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!
Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.
The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.
But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.
So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!
Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.
The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.
But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.
Actually they can take the tankhamma (or whatever its called) then upgrade to a nob who can the trade the hammer for a klaw
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!
Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.
The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.
But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.
Only if you believe GW is going to be consistent. Magic 8-Ball says "Don't count on it"
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!
Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.
The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.
But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.
Actually they can take the tankhamma (or whatever its called) then upgrade to a nob who can the trade the hammer for a klaw
Agreed. They just can't take one without buying one weapon, throwing it away and buying another.
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!
Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.
The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.
But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.
Actually they can take the tankhamma (or whatever its called) then upgrade to a nob who can the trade the hammer for a klaw
Agreed. They just can't take one without buying one weapon, throwing it away and buying another.
Not efficient at all, but sadly that seems to be the theme of the ork codex
Kriswall wrote: "Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."
Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.
I'll try not to nerd rage but as someone whose command squad apothecaries come pre-upgraded and therfore have no access to extras I am a little miffed!
Galef wrote: So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.
Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.
Galef wrote: So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.
--
I was wondering the same thing. This faq makes them functionally bigger than even a kharybdis no? They now need like a 12 inch hole to avoid mishaps and create an 18 inch deployment bubble XD
Galef wrote: So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.
Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.
Well you place the model at an access point. What are the access points on the Drop pod?
I think you would have to use the doors as the Access points since they ARE the hull in the case of Drop Pods. There would not be enough room in between the doors and 6" for the hull otherwise. You cannot place models on the doors, nor could many 32mm bases fit between.
Just think about a Dreadnought on a 60mm base. If measuring from the Hull (not the doors in this example), it would be impossible to fit the base between the doors AND wholly within 6" of the hull without placing the Dread on top of the doors (which we cannot do)
Frozocrone wrote: I think Drop Pods got a boost...I think myself and many others have the doors modelled so that they move.
So you can deny area with open doors and block line of sight with the closed doors.
Fun times for all.
I think this is just asking for someone to call "shenanigans". Either you glued the doors, or you have to drop them
Frozocrone wrote: I think Drop Pods got a boost...I think myself and many others have the doors modelled so that they move.
So you can deny area with open doors and block line of sight with the closed doors.
Fun times for all.
Well, in that case, whatever position they're in when you land them initially will have to remain the case throughout the game. I pity you if a door is partially opened at first, but then the drop pod scatters, since it'll need to maintain that partially opened state.
Galef wrote: So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.
Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.
Well you place the model at an access point. What are the access points on the Drop pod?
Trick question. Drop Pods are Open-Topped, so the entire hull is an access point.
Galef wrote: So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.
Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.
Well you place the model at an access point. What are the access points on the Drop pod?
Trick question. Drop Pods are Open-Topped, so the entire hull is an access point.
Ah I see. Isn't it like Galef said then? that the doors would be considered hull in this case? Open topped says that all of the vehicle is an access point. It doesn't refer to the hull as such.
To clarify: They say that the opened doors are part of the model, sooo... part of the vehicle? And as such an access point.
Charistoph wrote: You gotta love the inconsistencies in this one when compared to the Rulebook one.
And interestingly enough, Angels, Wolves, and Knights are considered to have Chapter Tactics now.
Where was that? I didn't catch it. I saw that units with CT will lose CT if mixed with BA, etc. Is that what you mean or did they go into more detail?
Pretty much that. If Dante joins a Raven Guard Vanguard Assault Squad with Shrike, Dante keeps his Blood Angel rules, but Shrike and the Veterans cannot use the Raven Guard rules.
Another interesting point, apparently Shrike can ignore the rules regarding Infiltrators joining/being joined non-Infiltrators.
Roknar wrote:Ah I see. Isn't it like Galef said then? that the doors would be considered hull in this case? Open topped says that all of the vehicle is an access point. It doesn't refer to the hull as such.
To clarify: They say that the opened doors are part of the model, sooo... part of the vehicle? And as such an access point.
A Gun is part of the model as are numerous other bits, but not part of the hull. Part of why it is a pertinent question.
A long time back I was trying to write up a comprehensive rulebook for 40k (edit: note, this was fan-based, so was trying to modify the rules as written as little as possible, only modifying when something that wasn't specified had to be covered). Part of that was being ridiculously specific about what parts of a model were considered body/hull, and what parts were weapons/decorations. The best and most complete description I could give was that something was part of the hull if the removal or adjustment of that part resulted in an incomplete or different model. As such, the wings of a Heldrake were Hull, but the Doors of a Drop Pod would not be hull. Weapons were the weapons. Everything else was decorations.
That said, in my comprehensive version, decorations were completely ignored (hence why you could stand on and see through drop pod doors).
If GW is saying you can't see through the doors, that means they're no decorations. If they're not decorations, and they're not weapons, then they must be part of the hull.
If BA/DA/SW joins with SM to form one unit - they ALL lose their 'chapter tacitcs like' special rules.
There is absolutelly no rule that support that.
GW does that, I know.
Since this is SMFAQ still BA/DA/SW without SM in unit will not lose their rules?
danyboy wrote: If BA/DA/SW joins with SM to form one unit - they ALL lose their 'chapter tacitcs like' special rules.
There is absolutelly no rule that support that.
GW does that, I know.
Since this is SMFAQ still BA/DA/SW without SM in unit will not lose their rules?
BA/DASW do not have Chapter Tactics and there is absolutely no definitive way to define "chapter tactic like" rules, so BA/DA/SW don't lose anything. The FAQ just says that SMICs lost Chapter tactics when joined to non-SM units and vice versa (non-SMIC's joining SM units will lose Chapter tactics)
If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!
JimOnMars wrote: If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!
JimOnMars wrote: If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!
Boarding planks are not drop pod doors.
The funny thing is the rule for boarding planks already includes the extra distance however the planks themselves are just decorations on the model.
So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
JimOnMars wrote: If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!
Boarding planks are not drop pod doors.
The funny thing is the rule for boarding planks already includes the extra distance however the planks themselves are just decorations on the model.
Not really. It's Extra distance unless it goes over 12", in which case it's not.
It's probably moot anyway, as GW seems to be trying to curb abuse with these rulings, not create it. Look at their response to tank shock...pretty snarky, actually. Presumably when the finals come out they will clarify and specify measuring from the opening, not the tip.
Oberron wrote: Well who says you have to open all the doors? Couldn't one just open some of the doors and keep others closed?
That is perfectly legal. However you can not open or close the doors after it has deployed. (I.E. Once the model is in play you can not change its configuration unless you have a rule stating you can, like pointing a gun at a target).
Quickjager wrote: AHA! Apothecaries can have special weapons! My question from a year ago has finally been answered.
You weren't the only one who had that question. I can finally reconfigure all my lists.
I also liked how they said you COULD upgrade a Captain to a CM, but you shouldn't because it was un-fluffy. Like I care about that after all they have done to my Iron Hands. At least I got my vehicle rules back (not that they were very good to begin with) and my tech marines can autopass on 1s (If my vehicles can get the chance to live long enough to use it). I liked all the clarifications on grav.
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
Yarium wrote: A long time back I was trying to write up a comprehensive rulebook for 40k (edit: note, this was fan-based, so was trying to modify the rules as written as little as possible, only modifying when something that wasn't specified had to be covered). Part of that was being ridiculously specific about what parts of a model were considered body/hull, and what parts were weapons/decorations. The best and most complete description I could give was that something was part of the hull if the removal or adjustment of that part resulted in an incomplete or different model. As such, the wings of a Heldrake were Hull, but the Doors of a Drop Pod would not be hull. Weapons were the weapons. Everything else was decorations.
That said, in my comprehensive version, decorations were completely ignored (hence why you could stand on and see through drop pod doors).
If GW is saying you can't see through the doors, that means they're no decorations. If they're not decorations, and they're not weapons, then they must be part of the hull.
Keep in mind that "decorations" can still block line of sight THROUGH a model, but they cannot be used to gain Line of Sight TO the model or be used as a measurement to the model.
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
I think he is talking about grav, so yes, majority, I also think he is getting mixed up with choosing which save to use, the windriders that jink, he can choose to use the 4+ if he wants (if its the best save) but that has no effect on grav, as you don't get to choose what save your opponent is targeting, neither does he.
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
I think he is talking about grav, so yes, majority, I also think he is getting mixed up with choosing which save to use, the windriders that jink, he can choose to use the 4+ if he wants (if its the best save) but that has no effect on grav, as you don't get to choose what save your opponent is targeting, neither does he.
That's what I was thinking. Wasn't sure if I had missed some other grav change in the tenative faq like somehow the chance of grav to hit is inexplicably determined by which save the "defending" player is using. Honestly, I think the clarifications to grav are good for no other reason it goes a long ways to clear up some of the mess from their ambiguity.
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.
Similarly, does this mean that you can choose to use the 5+ save if it (for whatever reason) you thought it was better?
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.
Yup, both their mesh/guardian armour is listed as giving a 5+ save, and the jetbike gives a 3+ armour save. So, they have both, and FAQ for whether to be required to jink or not said that players can choose whichever save they think is better. In this situation, your 5+ save is... well.. significantly better.
Now Imperial Fists can twin-link Primarch's Wrath in a Sternhammer and Pedro Kantor only misses with Dorn's Arrow 1/36 of the time per shot. Yes! It softens the blow of him not being able to be taken as part of a Sternhammer (something I am trying really hard to get GW to fix). Also, my three Drop Pods are looking pretty sweet right now.
Oberron wrote: Well who says you have to open all the doors? Couldn't one just open some of the doors and keep others closed?
That is perfectly legal. However you can not open or close the doors after it has deployed. (I.E. Once the model is in play you can not change its configuration unless you have a rule stating you can, like pointing a gun at a target).
Of course. I mean when it comes from deepstrike one could have some doors open/closed, I'm not saying to change them during the game. Just to clarify what I was saying
Galef wrote: BA/DASW do not have Chapter Tactics and there is absolutely no definitive way to define "chapter tactic like" rules, so BA/DA/SW don't lose anything. The FAQ just says that SMICs lost Chapter tactics when joined to non-SM units and vice versa (non-SMIC's joining SM units will lose Chapter tactics)
pm713 wrote: So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?
Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.
Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?
That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.
Is the 3+ save an armor save?
Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.
Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.
However a "-" means "no ability", so in the case of an armour save "no save". If you have a 3+ armour save and a "no" save, you only have one valid save to choose from, don't you?
But RAW getting to "use" the 5+ armour instead of the 3+ armour is correct. However it's probably not the situation they thought of when they made that ruling. Again.
Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.
However a "-" means "no ability", so in the case of an armour save "no save". If you have a 3+ armour save and a "no" save, you only have one valid save to choose from, don't you?
But RAW getting to "use" the 5+ armour instead of the 3+ armour is correct. However it's probably not the situation they thought of when they made that ruling. Again.
Okok, maybe "can single model with wargear granting 2 different armor save values counts having both saves" a significant issue GW should clarify if some other obviously worthless questions could be incorporated in FAQ.
But then, good thing for the Garv is, if a Jetbike Farseer joins a Squad of windrider, they instantly will be wounded on 3+, no doubt on that.
They just FAQ'd the FAQ for the Apothecary stuff in the comments
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
The last questions on this page, the answer should be “no”.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms of your Apothecaries, they need them for their Nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
nekooni wrote: They just FAQ'd the FAQ for the Apothecary stuff in the comments
Spoiler:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
The last questions on this page, the answer should be “no”.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms of your Apothecaries, they need them for their Nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
Do you think the codex writer ran in and slapped them?
nekooni wrote: They just FAQ'd the FAQ for the Apothecary stuff in the comments
Spoiler:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
The last questions on this page, the answer should be “no”.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms of your Apothecaries, they need them for their Nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
Do you think the codex writer ran in and slapped them?
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say it's a template for any same situation, yes.
It's not hard to use and it puts the discussion to rest.
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.
Let's agree on "it's possible" instead of "it's likely" - it's still GW we're talking about.
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.
Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.
The one word answer without explanation does not help.
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.
Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.
The one word answer without explanation does not help.
oldzoggy wrote: So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.
Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.
The one word answer without explanation does not help.
They re-faqed the apothecary one to be 'no' so it works like before.
oldzoggy wrote: So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.
SolentSanguine wrote: So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?
I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.
Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.
The one word answer without explanation does not help.
They re-faqed the apothecary one to be 'no' so it works like before.
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
I can see this one hits a nerve for you Kriswall, why is that?
Admittedly, I'm curious how this one slipped through. It'd be a fun article to hear how GW came to some of these decisions. I'd buy that White Dwarf for sure!
Charistoph wrote:Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.
The one word answer without explanation does not help.
They re-faqed the apothecary one to be 'no' so it works like before.
Define "before". "Before" there was nothing one way or the other to properly define it. Realistically speaking, there still isn't for those who have a different method/timing of acquiring Wargear. The Apothecary and Champion are the first options after adding models to the unit. A situation like the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader is a little different in that they can get camo cloaks before the option to do so.
So, an answer for most cases, but not for all, sadly.
oldzoggy wrote: So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.
That's just ignoring the rules. If they're shut then they count as shut. You don't magically add doors to the footprint and equally you can't shoot the storm bolter.
oldzoggy wrote: So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.
You do not pretend like they are open for measuring distance at all.
oldzoggy wrote: So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.
You do not pretend like they are open for measuring distance at all.
You use the model as is on the table.
After re-reading the FAQs I agree.
But if you glue your doors shut you cannot take advantage of opening/closing which doors you want. You might not want to block line of site to units behind the pod and might actually want to open all the doors.
Also it seems like there are no rules saying when you can open/close the doors - can you change it turn by turn or phase by phase, or never once deployed?
Also it seems like there are no rules saying when you can open/close the doors - can you change it turn by turn or phase by phase, or never once deployed?
You are never given permission to alter any model except to turn weapons on their mountings. Whatever configuration the model is in when it is placed on the table, ie before rolling the Deep Strike scatter, is how it will remain for the rest of the game.
If your model's doors are hinged, you can have all, some, or none of them opened or closed, but that decision is made as soon as you put it on the table and can never change.
If all of them are closed, you don't get to shoot with it either.
oldzoggy wrote: So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.
That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.
You do not pretend like they are open for measuring distance at all.
You use the model as is on the table.
Also it seems like there are no rules saying when you can open/close the doors - can you change it turn by turn or phase by phase, or never once deployed?
Because you can not open or close the doors. How you deploy the model is how it has to stay. There are no rules allowing you to open/close the doors, so you can not open/close the doors.
Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.
However a "-" means "no ability", so in the case of an armour save "no save". If you have a 3+ armour save and a "no" save, you only have one valid save to choose from, don't you?
But RAW getting to "use" the 5+ armour instead of the 3+ armour is correct. However it's probably not the situation they thought of when they made that ruling. Again.
Okok, maybe "can single model with wargear granting 2 different armor save values counts having both saves" a significant issue GW should clarify if some other obviously worthless questions could be incorporated in FAQ.
But then, good thing for the Garv is, if a Jetbike Farseer joins a Squad of windrider, they instantly will be wounded on 3+, no doubt on that.
Unlike cover and invul saves, the armor save is actually a characteristic in the model's profile. And unless you have a very specific rule, you only have one value for a given characteristic. The eldar jetbike is very clear about this characteristic value : a model on an eldar jetbike has a 3+ armor save. Period.
It doesnt have both a 5+ and a 3+.
If the jetbike rule was "a model on jetbike has a strengh of 5" you wouldn't argue that the farseer is both S3 and S5. You would say he's S5. Well it's exactly the same here, just a different characteristic.
Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.
However a "-" means "no ability", so in the case of an armour save "no save". If you have a 3+ armour save and a "no" save, you only have one valid save to choose from, don't you?
But RAW getting to "use" the 5+ armour instead of the 3+ armour is correct. However it's probably not the situation they thought of when they made that ruling. Again.
Okok, maybe "can single model with wargear granting 2 different armor save values counts having both saves" a significant issue GW should clarify if some other obviously worthless questions could be incorporated in FAQ.
But then, good thing for the Garv is, if a Jetbike Farseer joins a Squad of windrider, they instantly will be wounded on 3+, no doubt on that.
Unlike cover and invul saves, the armor save is actually a characteristic in the model's profile. And unless you have a very specific rule, you only have one value for a given characteristic. The eldar jetbike is very clear about this characteristic value : a model on an eldar jetbike has a 3+ armor save. Period.
It doesnt have both a 5+ and a 3+.
If the jetbike rule was "a model on jetbike has a strengh of 5" you wouldn't argue that the farseer is both S3 and S5. You would say he's S5. Well it's exactly the same here, just a different characteristic.
It's equipment lists both a jetbike and mesh armour. The jetbike confers a 3+ save and the mesh armour a 5+ save. What you're saying would mean that armour upgrades don't work for example my Wolf Lord buys Terminator armour giving a 2+ armour save but his profile lists a 3+. With what your saying he would still only have a 3+ save but he doesn't. He gains a 2+ save from the Terminator armour.
The Eldar Jetbike has a stat of 3+ not 5+/3+ to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm incorrect - as I am sure this forum will) regardless of what his equipment list says. It is not a case of mixed armor values where there is a mix of 'separate' targets with 5+ and 3+ respectively. IN which case the owning player can say you hit tommy instead of johnny. This is a case of everybody has 3+ even though they are also wearing mesh armor, their bike UPS it to 3+
Else you could make the same argument that everyone has save '-' and choose not use their 3+ armor... when being shot by grav... imagine
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.
The anger is related to the fact that it should be possible. Who is to say Officer X can't buy gun Y? Why is it so important to the game that players be denied interesting combinations? As long as they pay points for both the character upgrade and the gun, why is it so damn critical they can't combine them?
This is not a case when a powerful unit gets a unit buff because one guy joins it. In this case, then benefit only extends to the one model who is carrying the gun.
Funnily enough, my original drop pods (built in 4th edition before the GW model came out) were small Pringles cans with foamcore fins and a stormbolter mounted on the outside under the central compartment.
Nobody ever had an issue with them, either for the fact that they blocked LOS, or for doing so while still having a functional weapon... Even after the official model was released.
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
I can see this one hits a nerve for you Kriswall, why is that?
Admittedly, I'm curious how this one slipped through. It'd be a fun article to hear how GW came to some of these decisions. I'd buy that White Dwarf for sure!
It's the straw that broke the camel's back. The rules are written so poorly that we constantly bicker about what they mean. When we finally get an FAQ, there is no explanation and then we get a "Yes... or No? Yeah, go with No." No explanation, no Errata to fix the underlying ambiguous rules issues. This game is almost unplayable for a casual player at this point.
Anybody interested in Necrons, Tau Empire or Skitarii, PM me.
Kriswall wrote: Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.
Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.
No anger. Just tired of feeling abused. The rule set is a joke. It's poorly written and it feels like this FAQ effort isn't being taken seriously. They seem more worried in making fancy layouts with background graphics than fixing the ambiguous wordings.
There are way too many good rule sets out there to continue to be in an abusive relationship with GW.
It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.
Spacewolverine wrote: It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.
Pretty much this.
Keep in mind that this is a huge new thing for GW. It used to be that the FAQs were just released without feedback. Then they would get feedback and then turn around some of their responses.
If you don't like some of these FAQs, respond in the replies and ask for clarification.
)
).
They were related at some point in the thread. Just because you didn't think they were is no support to this stance.
