Q: If you fire an Ordnance weapon from a Stationary vehicle,
are all other shots Snap Shots? What about when moving? How
is this altered if the vehicle is a Heavy Tank (e.g. a Leman Russ
Demolisher with plasma cannon sponsons), or Fast, or a Flyer
(e.g. when firing hellstrike missiles, does firing the first missile
mean that the second is fired as a Snap Shot)?
A: A vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only
make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn
(whether Stationary or moving). A vehicle being Heavy
has no effect on firing Ordnance weapons. A Fast vehicle
that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap
Shots with its other weapons that turn, but can fire a
single Ordnance weapon at its full Ballistic Skill even
at Cruising Speed. A Flyer firing two hellstrike missiles
in a turn fires both at the same time, as described in
the ‘Select a Weapon’ step of the Shooting phase. Both
missiles would be fired at the Flyer’s full Ballistic Skill –
all other weapons could only make Snap Shots that turn.
Damn English, that sentence was so easy to interpret wrong
yes i know, but i just interpret this sentence wrong. If you change the position of the words "heavy" and "ordnance", it will say what i actually thought
Looks like they went back on the whole jinking transport makes the passangers snap shoot thing but they kept the 1 grenade in melee thing which is dumb *cue the take a number to melta bomb meme*.
Also reroll 1s does let you reroll gets hot for blast weapons.
You can't use beams, focused witchfires, or novas from transports? What you smoking GW?
I just love how they changed again the re-roll rule for Get's hot with preferred enemy
Q: Do plasma cannons and other Gets Hot Blast weapons benefit from rules that allow them to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1? For example, a Clan Raukaan character wearing the Tempered Helm nominates a unit of friendly Devastators to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1 in this Shooting phase. These Devastators are all equipped with plasma cannons. Do they get to re-roll the Gets Hot roll if it comes up as 1?
Doesn't look like they took any feedback, it's still a bunch of vague non-answers and contradictory things.
Q: Are passengers in Jinking Transports forced to fire Snap Shots? A: No.
No to which. needing to fire or having to Snap Shot?? This doesn't answer anything, although it's obvious it's one of those "Left up to interpretation" things that plague 40k.
Wayniac wrote: Doesn't look like they took any feedback, it's still a bunch of vague non-answers and contradictory things.
Q: Are passengers in Jinking Transports forced to fire Snap Shots?
A: No.
No to which. needing to fire or having to Snap Shot?? This doesn't answer anything, although it's obvious it's one of those "Left up to interpretation" things that plague 40k.
This one is easy. If you Jink your transport, the people inside fires normally. Just like they did before the faq draft.
"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."
So I guess Aegis defense lines, VSGs and Landing Pads can't be used anymore? Or is Stronghold still valid, but the BRB takes precedent if a conflict arises?
BoomWolf wrote: Some are outright silly though.
"can a fortification scout? "
I should sig that one X D
This has never been a silly question: Most fortifications are prefabricated military buildings set up for the war taking place.
So in effect, the question is "Can a prefabricated building be set up in a forward position ". Honestly, the common sense answer should be yes, in proper context, but obviously they decided to rule otherwise.
The same thing the LVO is since they helped them with this.
Mistaken about the ITC help however, the point still stands; The rule the dude was asking about isn't addressed in the ITC FAQ at all because it's in the brb, this is just a clarification of the BRB wording.
The same thing the LVO is since they helped them with this.
Just making stuff up now. 1. There was no diirect collaboration between GW and the ITC and 2. The rule the dude was asking about isn't addressed in the ITC FAQ at all because it's in the brb, this is just a clarification of the BRB wording.
Dude read the blog post.
"We’d also like to thank the team at the Las Vegas Open tournament, who helped with some of the detail on this final draft."
I'm glad for this, Reece and them are doing their best to build this community.
The same thing the LVO is since they helped them with this.
Perhaps but it makes zero sense why you can't fire a focused witchfire or a beam out of a fireport. Its a shooting attack just like a flamer, blast weapon, or bolter.
Also based on the wording on the Errata portion it makes it sound like BS6 means you can reroll 1s for gets hot blast weapons. If that stands then its a huge boost to Ion Hammerheads.
Edit: Just want to say that 95% of this sounds solid its just a few nitpicks that caught my eye.
Vector Strike wrote: Well, the new book Planetary Assault has (I suppose) updated rules from Stronghold Assault, so it's a moot point.
---
now this is weird:
Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: No
So what, MCs cannot do disordered charges to lock more than 1 unit in melee?
Also, now MCICs cannot join units/be joined at all.
I think that MCIC change was part of the original FAQ, no?
It's almost impossible for a round base to come in contact with TWO separate units such as the shortest charge distance is EXACTLY equal. This has been a question during every edition, same problem still arises which is "math"
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run, Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this unit can move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance – however that model, and only that model, must use the new distance rolled.
So does that mean the Jump model uses a different Charge length as the rest of the unit?
I'd rather have that than letting the whole unit reroll because one dude is Jump.
Yeah, that's going to cause its' own problems, surely. Like, if jump pack man is not the closest model, and the closest model's roll is too low to make it, but jump pack man's roll is high enough, do you still charge even though the closest model can't engage? :/
So ICs can't join MC units and ICMCs can't join any units? Does this mean that ICMCs can't join MC units?
A couple of changes they made that affect me:
Passengers aren't forced to Snap Shotguns if their Transport Jinks (yay for my Scout Squads getting their ability to do drive-bys back!)
Blast and Template weapons with Sky fire cannot hit Flyers or Flying MCs/GCs (well that sucks)
MCs and GCs can no longer benefit from a toe in cover (hooray!)
SemperAlius wrote: So it seems like Battle Brothers are allowed to deploy in Allied transports again? I don't see anything that would prevent them in this, and I figured it would be in the Core FAQ?
BB's cannot. It's in there. The only way to deploy in a transport from a different detachment is if you share the same faction (i.e. SM's can cross deploy in faction pods but SW's can't deploy in SM pods).
Kirasu wrote: Uh now we need a FAQ for what a "reroll" is then.. Since UNITS make charge rolls and once you re-roll something the first result is gone.
There is no such thing as a single model using a different charge roll compared to its unit.... until now!
And this is complicated further by the FAQ not addressing the "charge at the rate of the slowest model" phrase in the BRB. So it would appear that you may re-roll for Jump-Infantry, but can never surpass the original roll for the closest model (so what is the point?). I suspect this was only included to allow Jump Infantry to get into base contact for HoW
"Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.
Benlisted wrote: "Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.
Just means that Venomthorpes will see more action since Shroud gives a 5+ cover even out in the open.
Benlisted wrote: "Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.
I'm not too familiar with the size discrepancy - is it possible to get a cover save on MCs with things like Gants and Gaunts?
Benlisted wrote: "Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.
Just means that Venomthorpes will see more action since Shroud gives a 5+ cover even out in the open.
The Venom/Malanthrope is already in every army with footslogging Nids - it's a straight nerf, as you were mad not to stick a toe in cover for a 2-3+. Sure that was a bit cheesy, but it kept them viable - without it our MCs are actually incredibly squishy in today's game.
The rejoicing has begun! I can start playing my DE again.
Just be aware that they also reversed the draft ruling about Blasts and Jink. If you weren't targeted, you cannot declare Jink.
But I am ok with that since you can spread out to avoid it, unlike the previous "Jink or die, but your dudes inside are worthless either way"
MCs and GCs can no longer benefit from a toe in cover (hooray!)
Oh, where's that?
"Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
MCs and GCs can no longer benefit from a toe in cover (hooray!)
Oh, where's that?
"Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS
Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without
Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a
squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the
Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted
freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have
Deep Strike.
A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate
special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during
deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking
or Outflanking. They are free to join units as they wish
after deployment
---
Well, this kills the argument of using Shadowsun deepstriking with Crisis, as there is a 'vice-versa' line in the Infiltrate special rule, per the old faq (and still kept in this one)
Vector Strike wrote: INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike. A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking or Outflanking. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment
---
Well, this kills the argument of using Shadowsun deepstriking with Crisis, as there is a 'vice-versa' line in the Infiltrate special rule, per the old faq (and still kept in this one)
How? That vice versa in there only means that a unit of infiltrators cannot join an IC without infiltrate during deployment.
Page 166 – Independent Character, Independent Characters and Infiltrate
Change this sentence to read:
‘An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, and vice versa.’
The main sentence says that an IC without Infiltrate cannot join a unit of Infiltrators. Are you telling me that the vice versa means 'A unit with Infiltrate cannot join an IC without Infiltrate', but not 'An IC with Infiltrate cannot join a unit without Infiltrate'?
It's almost impossible for a round base to come in contact with TWO separate units such as the shortest charge distance is EXACTLY equal. This has been a question during every edition, same problem still arises which is "math"
Vector Strike wrote: Page 166 – Independent Character, Independent Characters and Infiltrate
Change this sentence to read:
‘An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, and vice versa.’
The main sentence says that an IC without Infiltrate cannot join a unit of Infiltrators. Are you telling me that the vice versa means 'A unit with Infiltrate cannot join an IC without Infiltrate', but not 'An IC with Infiltrate cannot join a unit without Infiltrate'?
There is nothing in their wording which prevents it from being the case either way.
It's almost impossible for a round base to come in contact with TWO separate units such as the shortest charge distance is EXACTLY equal. This has been a question during every edition, same problem still arises which is "math"
...except that pre-measuring exists.
What he means is two round bases would need to be equidistant from the single model on a round base charging from a model directly in front and in between both minatures for it to charge the shortest distance possible o its primary target and even then you are still moving 1-2mm more by going in between both models instead of directly to one model and thus you are not taking the shortest route. Pre measuring doesn't change this. That's why he said math.
I probably wrote that explanation horribly however leman Russ executioners are back
Also I'm in the 1 grenade camp is a good thing. Vehicles are no longer red headed step children and every grenade Unit isn't anti tank anymore.
Largely pretty sensible, though still some questions that should not have been dignified with answering.
As a Dark Eldar player I'm not that bothered about the change to jink and embarked units, I tend to move my Venoms more than 6", forcing the occupants to snap shoot, anyway. The only time I use raiders is for transporting Grotesques.
Glad they kept the whole 1 grenade per phase thing.
Imateria wrote: Largely pretty sensible, though still some questions that should not have been dignified with answering.
As a Dark Eldar player I'm not that bothered about the change to jink and embarked units, I tend to move my Venoms more than 6", forcing the occupants to snap shoot, anyway. The only time I use raiders is for transporting Grotesques.
Glad they kept the whole 1 grenade per phase thing.
Funny, as a 30k player we are all lamenting the grenade FAQ and debating ignoring it. Why spend so many points on a 20 man unit to have melta bombs when only one guy can use one per phase? I don't think Forge World intended for that to be the case when they pointed it up.
I do however, 100% agree that some of those questions were cringingly obvious.
Imateria wrote: Largely pretty sensible, though still some questions that should not have been dignified with answering.
As a Dark Eldar player I'm not that bothered about the change to jink and embarked units, I tend to move my Venoms more than 6", forcing the occupants to snap shoot, anyway. The only time I use raiders is for transporting Grotesques.
Glad they kept the whole 1 grenade per phase thing.
Funny, as a 30k player we are all lamenting the grenade FAQ and debating ignoring it. Why spend so many points on a 20 man unit to have melta bombs when only one guy can use one per phase? I don't think Forge World intended for that to be the case when they pointed it up.
I do however, 100% agree that some of those questions were cringingly obvious.
It wouldn't matter so much for 30K, everyone gets it or no one gets it since they're all marines. It's a bit different in 40K though, I mean it's worrying enough when a tac unit can punch my Venom out of existence anyway, Krak grenades makes it a foregone conclusion and they get them for free, and the number of factions that has access to this anti vehicle/MC grenades is very small. I mean my DE can take Haywire grenades, but they're useless against MC's and only one model in a unit can get them.
Imateria wrote: Largely pretty sensible, though still some questions that should not have been dignified with answering.
As a Dark Eldar player I'm not that bothered about the change to jink and embarked units, I tend to move my Venoms more than 6", forcing the occupants to snap shoot, anyway. The only time I use raiders is for transporting Grotesques.
Glad they kept the whole 1 grenade per phase thing.
Funny, as a 30k player we are all lamenting the grenade FAQ and debating ignoring it. Why spend so many points on a 20 man unit to have melta bombs when only one guy can use one per phase? I don't think Forge World intended for that to be the case when they pointed it up.
If that's really 'what they meant all along' (which I don't believe), then clearly they neglected to explain it to the FW guys down the hall writing book after book. And playing the game, because they do.
But I'm moving on. It saves me points in my jetbike squads anyway. *shrug*
Galef wrote: "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."
So I guess Aegis defense lines, VSGs and Landing Pads can't be used anymore? Or is Stronghold still valid, but the BRB takes precedent if a conflict arises?
Let me introduce you to ... -> Planetary Onslaught ; )
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blugh I still don't t like their multi lv blasts and 1 melta bomb in close combat, and I am kinda surprised that they did not address the huge amount of no we don't want that replies at all, but I'll take it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
for simplicity and ease of play, the core game rules allow most models to climb any piece of scenery. Use the ‘Wobbly Model Syndrome’ rule if it is not possible to place the model in the position it is meant to be occupying. If you wish, you may want to say that models are only allowed to move to places that they could reach ‘in real life’, but you will need to apply a certain amount of common sense and discretion in order to make such a rule work well.
Reminds me of the time I was play against Wood Elves in Blood Bowl 2. A Wardancer attempted to Leap next to my ball carrier and failed, rerolled and failed again, followed by me breaking his armor and killing him. Shouldn't have attempted to Jink and Go to Ground, buddy.
They explained the walking through walls in an older edition of the rules I believe.
They said that every unit in game was capable or suitably equipped to blow,cut,burn,smash,melt their ways through walls. Like marines setting shaped charges and blowing a hole to walk through or Tyranids spitting some acid all over it to melt a hole to get through.
MrFlutterPie wrote: They explained the walking through walls in an older edition of the rules I believe.
They said that every unit in game was capable or suitably equipped to blow,cut,burn,smash,melt their ways through walls. Like marines setting shaped charges and blowing a hole to walk through or Tyranids spitting some acid all over it to melt a hole to get through.
Yup.
And it saves so much time compared to having to measure the distance from a model to a gap in the wall, then measure from there to where they are going on the other side.
With the changes to cover saves for Monstrous Creatures and this change. I think Tyranids have been kicked in the face again.
RIP Tyrant Guard.
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: No, to both question.
Codex Tyranids Page 47. Shieldwall. A Single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.
All Shieldwall grants is permission to join like an Independent Character, which again the Hive Tyrant can't now due to the FAQ.
I think it is one that they didn't encounter when writing the FAQ, and will hopefully be addressed in a Tyranid FAQ. I wish it wan't so, I really do. I imagine that this is one that is going to be brought up by players who adhere to RAW.
stonehorse wrote: With the changes to cover saves for Monstrous Creatures and this change. I think Tyranids have been kicked in the face again.
RIP Tyrant Guard.
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: No, to both question.
Codex Tyranids Page 47. Shieldwall. A Single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.
All Shieldwall grants is permission to join like an Independent Character, which again the Hive Tyrant can't now due to the FAQ.
I think it is one that they didn't encounter when writing the FAQ, and will hopefully be addressed in a Tyranid FAQ. I wish it wan't so, I really do. I imagine that this is one that is going to be brought up by players who adhere to RAW.
Thanks GW, thanks!
If I recall, "Specific beats General"
Hive Tyrant is a MC (Character) not an IC. So for the purpose of joining the Tyrant Guard, it is treated as an IC, not a MC(C).
Nope. The Codex is more specific and the unit is called Tyrant Guard and *specifically designed* to be joined by the Tyrant. Sorry, a generic ruling doesn't invalidate that specific Codex pairing.
There really isn't an issue. The specific rule says 'may join a unit of Tyrant Guard' then how to treat it 'exactly as if it were an IC'. Specific trumps general.
JohnnyHell wrote: There really isn't an issue. The specific rule says 'may join a unit of Tyrant Guard' then how to treat it 'exactly as if it were an IC'. Specific trumps general.
Treating it exactly like an IC includes not allowing it.
So we treat it like an ICMC, and all the rules that it has, including this one.
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: No, to both question.
I don't want it to be true, as Tyranid player, I really don't. But sadly this is the FAQ we have now.
JohnnyHell wrote: There really isn't an issue. The specific rule says 'may join a unit of Tyrant Guard' then how to treat it 'exactly as if it were an IC'. Specific trumps general.
Treating it exactly like an IC includes not allowing it.
Please explain why not? They are not MC themselves, and it changes it's Unit type for the purpose of joining. What is the issue?
stonehorse wrote: So we treat it like an ICMC, and all the rules that it has, including this one.
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: No, to both question.
I don't want it to be true, as Tyranid player, I really don't. But sadly this is the FAQ we have now.
It doesn't remove the Monstrous Creature type. So for the purposes of Shield wall it has both, which is where the FAQ kicks in. To further Kick Tyranids in the face, sadly.
JohnnyHell wrote: There really isn't an issue. The specific rule says 'may join a unit of Tyrant Guard' then how to treat it 'exactly as if it were an IC'. Specific trumps general.
Treating it exactly like an IC includes not allowing it.
Please explain why not? They are not MC themselves, and it changes it's Unit type for the purpose of joining. What is the issue?
stonehorse wrote: So we treat it like an ICMC, and all the rules that it has, including this one.
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: No, to both question.
I don't want it to be true, as Tyranid player, I really don't. But sadly this is the FAQ we have now.
It is treated as if it is an IC, not a MCIC.
The Tyrant IS an MC. MC cannot join units even if they are IC. Therefore the Tyrant cannot join the Tyrant Guard. No part of the rules change this.
stonehorse wrote: It doesn't remove the Monstrous Creature type. So for the purposes of Shield wall it has both, which is where the FAQ kicks in. To further Kick Tyranids in the face, sadly.
Wording is as, " may join a unit of Tyrant Guard as if it were an Independent Character."
This plainly means to treat it as an IC when joining the unit, allowing the Tyrant to join the Guard as intended. It's very simple. I don't see why the issue is an issue even considering the FAQ.
Yes treat it as an IC, and it follows all the rules. Sure. Nowhere in shield wall does it remove or replace the MC of the Tyrant. So it has both, following the rules for this the FAQ quite clearly says it can't join.
It will no doubt be a massive oversight on GW's behalf. One that they will eventually correct. Until then this will be brought up in games where Tyrant Guard are used.
This is going to be like the whole debacle of the can Carnifexs shoot booth of their weapons when shooting on overwatch. Until the FAQRAW said no, RAI said yes,
stonehorse wrote: It doesn't remove the Monstrous Creature type. So for the purposes of Shield wall it has both, which is where the FAQ kicks in. To further Kick Tyranids in the face, sadly.
Wording is as, " may join a unit of Tyrant Guard as if it were an Independent Character."
This plainly means to treat it as an IC when joining the unit, allowing the Tyrant to join the Guard as intended. It's very simple. I don't see why the issue is an issue even considering the FAQ.
I'm going with this. Any Tyranid players that play against me are free to join Tyrant Guard with their Tyrant.
stonehorse wrote: Yes treat it as an IC, and it follows all the rules. Sure. Nowhere in shield wall does it remove or replace the MC of the Tyrant. So it has both, following the rules for this the FAQ quite clearly says it can't join.
It will no doubt be a massive oversight on GW's behalf. One that they will eventually correct. Until then this will be brought up in games where Tyrant Guard are used.
This is going to be like the whole debacle of the can Carnifexs shoot booth of their weapons when shooting on overwatch. Until the FAQRAW said no, RAI said yes,
Fun times!
Unfortunately it might. Doubtful though. At any rate, my Tyranids take the backseat to my Cult still.
Bull0 wrote: Yeah, that's going to cause its' own problems, surely. Like, if jump pack man is not the closest model, and the closest model's roll is too low to make it, but jump pack man's roll is high enough, do you still charge even though the closest model can't engage? :/
No. If the initial model can't make contact, the charge fails. How much range other models in the unit have never comes into consideration in that scenario.
Bull0 wrote: Yeah, that's going to cause its' own problems, surely. Like, if jump pack man is not the closest model, and the closest model's roll is too low to make it, but jump pack man's roll is high enough, do you still charge even though the closest model can't engage? :/
No. If the initial model can't make contact, the charge fails. How much range other models in the unit have never comes into consideration in that scenario.
I think the issue is the jump pack gets to reroll it's charge, so probably going to be a lot of interpretations about how that works with making it into combat I guess.
Looks like YMDC got an early christmas present from GW.
I think the issue is the jump pack gets to reroll it's charge, so probably going to be a lot of interpretations about how that works with making it into combat I guess.
Unless the jump pack model is the first charger, it doesn't matter.
stonehorse wrote: It doesn't remove the Monstrous Creature type. So for the purposes of Shield wall it has both, which is where the FAQ kicks in. To further Kick Tyranids in the face, sadly.
Wording is as, " may join a unit of Tyrant Guard as if it were an Independent Character."
This plainly means to treat it as an IC when joining the unit, allowing the Tyrant to join the Guard as intended. It's very simple. I don't see why the issue is an issue even considering the FAQ.
I'm going with this. Any Tyranid players that play against me are free to join Tyrant Guard with their Tyrant.
Im with you on this one! Seriously, someone not allowing a Nid player to still do it is an absolute turkey and I probably would never have an enjoyable time playing them.
stonehorse wrote:Yes treat it as an IC, and it follows all the rules. Sure. Nowhere in shield wall does it remove or replace the MC of the Tyrant. So it has both, following the rules for this the FAQ quite clearly says it can't join.
It will no doubt be a massive oversight on GW's behalf. One that they will eventually correct. Until then this will be brought up in games where Tyrant Guard are used.
This is going to be like the whole debacle of the can Carnifexs shoot booth of their weapons when shooting on overwatch. Until the FAQRAW said no, RAI said yes,
Fun times!
Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.
Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?
Davor wrote: Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.
Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?
That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.
I'm really not a fan of the grenade thing. It's like a whole squad of guys surround a battlewagon that stayed still last turn, then they're like "Jenkins, stick on a grenade." Jenkins rolls a 1 and misses. "Alright boys, stand around the wagon and chill!"
niv-mizzet wrote: I'm really not a fan of the grenade thing. It's like a whole squad of guys surround a battlewagon that stayed still last turn, then they're like "Jenkins, stick on a grenade." Jenkins rolls a 1 and misses. "Alright boys, stand around the wagon and chill!"
I don't like it purely from a HH perspective....why would I ever pay for an entire unit of Meltabombs now
stonehorse wrote: With the changes to cover saves for Monstrous Creatures and this change. I think Tyranids have been kicked in the face again.
RIP Tyrant Guard.
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: No, to both question.
Codex Tyranids Page 47. Shieldwall. A Single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.
All Shieldwall grants is permission to join like an Independent Character, which again the Hive Tyrant can't now due to the FAQ.
I think it is one that they didn't encounter when writing the FAQ, and will hopefully be addressed in a Tyranid FAQ. I wish it wan't so, I really do. I imagine that this is one that is going to be brought up by players who adhere to RAW.
Thanks GW, thanks!
Just wanna chime in to point out that it says "as if it's an IC", not "As if it's an MCIC". Nor does it says "The Hive Tyrant gains the IC Rule". Hence, raw it still stands. For the brief moment that the Tyrant is attempting to join the unit, it becomes just an Independent Character (nothing more, nothing less. Which means that, yes, he's not Infantry (Character) or something else of that sort either) until it finishes "joining".
I know most people generally won't read it that literally, but given the tunnel-vision like reading some people can get on here just to not admit they misread something, that's how I see it if you go strictly by RAW.
Also I'm glad they difinitively set that you just can't join a unit that is in a formation where their arrival time from reserves is altered.
Still not sure about the combination of altered reserve time unit riding in an empty transport (same army different detachment) that is in reserve. A flyer for example.
Page 167 – Infiltrate Replace the first paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘You may choose to deploy units that contain at least one model with this special rule last, after all other units (friend and foe) have been deployed. If both players have such units and choose to do so, the players roll-off and the winner decides who goes first, then alternate deploying these units.’
So now you can choose to deploy Infiltrate units normally
Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘Units that Infiltrate in this way can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.’
So no more 12" or 18" but you literally cannot deploy in any kind of field of view of an enemy unit. Sucks for assassins.
Replace the third paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘If a unit with Infiltrate deploys inside a Dedicated Transport, the same rules apply when setting up their Transport.’
Woohoo Infiltrating Rhinos for my Thousand Sons! Assuming I can hide something that big
Q: If you fire an Ordnance weapon from a Stationary vehicle,
are all other shots Snap Shots? What about when moving? How
is this altered if the vehicle is a Heavy Tank (e.g. a Leman Russ
Demolisher with plasma cannon sponsons), or Fast, or a Flyer
(e.g. when firing hellstrike missiles, does firing the first missile
mean that the second is fired as a Snap Shot)?
A: A vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only
make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn
(whether Stationary or moving). A vehicle being Heavy
has no effect on firing Ordnance weapons. A Fast vehicle
that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap
Shots with its other weapons that turn, but can fire a
single Ordnance weapon at its full Ballistic Skill even
at Cruising Speed. A Flyer firing two hellstrike missiles
in a turn fires both at the same time, as described in
the ‘Select a Weapon’ step of the Shooting phase. Both
missiles would be fired at the Flyer’s full Ballistic Skill –
all other weapons could only make Snap Shots that turn.
*sponsons still useless on BT and Demolisher'
pretre wrote:No, it says the opposite.
I'm ashamed to say that I don't understand what's being said here. Could someone clarify?
BomBomHotdog wrote: Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘Units that Infiltrate in this way can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.’
So no more 12" or 18" but you literally cannot deploy in any kind of field of view of an enemy unit. Sucks for assassins.
You can still use the 18" and in line of sight method as that is detailed in the second sentence of paragraph 2, not the first. Therefore it isn't replaced.
Page 167 – Infiltrate Replace the first paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘You may choose to deploy units that contain at least one model with this special rule last, after all other units (friend and foe) have been deployed. If both players have such units and choose to do so, the players roll-off and the winner decides who goes first, then alternate deploying these units.’
So now you can choose to deploy Infiltrate units normally
Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘Units that Infiltrate in this way can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.’
So no more 12" or 18" but you literally cannot deploy in any kind of field of view of an enemy unit. Sucks for assassins.
Replace the third paragraph of rules text with the following: ‘If a unit with Infiltrate deploys inside a Dedicated Transport, the same rules apply when setting up their Transport.’
Woohoo Infiltrating Rhinos for my Thousand Sons! Assuming I can hide something that big
"So no more 12" or 18" but you literally cannot deploy in any kind of field of view of an enemy unit. Sucks for assassins."
WRONG
I originally thought this, but as mate pointed out you are replacing only the first sentence of the second paragraph, so you are replacing:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy
unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.
with
‘Units that Infiltrate in this way can be set up anywhere
on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit,
as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight
to them.’
So the rest of that paragraph is still as written in the BRB:
This includes in a building, as long as the building is more than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they
can be set up anywhere on the table more than 18" from any enemy unit, even in plain
sight.
As for the MC cover from units, didn't there used to be a rule "Above all Others" or some such thing that MCs had that specifically said they could not get a cover save from other units? Like back in 4th or 5th? Feels like they are trying to go back to that line of thinking
rollawaythestone wrote: These nerfs to MCs are brutal. No cover from interveneing models or area terrain. Here's hoping that 8th solves the problem.
Tiny people giving a giant monster a 5+ cover save was just stupid IMO.
Yes, Tyranids are pretty much useless now until they get an update, but an MC getting a cover save where a dreadnought didn't never ever made sense to me....
It shouldn't get a cover save because it as a toe and its ankle behind something...
Thats actually one of the very few things that makes sense in this game.
If you shoot at me with a PB gun and only my foot is behind some obstacle, are you gonna aim at my foot who's obscured?, or at the rest of my body who isn't obscured?...
Now this doesn't prevent a MC to get cover if its obscured like 50% or something.
Q: If you fire an Ordnance weapon from a Stationary vehicle,
are all other shots Snap Shots? What about when moving? How
is this altered if the vehicle is a Heavy Tank (e.g. a Leman Russ
Demolisher with plasma cannon sponsons), or Fast, or a Flyer
(e.g. when firing hellstrike missiles, does firing the first missile
mean that the second is fired as a Snap Shot)?
A: A vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only
make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn
(whether Stationary or moving). A vehicle being Heavy
has no effect on firing Ordnance weapons. A Fast vehicle
that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap
Shots with its other weapons that turn, but can fire a
single Ordnance weapon at its full Ballistic Skill even
at Cruising Speed. A Flyer firing two hellstrike missiles
in a turn fires both at the same time, as described in
the ‘Select a Weapon’ step of the Shooting phase. Both
missiles would be fired at the Flyer’s full Ballistic Skill –
all other weapons could only make Snap Shots that turn.
*sponsons still useless on BT and Demolisher'
pretre wrote:No, it says the opposite.
I'm ashamed to say that I don't understand what's being said here. Could someone clarify?
rollawaythestone wrote: These nerfs to MCs are brutal. No cover from interveneing models or area terrain. Here's hoping that 8th solves the problem.
Oh no my riptide/hive tyrant/dreadknight/bloodthirster don't get cover saves outside of jink any more. Whatever will we do.
I understand that for the tyranid player that wants to play his monstrous creatures it really sucks but...outside of a spawning tervigon, or a shooty canifex/tyrannofex, all of which are usually pretty easy to obscure, no one plays tyranid MCs. Yes, it sucks that this is another boot to the neck but it's essentially dropping 0% down to also 0%.
Slayer le boucher wrote: It shouldn't get a cover save because it as a toe and its ankle behind something...
Thats actually one of the very few things that makes sense in this game.
If you shoot at me with a PB gun and only my foot is behind some obstacle, are you gonna aim at my foot who's obscured?, or at the rest of my body who isn't obscured?...
Which would be fine, if it wasn't how cover works for other models... Having one system for some models and another system for others makes less sense that both of them using the same abstracted system.
Your static model with the edge of his base sitting on the terrain isn't supposed to represent the warrior actually standing there in a heroic pose with his feet glued to a giant plastic circle. It's an abstraction.
Requizen wrote: Literally nobody is going to interpret it that way.
You were literally proved wrong by the other guy posting.
People slinging their interpretations of text back and forth is not literally proving anything......
That wasn't what he was saying. He was pointing out the absurdity of telling somebody who was interpreting something a given way that nobody would interpret it that way... since it is quite self-evidently untrue.
Requizen wrote: Literally nobody is going to interpret it that way.
You were literally proved wrong by the other guy posting.
People slinging their interpretations of text back and forth is not literally proving anything......
That wasn't what he was saying. He was pointing out the absurdity of telling somebody who was interpreting something a given way that nobody would interpret it that way... since it is quite self-evidently untrue.
My Mistake - I misinterpreted what was being proven wrong in this instance then. I still stand by my second point however.
Let's be real, if someone legitimately tells a Tyranid player that their Hive Tyrant is unable to join a unit of Tyrant Guard - you know, the creatures SPECFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT HIVE TYRANTS - they deserve to be punched in the throat. If someone actually pushes that on you, they're not worth playing with. End of story.
Especially when the rule states "MAY join a unit of tyrant guard..."
So, the rule gives you permission. Period. Anything after that is simply showing the specifics of how to go about it. Otherwise nobody would know when it could be done, whether or not you need to be in coherency for example.
So, the rule gives you permission. Period. Anything after that is simply showing the specifics of how to go about it. Otherwise nobody would know when it could be done, whether or not you need to be in coherency for example.
Be sure to finish quoting that rule. Yes, it says they "can" join. They can join "Exactly like an Independent Character" would be able to. If you're joining exactly like an Independent Character would be able to, then following the restrictions laid out in the Independent Character rules, the Shieldwall special rule gives the Tyrant the ability to join a unit of Tyrant Guard so long as they are not: - Locked in combat - Further than 2" from the Hive Tyrant - In Reserves - Falling Back - Vehicles - Monstrous Creatures - A Unit
Additionally, saying someone "Can" do something doesn't allow them to do it while ignoring all restrictions. Eldar Windrider Jetbikes are a good comparison here. They "Can" Run and Shoot in the same turn thanks to the Battle Focus special rule, but they are prevented from being able to do so since Jetbikes cannot Run. They have a special rule clearly intended to let them Move and Shoot in the Shooting Phase that they are unable to use.
I agree that it would be ridiculous to deny someone the ability to join when that is the clear purpose and intent for that unit, especially since it worked just fine right up until now, but RAW I do believe they just broke this particular scenario unintentionally.
Caederes wrote: Let's be real, if someone legitimately tells a Tyranid player that their Hive Tyrant is unable to join a unit of Tyrant Guard - you know, the creatures SPECFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT HIVE TYRANTS - they deserve to be punched in the throat. If someone actually pushes that on you, they're not worth playing with. End of story.
Threatening physical violence over a game of toy soldiers is possibly not the high road you envisage...
I completely agree that enforcing the RAW on this would be a little absurd, but there's no need to get silly about it, whichever side of the debate you find yourself on.
I'm pleased that the FAQs seem to have been positively received on the whole, however this discussion around Hive Tyrants not being able to join tyrant guard is a classic example of why we, as players, need to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of the game. GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'. The bottom line is, in a game as complicated as Warhammer 40,000 it is simply not possible for rules writers to address every single possible specific interaction. A degree of common sense is ALWAYS going to be required and suggesting that Hive Tyrants can now no longer join a unit that in both the fluff and in the rules (the shieldwall rule specifically says 'A hive Tyrant CAN JOIN A UNIT OF TYRANT GUARD...') is simply not using common sense regardless of how you want to read the rules.
That said, I am very much in the camp that the new FAQ does not prevent a Hive Tyrant from joining the Tyrant Guard for two reasons. The strongest argument is that the rule says that he joins the unit 'as if it were an independent character (IC)' it does not say 'as if it were a monstrous creature independent character (MCIC)', In my view it effectively treats it (for the purposes of joining the unit only) as being an IC, pure and simple and removes the fact that it is a MC from the equation. In fact that approach is taking an absolutely strict, to the letter RAW approach so anyone who plays strictly rules as written cannot complain about it. If they do complain and say 'but removing its MC unit type completely doesn't make sense?' you can then follow this up by saying that the way they are interpreting the rule it basically reads as follows (paraphrasing because i can't remember the exact wording of the rules):
'A hive tyrant may join a unit of tyrant guard exactly as if it were a type of unit that cannot join or be joined by other units'
Now, that doesn't make much sense either. So, how do you resolve a situation where there are conflicting, contradictory rules? Well, core rulebook FAQ says the player whose turn it is decides and since the Hive Tyrant will always be joining units on your turn i guess that means he can join units. Alternatively, you can go through the fluff and read the Tyrant Guard unit entries. etc and see that clearly Hive Tyrants are meant to be able to join Tyrant Guard units. The common sense approach. Or, if your play group are an absolute stickler for RAW, then you use the method in option 1 and say right ok, well rules as written he is an IC not an MCIC therefore he can do it.
Slayer le boucher wrote: It shouldn't get a cover save because it as a toe and its ankle behind something...
Thats actually one of the very few things that makes sense in this game.
If you shoot at me with a PB gun and only my foot is behind some obstacle, are you gonna aim at my foot who's obscured?, or at the rest of my body who isn't obscured?...
Which would be fine, if it wasn't how cover works for other models... Having one system for some models and another system for others makes less sense that both of them using the same abstracted system.
Your static model with the edge of his base sitting on the terrain isn't supposed to represent the warrior actually standing there in a heroic pose with his feet glued to a giant plastic circle. It's an abstraction.
Wich is completly true, but by this logic, a MC who's several time larger then a foot soldier, even if it would "kneel" or "try" to hide, it still be pretty darn visible, like a NBA player trying to hide behind a trafic pole, i'd be hilarious to see, but not effective in the sligthest.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I'm pleased that the FAQs seem to have been positively received on the whole, however this discussion around Hive Tyrants not being able to join tyrant guard is a classic example of why we, as players, need to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of the game. GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'. The bottom line is, in a game as complicated as Warhammer 40,000 it is simply not possible for rules writers to address every single possible specific interaction. A degree of common sense is ALWAYS going to be required and suggesting that Hive Tyrants can now no longer join a unit that in both the fluff and in the rules (the shieldwall rule specifically says 'A hive Tyrant CAN JOIN A UNIT OF TYRANT GUARD...') is simply not using common sense regardless of how you want to read the rules.
Magic the Gathering currently includes more than sixteen thousand cards. Rules issues are plugged as they arise, and it is extremely uncommon for a rules debate to crop up mid-game that can't be resolved just by looking at the specific wording of the rules involved.
The 'It's a complicated game' defense doesn't actually hold any water, and never has.
And yes, players expect GW's rules writers to spell out exactly how the rules work. That's, you know, kind of their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer le boucher wrote: Wich is completly true, but by this logic, a MC who's several time larger then a foot soldier, even if it would "kneel" or "try" to hide, it still be pretty darn visible, like a NBA player trying to hide behind a trafic pole, i'd be hilarious to see, but not effective in the sligthest.
Being big doesn't make it impossible for something to hide behind other things that are also big.
Caederes wrote: Let's be real, if someone legitimately tells a Tyranid player that their Hive Tyrant is unable to join a unit of Tyrant Guard - you know, the creatures SPECFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT HIVE TYRANTS - they deserve to be punched in the throat. If someone actually pushes that on you, they're not worth playing with. End of story.
Threatening physical violence over a game of toy soldiers is possibly not the high road you envisage...
I completely agree that enforcing the RAW on this would be a little absurd, but there's no need to get silly about it, whichever side of the debate you find yourself on.
Yeah sorry about that, I meant it more as a figure of speech but didn't really clarify that so that's on me. I don't actually advocate violence over table-top miniatures (or in general!), it's more that I just think telling someone they can't attach a Hive Tyrant to Tyrant Guard would be a clear indication of a person being "that guy". This might be the clearest case of RAI vs RAW and it's obviously an oversight.
Davor wrote: Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.
Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?
That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.
If I have offended, I am sorry that was not my intent. So I don't do it again, what did I say that was uncalled for?
People keep explaining things to you on Dakka and The Tyranid Hive and you keep telling them they are wrong without explanation as to why they are wrong. A lot of good points were made but you only refute one or two but then not the rest.
Davor wrote: Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.
Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?
That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.
If I have offended, I am sorry that was not my intent. So I don't do it again, what did I say that was uncalled for?
People keep explaining things to you on Dakka and The Tyranid Hive and you keep telling them they are wrong without explanation as to why they are wrong. A lot of good points were made but you only refute one or two but then not the rest.
Was your latest post aimed at me or Carnikang. It is a bit hard to see as you haven't quoted me in this one.
I have several groups I play with, Those who I play 3rd edition with are of a like mindset, and play RAI, which is how I play and view the rules. Let me stress that again, I abhore the RAW mindset that has entered into the games, I think the tournament scene as a whole is to blame for this very narrow way of seeing the game and the rules, and it sucks the fun out of a game that should be about playing with plastic toy soldiers and making pew pew sounds at each other. That is how I enjoy playing, however not everyone gets the same enjoyment from the same thing, to some the rules are sacred a tome by which the interplay of the rules is where the fun is derived from.
Those who I play the current edition with can be very narrow minded when it comes to the rules and play a very strict RAW, as they argue that RAI is too vague and down to personal interpretation of rules. It isn't fun, and due to such I have been moulded to be on the look out for issues that can be levelled against me.
There was a time when the community had to endure the rather silly argument that a MC can not fire 2 weapons when it fires on overwatch, due to the way GW worded it. This has echoes of that. I don't want it to be true, as it is against the background.
However, RAWGW have just invalidated a Hive Tyrant from joining Tyrant Guard. Nowhere in Shieldwall does it remove or replace the MC unit type. Remember IC is not a unit type but a special rule, one that now prohibits Monstrous Creatures that have IC from joing units.
Edit, if you go and read what I have posted on The Tyranid Hive, you will see that I have refuted them. Also I could be wrong here, but from reading what others have said in that thread, they are also seeing it as sadly being the case when RAW is applied.
Davor wrote: Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.
Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?
That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.
If I have offended, I am sorry that was not my intent. So I don't do it again, what did I say that was uncalled for?
People keep explaining things to you on Dakka and The Tyranid Hive and you keep telling them they are wrong without explanation as to why they are wrong. A lot of good points were made but you only refute one or two but then not the rest.
Was your latest post aimed at me or Carnikang. It is a bit hard to see as you haven't quoted me in this one.
I have several groups I play with, Those who I play 3rd edition with are of a like mindset, and play RAI, which is how I play and view the rules. Let me stress that again, I abhore the RAW mindset that has entered into the games, I think the tournament scene as a whole is to blame for this very narrow way of seeing the game and the rules, and it sucks the fun out of a game that should be about playing with plastic toy soldiers and making pew pew sounds at each other. That is how I enjoy playing, however not everyone gets the same enjoyment from the same thing, to some the rules are sacred a tome by which the interplay of the rules is where the fun is derived from.
Those who I play the current edition with can be very narrow minded when it comes to the rules and play a very strict RAW, as they argue that RAI is too vague and down to personal interpretation of rules. It isn't fun, and due to such I have been moulded to be on the look out for issues that can be levelled against me.
There was a time when the community had to endure the rather silly argument that a MC can not fire 2 weapons when it fires on overwatch, due to the way GW worded it. This has echoes of that. I don't want it to be true, as it is against the background.
However, RAWGW have just invalidated a Hive Tyrant from joining Tyrant Guard. Nowhere in Shieldwall does it remove or replace the MC unit type. Remember IC is not a unit type but a special rule, one that now prohibits Monstrous Creatures that have IC from joing units.
Edit, if you go and read what I have posted on The Tyranid Hive, you will see that I have refuted them. Also I could be wrong here, but from reading what others have said in that thread, they are also seeing it as sadly being the case when RAW is applied.
I did go back and I see where you have made your point now. That is sad though you have to play with people like that just because the day before yesterday you didn't play it like that and now all of a sudden you have to play it like that now. Let's hope the Tyranid codex FAQ addresses this issue since it's a Tyrnaid issue and not a General issue for everyone. Question is, has GW changed and become smart enough to address this or is it just smoke and mirriors and same old GW? Time will tell.
So on top of the nerf to MCs (the "toe in cover" issue) and the nerf to Skyblight (the newly spawned Gargoyles can not deepstrike in), does the same ruling also mean that the Mawloc can not use his Terror from the deep again after going into Ongoing Reserves?
The wording is just about the same as the Skyswarm rules.
Was there a separate question about intervening models and monstrous creatures? The one in this thread was about terrain. Intervening models have never cared about 25%.
Vorian wrote:It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"
So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.
RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags
The full wording of that sentence is important, not just a little bit. It says 'A single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.'
Exactly, which means we follow all the rules for Independent Character, including all restrictions, nowhere does it replace or remove the MC unit type, or even say to ignore it. So it still stands. The FAQ is very clear on Monstrous Creatures that are also Independent Characters, they can't join units.
Sorry to sound like TFG, but this is the sort of thing that they will pull during games, so it is best to bring this to people's attention. Then again, we all know that Hive Tyrants on the ground are a very rare thing, so it could amount to nothing. I know I field mine as such, so the additional wounds the Tyrant Guard are quite important. It may seem odd that I am defending a rule that has a negeative effect upon my chosen army, I just believe in fair play,
"Q: How does Tank Shock work when you stop on a unit? The rules state that the models ‘must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance’ – but what does this mean? The shortest distance that allows you to be in unit coherency? Or the shortest distance to just be out from under the vehicle, with models dying if not in unit coherency and at least 1" away from enemy units? What happens if a Gargantuan Creature or Monstrous Creature or any other non-vehicle unit gets Tank Shocked, but cannot move to another place in the shortest way? Are they destroyed or just moved further away?
A: Pick up only those models actively displaced by the Tank Shock, and place them on the battlefield with all models within unit coherency, as close as possible to their starting location and with no models within 1" of an enemy unit. Any models that cannot be placed in this way will be removed as casualties. If the whole unit is displaced, it will be moved together as above, and because of this it is impossible to remove an entire unit from play with a Tank Shock, unless the unit is unable to move; units that have Gone to Ground return to normal immediately, as it counts as being forced to move."
So you can kill "models" with Tank shock, but it is "impossible" to kill entire units, which means single model units cannot be removed as casualties as that would remove the entire unit, which is "impossible". Did I read that right?
Necronmaniac05 wrote:GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'.
If only there were some supplementary document in which they could clarify the rules that they have written, which amazingly enough as a paying customer I do expect to be clear and concise. If only there was such an arcane tome of words in which the writers could make clear any confusion that their player base may run into. If only such a document existed.
"Q: How does Tank Shock work when you stop on a unit? The rules state that the models ‘must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance’ – but what does this mean? The shortest distance that allows you to be in unit coherency? Or the shortest distance to just be out from under the vehicle, with models dying if not in unit coherency and at least 1" away from enemy units? What happens if a Gargantuan Creature or Monstrous Creature or any other non-vehicle unit gets Tank Shocked, but cannot move to another place in the shortest way? Are they destroyed or just moved further away?
A: Pick up only those models actively displaced by the Tank Shock, and place them on the battlefield with all models within unit coherency, as close as possible to their starting location and with no models within 1" of an enemy unit. Any models that cannot be placed in this way will be removed as casualties. If the whole unit is displaced, it will be moved together as above, and because of this it is impossible to remove an entire unit from play with a Tank Shock, unless the unit is unable to move; units that have Gone to Ground return to normal immediately, as it counts as being forced to move."
So you can kill "models" with Tank shock, but it is "impossible" to kill entire units, which means single model units cannot be removed as casualties as that would remove the entire unit, which is "impossible". Did I read that right?
-
Yes, unless they are unable to move like the stormsurge with it's feet planted.
SemperAlius wrote: So it seems like Battle Brothers are allowed to deploy in Allied transports again? I don't see anything that would prevent them in this, and I figured it would be in the Core FAQ?
BB's cannot. It's in there. The only way to deploy in a transport from a different detachment is if you share the same faction (i.e. SM's can cross deploy in faction pods but SW's can't deploy in SM pods).
It is important to note in this example that SM's that share the same chapter tactics can. Ultramarines could not deploy in an Iron Hand drop pod anymore than the Space Wolves can.
Vorian wrote:It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"
So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.
RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags
The full wording of that sentence is important, not just a little bit. It says 'A single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.'
Exactly, which means we follow all the rules for Independent Character, including all restrictions, nowhere does it replace or remove the MC unit type, or even say to ignore it. So it still stands. The FAQ is very clear on Monstrous Creatures that are also Independent Characters, they can't join units.
Sorry to sound like TFG, but this is the sort of thing that they will pull during games, so it is best to bring this to people's attention. Then again, we all know that Hive Tyrants on the ground are a very rare thing, so it could amount to nothing. I know I field mine as such, so the additional wounds the Tyrant Guard are quite important. It may seem odd that I am defending a rule that has a negeative effect upon my chosen army, I just believe in fair play,
No.
Exactly as if it were an independent character. Imagine an independent character... You can join a unit of Tyrant Guard as if you were him (or her).
We have a specific rule in the Tyranid codex allowing a hive tyrant to join Tyrant guard.
We have a blanket rule in the FAQ dissallowing MCIC from joining units.
This is a case of specific overriding nonspecific. Read as written, we are told to follow the Tranid codex over the FAQ.
This is irrefutable evidence of both the RAW argument and the RAI argument, as well as a clear statement of how the rule should be played.
At the risk of Ad Hominem, if you believe otherwise, you may be the problem.
Remember to play by the rules; All of them. Includung the ones that tells us in cases of specific conflicts, codex overrides BRB and FAQ.
You are delivered children.
Tamereth wrote: The grenades thing doesn't make sense when some units pay for grenades' per model.
And walking through solid walls in ruins. WTF, I just can't process that level of stupidity. Why did they change that from the draft?
Trying to play with solid walls is hugely inconvienient, easily exploitable, and leads to rules arguments about what the word 'solid' means.
Think of it this way. If your sat in a ruin with a solid wall between you and your enemy they can't shoot you, because the wall is blocking line of sight (and the game does still use true line of sight). Your enemy can however magically appear through the wall and assault you. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Tamereth wrote: The grenades thing doesn't make sense when some units pay for grenades' per model.
And walking through solid walls in ruins. WTF, I just can't process that level of stupidity. Why did they change that from the draft?
Trying to play with solid walls is hugely inconvienient, easily exploitable, and leads to rules arguments about what the word 'solid' means.
Think of it this way. If your sat in a ruin with a solid wall between you and your enemy they can't shoot you, because the wall is blocking line of sight (and the game does still use true line of sight). Your enemy can however magically appear through the wall and assault you. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
If my enemy is a Tervigon or a Dreadnought, yes, because he smashes through the wall. That or a Jump Pack Marine who jumps the wall.
Tamereth wrote: The grenades thing doesn't make sense when some units pay for grenades' per model.
And walking through solid walls in ruins. WTF, I just can't process that level of stupidity. Why did they change that from the draft?
Trying to play with solid walls is hugely inconvienient, easily exploitable, and leads to rules arguments about what the word 'solid' means.
Think of it this way. If your sat in a ruin with a solid wall between you and your enemy they can't shoot you, because the wall is blocking line of sight (and the game does still use true line of sight). Your enemy can however magically appear through the wall and assault you. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
If my enemy is a Tervigon or a Dreadnought, yes, because he smashes through the wall. That or a Jump Pack Marine who jumps the wall.
Or as was mentioned in the past, they bust their way in with grenades or weapons. Its an abstraction - best to accept it and move on.
After having played it both ways, I can firmly state that it was not a good decision to not allow movement through walls. It only made ranged armiesstronger - the opposite of what needs to happen.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I'm pleased that the FAQs seem to have been positively received on the whole, however this discussion around Hive Tyrants not being able to join tyrant guard is a classic example of why we, as players, need to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of the game. GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'. The bottom line is, in a game as complicated as Warhammer 40,000 it is simply not possible for rules writers to address every single possible specific interaction. A degree of common sense is ALWAYS going to be required and suggesting that Hive Tyrants can now no longer join a unit that in both the fluff and in the rules (the shieldwall rule specifically says 'A hive Tyrant CAN JOIN A UNIT OF TYRANT GUARD...') is simply not using common sense regardless of how you want to read the rules.
Magic the Gathering currently includes more than sixteen thousand cards. Rules issues are plugged as they arise, and it is extremely uncommon for a rules debate to crop up mid-game that can't be resolved just by looking at the specific wording of the rules involved.
The 'It's a complicated game' defense doesn't actually hold any water, and never has.
And yes, players expect GW's rules writers to spell out exactly how the rules work. That's, you know, kind of their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer le boucher wrote: Wich is completly true, but by this logic, a MC who's several time larger then a foot soldier, even if it would "kneel" or "try" to hide, it still be pretty darn visible, like a NBA player trying to hide behind a trafic pole, i'd be hilarious to see, but not effective in the sligthest.
Being big doesn't make it impossible for something to hide behind other things that are also big.
MTG is one of the best tabletop games ever created, and it's maintained and produced by a real game company (as opposed to a modelling company). I also spend much more on MTG than I do on GW. The clear and concise rules writing is one of my favorite parts in the game. It's a good (albeit extreme) example of how things could be done.
GW has historically been at the opposite end of the spectrum (no contact with community, bad or nonexistent FAQs and rulings, weak or nonexistent tournament circuit, bad or outright laughable rules writing) but it seems like it's slowly getting better.
A FAQ should never be final. How would they know that no more issues will arise?
Vorian wrote:It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"
So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.
RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags
The full wording of that sentence is important, not just a little bit. It says 'A single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.'
Exactly, which means we follow all the rules for Independent Character, including all restrictions, nowhere does it replace or remove the MC unit type, or even say to ignore it. So it still stands. The FAQ is very clear on Monstrous Creatures that are also Independent Characters, they can't join units.
Sorry to sound like TFG, but this is the sort of thing that they will pull during games, so it is best to bring this to people's attention. Then again, we all know that Hive Tyrants on the ground are a very rare thing, so it could amount to nothing. I know I field mine as such, so the additional wounds the Tyrant Guard are quite important. It may seem odd that I am defending a rule that has a negeative effect upon my chosen army, I just believe in fair play,
Anything else is added by imagination.
RAW, RAI and common sense all agree.
I need to tell my group that Hive Tyrants aren't MC's. I can't believe we all missed that.
He is joining as if he were an independent character. He could be a tree, a balloon, a concept and he would still join as if he were an independent character.
Look at the rules for independent characters and follow those.
Vorian wrote: Who said anything about what a Tyrant is?
He is joining as if he were an independent character. He could be a tree, a balloon, a concept and he would still join as if he were an independent character.
Look at the rules for independent characters and follow those.
One of the rules for Independent Characters is that they can't join units if they are MCs. Nothing about pretending that the Tyrant is an IC changes the fact that he is an MC.
If I pretend that my blue car is red, it's still a car as well as being 'red'.
But the rule doesn't say as if he were a MCIC. It says IC.
If the rule said MCIC then you'd have a point. It doesn't.
It comes back to my original point, it's not adding IC to the Tyrant, You are treating him as if he were an IC (without any imagined additions to that sentence).
Vorian wrote: But the rule doesn't say as if he were a MCIC. It says IC.
If the rule said MCIC then you'd have a point. It doesn't.
It comes back to my original point, it's not adding IC to the Tyrant, You are treating him as if he were an IC (without any imagined additions to that sentence).
If you treat a Monstrous Creature as an IC, then it is a Monstrous Creature that is an IC.
There is nothing inherent in the requirement to treat him as an IC that would remove any other rules that he already possesses.
Over this Tyrant Guard thing, it's clear neither side will budge here, thankfully I do not have Tyranids.
"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"
Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?
"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving. A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase"
Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?
No. It means that you measure to where you want to go, MARK THAT SPOT, then you pivot and move. No single part of your model can pass that spot no matter how many times to pivot. The free pivot is never supposed to add extra movement
"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"
Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?
No. It means that you measure to where you want to go, MARK THAT SPOT, then you pivot and move. No single part of your model can pass that spot no matter how many times to pivot.
The free pivot is never supposed to add extra movement
-
Ahh good, I was hoping so. The actual movement part of it makes sense to me, was just making sure that they didn't remove pivoting on the spot for free
sm3g wrote: Over this Tyrant Guard thing, it's clear neither side will budge here, thankfully I do not have Tyranids.
"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving. A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase"
Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?
No. The main rulebook clearly says that pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement.
As soon as you do anything else, however, then you have moved and the distance you moved should be measured from your initial position before the pivot. It's been this way since 6th.
Just think about what position you want to get it into, what part of the hull will have moved the furthest in order to make that move and then measure that as it will give you a rough estimate of the total distance you'll have covered for combat/cruising speed purposes.
sm3g wrote: Over this Tyrant Guard thing, it's clear neither side will budge here, thankfully I do not have Tyranids.
"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"
Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?
No. The main rulebook clearly says that pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement.
As soon as you do anything else, however, then you have moved and the distance you moved should be measured from your initial position before the pivot. It's been this way since 6th.
I thought as much, my mate questioned it last night when we were playing (so for arguments sake I let him say my pivoting counted as movement and snap fired some heavy bolters ). I didn't think it would have overruled the pivotting on the spot.
EnTyme wrote: Easiest way to handle it is to just move vehicles the way vehicles actually move.
How does a flying tank running on alien anti gravity engines and piloted by a ten thousand year old space elf actualy move?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vorian wrote: Nope, you're talking about him gaining the IC rule, that's not what it says.
He just joins the unit as if he were an IC.
If it helps you to imagine it - Take that Tyrant off the board and replace him with an IC, join it to the unit, then swap back for the Tyrant.
If you're replacing the Tyrant with a proto-entity that is nothing but the IC rule, he's not from the Tyranid Faction and so can't join Tyranid units...
Benlisted wrote: "Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.
I'm not too familiar with the size discrepancy - is it possible to get a cover save on MCs with things like Gants and Gaunts?
Vorian wrote: Nope, you're talking about him gaining the IC rule, that's not what it says.
He just joins the unit as if he were an IC.
If it helps you to imagine it - Take that Tyrant off the board and replace him with an IC, join it to the unit, then swap back for the Tyrant.
I think you're mistaking the Independent Character special rule for a unit type. That's like saying "Imagine the Tyrant is a Deep Strike", it doesn't make sense. Independent Character is not a unit type. The definition of "An Independent Character" is a model with the IC special rule. A model cannot be just an Independent Character, it would cease to function.
Come to think of it, even if firing through models requires 25% coverage, Guants are over 25% of the height of all Tyranid MCs except the very largest.
Vorian wrote: Who said anything about what a Tyrant is?
He is joining as if he were an independent character. He could be a tree, a balloon, a concept and he would still join as if he were an independent character.
Look at the rules for independent characters and follow those.
One of the rules for Independent Characters is that they can't join units if they are MCs. Nothing about pretending that the Tyrant is an IC changes the fact that he is an MC.
If I pretend that my blue car is red, it's still a car as well as being 'red'.
Benlisted wrote: "Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."
This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.
I'm not too familiar with the size discrepancy - is it possible to get a cover save on MCs with things like Gants and Gaunts?
It says "terrain," not "intervening models"
A separate part of the FAQ states the same for intervening models.
Alcibiades wrote:Come to think of it, even if firing through models requires 25% coverage, Guants are over 25% of the height of all Tyranid MCs except the very largest.
From the perspective of the firer, I sincerely doubt a Tyrant is ever going to be 25% obscured by a gaunt?
sm3g wrote: From the perspective of the firer, I sincerely doubt a Tyrant is ever going to be 25% obscured by a gaunt?
It can happen, depending on terrain. A gaunt or gaunts on a hill can do it, or maybe some Gargoyles maybe able to it as well.
I almost included "unless the gaunt was on much higher ground than the firer". Gargoyles might, I guess it depends if the area between the model and it's base counts like the spaces between models count for obscuring.
EnTyme wrote: Easiest way to handle it is to just move vehicles the way vehicles actually move.
Gotta disagree, the best way is to pick whatever point on the vehicle you think will be moving the farthest from where it started, measure 6 inches from there to it's new location, and just slide it over. Try to pivot so that the movement looks possible for tracked vehicles to actually do will end up with you both conused. Electric slide those tanks where they need to be!
Gotta disagree, the best way is to pick whatever point on the vehicle you think will be moving the farthest from where it started, measure 6 inches from there to it's new location, and just slide it over.
Which results in a rhino that wants to do a 180 and move away having moved 4" before it does anything more than pivot to face the right direction.
Frankly, I think the best way to handle it is to keep doing it the way the vast majority of players have been doing it since 3rd edition and ignore the occasional 'stretching' movement that happens as a result.
Which results in a rhino that wants to do a 180 and move away having moved 4" before it does anything more than pivot to face the right direction.
Frankly, I think the best way to handle it is to keep doing it the way the vast majority of players have been doing it since 3rd edition and ignore the occasional 'stretching' movement that happens as a result.
No it doesn't - turn rhino 180 degrees, move 6", turn 180 degrees. Nothing has ended more than 6" from where it started in the movement phase...
I suspect this explicit ruling is to avoid people moving 6 inches then turning before disembarking, essentially gaining an extra few inches depending on transport size.
Orock wrote: Tankbustas confirmed nerfed. Anything else you would like to gak on orks with, GW?
True, but the re-roll gets hot ruling helps out KMK with ammo runts at least.
Don't worry, I'm sure GW will "fix" Orks in in the 8th ed... maybe Orks will even be the first codex released! Because that worked out so well for us in 7th.
Which results in a rhino that wants to do a 180 and move away having moved 4" before it does anything more than pivot to face the right direction.
Frankly, I think the best way to handle it is to keep doing it the way the vast majority of players have been doing it since 3rd edition and ignore the occasional 'stretching' movement that happens as a result.
The alternative is a rhino that can turn 180 degrees and then drive forwards a set distance in the same amount of time as a rhino moving that same distance straight ahead without turning.
Even in a tank where you can do the opposite direction treads manoeuvre it takes time to pivot on the spot, so it makes sense that pivoting should use some of your movement, if you intend to move after pivoting.
And game wise it prevents being able to use pivots to gain extra movement, which is good as it is a tactic which can help some models way more than others.
No it doesn't - turn rhino 180 degrees, move 6", turn 180 degrees. Nothing has ended more than 6" from where it started in the movement phase...
Except that without that second 180, your rhino has moved 10" instead of 6.
And, of course, if you track the actual path of the movement, each of the rhino's front corners has moved a little more than that.
I suspect this explicit ruling is to avoid people moving 6 inches then turning before disembarking, essentially gaining an extra few inches depending on transport size.
That and the infamous 'long vehicle deployed sideways on the line, pivoting and then moving' for that extra inch or so of range.
Neither of which were bigger issues than the huge can of worms opened by a rule forcing us to track the individual movement distance of each part of the vehicle.
The alternative is a rhino that can turn 180 degrees and then drive forwards a set distance in the same amount of time as a rhino moving that same distance straight ahead without turning.
Even in a tank where you can do the opposite direction treads manoeuvre it takes time to pivot on the spot, so it makes sense that pivoting should use some of your movement, if you intend to move after pivoting.
And game wise it prevents being able to use pivots to gain extra movement, which is good as it is a tactic which can help some models way more than others.
That would make sense if just pivoting on the spot had the same effect...
No it doesn't - turn rhino 180 degrees, move 6", turn 180 degrees. Nothing has ended more than 6" from where it started in the movement phase...
Except that without that second 180, your rhino has moved 10" instead of 6.
And, of course, if you track the actual path of the movement, each of the rhino's front corners has moved a little more than that.
I suspect this explicit ruling is to avoid people moving 6 inches then turning before disembarking, essentially gaining an extra few inches depending on transport size.
That and the infamous 'long vehicle deployed sideways on the line, pivoting and then moving' for that extra inch or so of range.
Neither of which were bigger issues than the huge can of worms opened by a rule forcing us to track the individual movement distance of each part of the vehicle.
The alternative is a rhino that can turn 180 degrees and then drive forwards a set distance in the same amount of time as a rhino moving that same distance straight ahead without turning.
Even in a tank where you can do the opposite direction treads manoeuvre it takes time to pivot on the spot, so it makes sense that pivoting should use some of your movement, if you intend to move after pivoting.
And game wise it prevents being able to use pivots to gain extra movement, which is good as it is a tactic which can help some models way more than others.
That would make sense if just pivoting on the spot had the same effect...
The second 180 is the key bit in all of this though...that was my exact point, you can do it, just not in such a way that gains an advantage by having a particular facing of the vehicle move an extra 4" from where it started.
I also agree with your last sentiment that logically speaking pivoting on the spot should have the same effect now, but lots of this game doesn't work by logic
Orock wrote: Tankbustas confirmed nerfed. Anything else you would like to gak on orks with, GW?
True, but the re-roll gets hot ruling helps out KMK with ammo runts at least.
Don't worry, I'm sure GW will "fix" Orks in in the 8th ed... maybe Orks will even be the first codex released! Because that worked out so well for us in 7th.
You guys got a 7th edition codex? I didn't know that.
Did anyone stop to think that when they say no part of the vehicle may move farther than where it started they meant "it" as in the whole vehicle, not the particular part.
Pick a point in the direction you want to go, move the vehicle to that point on the table, spin in circles all you want because the vehicle only moved the distance you chose.
It specifically stops any of the turning for distance nonsense on the move, while you also have to turning in place counts as stationary specific caveat.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Did anyone stop to think that when they say no part of the vehicle may move farther than where it started they meant "it" as in the whole vehicle, not the particular part.
Pick a point in the direction you want to go, move the vehicle to that point on the table, spin in circles all you want because the vehicle only moved the distance you chose.
It specifically stops any of the turning for distance nonsense on the move, while you also have to turning in place counts as stationary specific caveat.
NO....but like.... I can see how this would also be a 100% logical way to interpret the FAQ (As it is written)....and arguably makes more sense...especially since some vehicles are longer than 6".
Saw this on bols comment section and couldn't stop laughing
They randomly gave flyers a 90 degree vertical arc. When they do arbitrary stuff like this, the problem still is nothing lets you shoot through your own hull so all those wing mounted weapons aren't gaining much in the up department even with the change from 22.5 to 45 degrees up/down.
"Q: What is the vertical firing arc for shooting from Flyers, and
how is this split between targets above and below the shooter?
A: Assume that weapons can swivel 90° vertically – 45°
upwards and 45° downwards."
This one just shows you jervis's contempt:
"Q: Can Bikes, Super-heavy Walkers, Walkers, and Monstrous
Creatures move and/or assault units on the higher levels
of ruins?
A: Yes. For simplicity and ease of play, the core game
rules allow most models to climb any piece of scenery.
Use the ‘Wobbly Model Syndrome’ rule if it is not
possible to place the model in the position it is meant
to be occupying. If you wish, you may want to say that
models are only allowed to move to places that they
could reach ‘in real life’, but you will need to apply a
certain amount of common sense and discretion in
order to make such a rule work well.."
Common sense and discretion? Better yet, should the person writing the rules not be applying some common sense and discretion'? No, apparently, that has to be argued for and played differently on every table, in every club and basement because making a ruleset into mad libs didn't destroy the damn game. 5th seemed to work fine in that no one was batting an eye that their biker couldn't assend thin air drive on the upper levels of ruins or cliffs. I mean, what was the point of jumpt or jet or jetbike or skimmer units if everything can essentially fly?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Did anyone stop to think that when they say no part of the vehicle may move farther than where it started they meant "it" as in the whole vehicle, not the particular part.
Pick a point in the direction you want to go, move the vehicle to that point on the table, spin in circles all you want because the vehicle only moved the distance you chose.
It specifically stops any of the turning for distance nonsense on the move, while you also have to turning in place counts as stationary specific caveat.
I've always interpreted it that way. Doesn't stop me wishing they'd cleared it up by simply replacing 'it' with 'the vehicle'.
You can't use beams, focused witchfires, or novas from transports? What you smoking 
