jeffersonian000 wrote:


Book, page number, the passage in quotes.

SJ

Of what?

Are you looking for something separate to the normal rules for embarking?

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Book, page number, the passage in quotes.

SJ

Of what?

Are you looking for something separate to the normal rules for embarking?

Please cite the rules you think exist supporting a unit embarking on a zooming transport. Please include the book, the page number, and the passage in question.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Please cite the rules you think exist supporting a unit embarking on a zooming transport. Please include the book, the page number, and the passage in question.

SJ

You're not getting a page number, as I only carry my digital copy at work.

The Flyer Transport rules tell us that models can't embark on a zooming flyer unless stated otherwise.

The FAQ states that models can embark on the Nightscythe. That satisfies the 'unless otherwise stated' portion of the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Please cite the rules you think exist supporting a unit embarking on a zooming transport. Please include the book, the page number, and the passage in question.

SJ

You're not getting a page number, as I only carry my digital copy at work.

The Flyer Transport rules tell us that models can't embark on a zooming flyer unless stated otherwise.

The FAQ states that models can embark on the Nightscythe. That satisfies the 'unless otherwise stated' portion of the rules.

No, it doesn't. The FAQ answer does not grant permission, nor is it Errata.

SJ

If we're disagreeing over the meaning of the word 'yes', I'm not really sure that this discussion is likely to go anywhere useful from here...

... so then, "No"?

 insaniak wrote:
If we're disagreeing over the meaning of the word 'yes', I'm not really sure that this discussion is likely to go anywhere useful from here...

No, we are disagreeing about the phrase "otherwise noted". In order for an exception to a rule to occur, the exception needs to be clearly noted. The FAQ response is not a clear exception to the restriction on units nit being allowed to embark on zooming flyers. If the response included an explanation, or if the response was an Errata, this would be a different story. Unfortunately, the answer of just "yes" contradicts the rules as written while offering no insight as to how we can break the rules to implement the "yes". Since it is a draft FAQ, and the answer is obviously wrong, we can hope for either the correct answer to appear in the official FAQ when it is released, or for an Errata or addendum that informs us on how the Night Scythe is an exception to normal rules and that units can embark during the game because <insert reason>. As neither has occured, in order to comply with the "yes", we have to invent rules that allow a unit to embark on a zooming transport. Term for such a rule is "houserule".

SJ

Call it what you will, it no longer matters.
They say it can be done; everyone will play it this way, now.
(though, yes, further clarification for the final draft would be nice, so arguments such as this don't need to come up anymore. I'm hoping everyone who has seen this has commented as such on the relevant FB post)

 skoffs wrote:
Call it what you will, it no longer matters.
They say it can be done; everyone will play it this way, now.
(though, yes, further clarification for the final draft would be nice, so arguments such as this don't need to come up anymore. I'm hoping everyone who has seen this has commented as such on the relevant FB post)

Which is what I advocate in every one of these threads, including this one.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
In order for an exception to a rule to occur, the exception needs to be clearly noted.

"Hey, guy, can I climb aboard?'

"Yes, go ahead!"

"Sorry, what?"

"Yes, get in!"

"I don't understand what you mean. Can I get in, or not?"

"Yes!!!"

"What's that supposed to mean? Seriously, man, I just want to get on board!"

"YES! Get in!"

"Nope, still not getting it. Can I get in, or ... wait! Where are you going? Come back!"

As neither has occured, in order to comply with the "yes", we have to invent rules that allow a unit to embark on a zooming transport. Term for such a rule is "houserule".

We need do no such thing. We're given permission to embark, so in the absence of any rule saying to do otherwise we follow the normal rules for embarking.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
In order for an exception to a rule to occur, the exception needs to be clearly noted.

"Hey, guy, can I climb aboard?'

"Yes, go ahead!"

"Sorry, what?"

"Yes, get in!"

"I don't understand what you mean. Can I get in, or not?"

"Yes!!!"

"What's that supposed to mean? Seriously, man, I just want to get on board!"

"YES! Get in!"

"Nope, still not getting it. Can I get in, or ... wait! Where are you going? Come back!"

As neither has occured, in order to comply with the "yes", we have to invent rules that allow a unit to embark on a zooming transport. Term for such a rule is "houserule".

We need do no such thing. We're given permission to embark, so in the absence of any rule saying to do otherwise we follow the normal rules for embarking.

No problem! Please cite the rule you think exists that states how a unit embarks on a zooming transport. Please include the book, the page number (if you can), and quote the passage in question.

SJ

What leads you to believe that it's any different to embarking on any other transport?

Should I also find you the rule that states how a unit embarks on a blue transport, or one with wheels?

If you have permission to embark on a zooming transport (which the FAQ provides) the fact that it is zooming becomes completely irrelevant, as there are no rules that tell us to follow different embarking rules for zooming transports than those used for any other transport.

 insaniak wrote:
What leads you to believe that it's any different to embarking on any other transport?

Should I also find you the rule that states how a unit embarks on a blue transport, or one with wheels?

If you have permission to embark on a zooming transport (which the FAQ provides) the fact that it is zooming becomes completely irrelevant, as there are no rules that tell us to follow different embarking rules for zooming transports than those used for any other transport.

The part in the BRB under Transports that tells us a unit cannot embark on a zooming flyer would be the one I have been referring to. All I'm asking is that you support your statement with actual rules. So please, cite the rules that bypass or ignore the restriction on embarking a zooming flyer. Are those rules in the Necron codex? Did the Night Scythe receive an Errata granting it the Hover special rule?

Please, let us all know the rules you think exist that allows a unit to embark on a zooming flyer. It's a simpke request, one that should be easy to comply with.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

No, we are disagreeing about the phrase "otherwise noted". In order for an exception to a rule to occur, the exception needs to be clearly noted. The FAQ response is not a clear exception to the restriction on units nit being allowed to embark on zooming flyers. If the response included an explanation, or if the response was an Errata, this would be a different story. Unfortunately, the answer of just "yes" contradicts the rules as written while offering no insight as to how we can break the rules to implement the "yes". Since it is a draft FAQ, and the answer is obviously wrong, we can hope for either the correct answer to appear in the official FAQ when it is released, or for an Errata or addendum that informs us on how the Night Scythe is an exception to normal rules and that units can embark during the game because <insert reason>. As neither has occured, in order to comply with the "yes", we have to invent rules that allow a unit to embark on a zooming transport. Term for such a rule is "houserule".

SJ

Your entire approach that you outline here is your house rule (which I have marked in red).



No where does GW tell us to proceed in this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What leads you to believe that it's any different to embarking on any other transport?

Should I also find you the rule that states how a unit embarks on a blue transport, or one with wheels?

If you have permission to embark on a zooming transport (which the FAQ provides) the fact that it is zooming becomes completely irrelevant, as there are no rules that tell us to follow different embarking rules for zooming transports than those used for any other transport.

The part in the BRB under Transports that tells us a unit cannot embark on a zooming flyer would be the one I have been referring to. All I'm asking is that you support your statement with actual rules. So please, cite the rules that bypass or ignore the restriction on embarking a zooming flyer. Are those rules in the Necron codex? Did the Night Scythe receive an Errata granting it the Hover special rule?

Please, let us all know the rules you think exist that allows a unit to embark on a zooming flyer. It's a simpke request, one that should be easy to comply with.

SJ

If the Draft FAQ is officially released in its current form, then there will be an official ruling allowing the unit to embark on the Night Scythe.

col_impact wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

No, we are disagreeing about the phrase "otherwise noted". In order for an exception to a rule to occur, the exception needs to be clearly noted. The FAQ response is not a clear exception to the restriction on units nit being allowed to embark on zooming flyers. If the response included an explanation, or if the response was an Errata, this would be a different story. Unfortunately, the answer of just "yes" contradicts the rules as written while offering no insight as to how we can break the rules to implement the "yes". Since it is a draft FAQ, and the answer is obviously wrong, we can hope for either the correct answer to appear in the official FAQ when it is released, or for an Errata or addendum that informs us on how the Night Scythe is an exception to normal rules and that units can embark during the game because <insert reason>. As neither has occured, in order to comply with the "yes", we have to invent rules that allow a unit to embark on a zooming transport. Term for such a rule is "houserule".

SJ

Your entire approach that you outline here is your house rule (which I have marked in red).



No where does GW tell us to proceed in this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What leads you to believe that it's any different to embarking on any other transport?

Should I also find you the rule that states how a unit embarks on a blue transport, or one with wheels?

If you have permission to embark on a zooming transport (which the FAQ provides) the fact that it is zooming becomes completely irrelevant, as there are no rules that tell us to follow different embarking rules for zooming transports than those used for any other transport.

The part in the BRB under Transports that tells us a unit cannot embark on a zooming flyer would be the one I have been referring to. All I'm asking is that you support your statement with actual rules. So please, cite the rules that bypass or ignore the restriction on embarking a zooming flyer. Are those rules in the Necron codex? Did the Night Scythe receive an Errata granting it the Hover special rule?

Please, let us all know the rules you think exist that allows a unit to embark on a zooming flyer. It's a simpke request, one that should be easy to comply with.

SJ

If the Draft FAQ is officially released in its current form, then there will be an official ruling allowing the unit to embark on the Night Scythe.

How about:

ZOOM
“A Zooming Flyer can move over intervening units and impassable terrain exactly as a Skimmer. In addition, a Zooming Flyer does not have to take Dangerous Terrain tests even if it starts or stops over difficult, dangerous or impassable terrain. Finally, unless otherwise stated, models cannot embark upon, or voluntarily disembark from, a Zooming Flyer.”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” Games Workshop Ltd, 2015-10-01T15:20:51Z. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/AjAB0.l

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

The part in the BRB under Transports that tells us a unit cannot embark on a zooming flyer would be the one I have been referring to.

That tells you that a unit can not normally embark on a zooming flyer.

It doesn't tell you that you should use anything other than the normal embarking rules if something does grant permission to embark on a zooming flyer.



In this specific case, the FAQ tells us that we can embark on this specific zooming flyer, so we can embark on this specific zooming flyer, and we would follow the normal rules for embarking to do so.

Did the Night Scythe receive an Errata granting it the Hover special rule?

It doesn't need the Hover rule. It just needs something 'stating otherwise' to satisfy the statement in the flyer rules that tells us that units can't embark on a zooming flyer unless stated otherwise.

Please, let us all know the rules you think exist that allows a unit to embark on a zooming flyer.

The rules for flyers allow a unit to embark on a zooming flyer, so long as something says that they're allowed to.

The FAQ says they're allowed to.

unless otherwise stated, models cannot embark upon, or voluntarily disembark from, a Zooming Flyer

Q: Can unit embark on a Night Scythe other than during deployment?
A: Yes.

...
It would appear they have stated otherwise.

And again, the Night Scythe has a special rule that allows for units to disembark while the Night Scythe is zooming. The Night Scythe does not have a rule that allows for units to embark while it is zooming. The FAQ response did not include an explanation nor an Errata. The single word response of "yes" breaks to rules. It is either a mistake, as seen in previous FAQs, or the Errata changing the Night Scythe's transport capacity to 15 is missing the part where either Hover is granted or permission to embark while zooming is granted.

So please, support your argument with actual rules. You think thise rules exist, all I'm asking is that you share them with us.

SJ

You're not going to get a response that satisfies you here, because no matter how many times you ask the same question the answer will remain the same.


You are of course free to disagree with the idea that granting permission in the FAQ is sufficient, but I suspect that it will be more than enough for most players.

This is how everyone will be playing it.
...
Well, everyone bar one, perhaps.

pretty sure a "yes" is as clear as you can get to being "unless otherwise stated". No rule is broken in this regard since it has been otherwise stated through the FAQ.Granted that is if the draft stays the way it is.

I leave DakkaDakka for a year, now I have a headache when I come back.

I don't even understand how you can argue that an official ruling, even if only a draft or beta, is a house rule.

The FAQ if very clear, you can embark on a Night Scythe even though it is a zooming flyer.

I understand trying to follow the letter of the rule and the fun tricks and "cheats" you can develop out of it, but sometimes it is good to take a step back, make some food, and go for a jog to clear your mind and get a fresh perspective of it.

Not a necron player and this reads like some excellent theatre but I have one follow up question:

*How* exactly would you embark on a zooming night scythe? Where are the access points?

As they've said previously, the flyer base is considered the access point.
(from a fluff point of view, they're getting beamed up, so there's no particular "door" they need to get in)

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again, the Night Scythe has a special rule that allows for units to disembark while the Night Scythe is zooming. The Night Scythe does not have a rule that allows for units to embark while it is zooming. The FAQ response did not include an explanation nor an Errata. The single word response of "yes" breaks to rules. It is either a mistake, as seen in previous FAQs, or the Errata changing the Night Scythe's transport capacity to 15 is missing the part where either Hover is granted or permission to embark while zooming is granted.

So please, support your argument with actual rules. You think thise rules exist, all I'm asking is that you share them with us.

SJ

The transport capacity was already 15, so that was not a change.

The "Yes" answer is applied to the "unless otherwise stated" part of the rule you quoted.

BRB says models cannot embark on Zooming Flyers, unless otherwise stated.
Necron FAQ says we ignore that restriction for the Night Scythe. (hence the "Yes" you may embark).

We need only look for the normal rules for embarking to know how we can do what GW has no given permission for us to do.
Failing that, the rule that allows models to DISembark from the Night Scythe are applied to embarking.

-

Which again demonstrates the difference between an FAQ response and an Errata.

SJ

Which, again, does not matter unless you're deliberately trying to be obtuse.

 skoffs wrote:
Which, again, does not matter unless you're deliberately trying to be obtuse.

It only doesn't matter when you don't understand the difference between a clarification and a rule.

SJ

Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

 malamis wrote:
Not a necron player and this reads like some excellent theatre but I have one follow up question:

*How* exactly would you embark on a zooming night scythe? Where are the access points?

The final sentence in the Access Points section of Transports (page 80) states the base is treated as an access point. With the permission from the FAQ, you can use the base for embarking.

For those that are wondering, the Necron codex itself states that the Nightscythe has an access point directly under it's hull.

I'm guessing a lot of people glossed over this fact because we were too busy arguing whether or not you could embark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which makes sense with the FAQ, considering what's directly under the hull is the Invasion Beam.

 Nilok wrote:
I leave DakkaDakka for a year, now I have a headache when I come back.

I don't even understand how you can argue that an official ruling, even if only a draft or beta, is a house rule.

The FAQ if very clear, you can embark on a Night Scythe even though it is a zooming flyer.

I understand trying to follow the letter of the rule and the fun tricks and "cheats" you can develop out of it, but sometimes it is good to take a step back, make some food, and go for a jog to clear your mind and get a fresh perspective of it.

I leave for a few days and get the same thing. There is more of 'Hey they told us we can do a thing, but here is why we still can't' than there is 'We are supposed to be able to do this thing, let's figure out how.'

The recent bits about how both the Tesla Spheres and Embarking on a Nightscythe show that there are a few players who won't try to figure out how to work it. Tesla Spheres are defined as sponsons. What some interpret to be the Barrel, or that you must have one to be able to draw a line to, conflicts with the FAQ. I can see I'm not the only one who has just figured out that LoS can be drawn from the Orb part. I'm not hung up on there being a Barrel and that limits its Sight options because the part is fixed. It seems like a lot of effort to stop the 5 shots from an AP- weapon, that's most likely going to be snapfiring when it starts to Thunderblitz. Especially on a model that rarely sees table time as is.

Same goes for the Nightscythe. Not having permission to embark on a zooming flyer in the rules prevents the FAQ from happening. Again, we just go off the base. It seems like a lot of work just to prevent someone from removing shots for a turn. Outside of maybe getting the Warlord out of harms way I can't really see any tactical benefit from doing it. Necrons have a huge ground presence as is, and flyers are rarely seen. Death from the Skies made flyers in general even less practical. So why the effort to prevent something we're told we can do, on something that isn't often, in an army that doesn't really benefit from it? I don't think we'll ever know.

Personally, I think too many people here treat YMDC as a place to get a definite answer on how a thing should work. It's a good place to come and hear all sides of an argument so that YOU can make the call, and not have it made for you. Which is what keeps me coming back. I'll ask questions when something I don't know is stated, and then make up my own mind. I kind of miss the days when this forum did that. 'Here is how most people will play it, but be aware that some people will try and do this other thing.' It's like we've forgotten how to just let our opponents roll some dice and have a good time.

The upside, is it becomes quite clear who the repeat offenders are, and it sorts out your ignore list real fast. It's a good solution to the whole 'Can't Sleep, someone on the Internet is Wrong!' scenario.

YMDC has always been a breeding ground for people with an obsessive need to argue with people. The one good thing about this whole FAQ fiasco is that I can legitimately say that these people are now willfully ignoring the words of the game's actual creators

This whole argument is stupid.

If there is an FAQ that should have been an ERRATA, what do we do with it? Either:

1 - pretend it's an ERRATA

or

2 - ignore it completely, as if had never existed.

People who are arguing for #2 are not thinking clearly. It is GW we are talking about; they are never very good at ruling and classifying.

To imply that we should just ignore the thing completely because GW put it in the wrong column is just daft. If we eliminate all rules, rulings and FAQs that were slightly imperfect the entire world of 40k could be printed on a postcard.

The only answer that makes any sense, from GW, is #1.

Also:

for those that are claiming FAQs are house rules: It is a VERY big house..it literally encompass the known universe. And...just because they are house rules it does not give you the right to disobey them.

If you can browbeat your "friends" into houseruling the houserules, than you win! Yea! Victory for you! Woo hoo!

If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.

 JimOnMars wrote:
This whole argument is stupid.

If there is an FAQ that should have been an ERRATA, what do we do with it? Either:

1 - pretend it's an ERRATA

or

2 - ignore it completely, as if had never existed.

People who are arguing for #2 are not thinking clearly. It is GW we are talking about; they are never very good at ruling and classifying.

To imply that we should just ignore the thing completely because GW put it in the wrong column is just daft. If we eliminate all rules, rulings and FAQs that were slightly imperfect the entire world of 40k could be printed on a postcard.

The only answer that makes any sense, from GW, is #1.

Also:

for those that are claiming FAQs are house rules: It is a VERY big house..it literally encompass the known universe. And...just because they are house rules it does not give you the right to disobey them.

If you can browbeat your "friends" into houseruling the houserules, than you win! Yea! Victory for you! Woo hoo!

If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.

Actually, since we're dealing with a DRAFT FAQ, there is option 3) Post to GW in their Facebook page about the problems (perceived or real) about the draft FAQ question/answer and they may further clarify or change their answer. We've already had one draft FAQ question where they posted that they made an error; it could happen again.

 JimOnMars wrote:
This whole argument is stupid.

If there is an FAQ that should have been an ERRATA, what do we do with it? Either:

1 - pretend it's an ERRATA

or

2 - ignore it completely, as if had never existed.

People who are arguing for #2 are not thinking clearly. It is GW we are talking about; they are never very good at ruling and classifying.

To imply that we should just ignore the thing completely because GW put it in the wrong column is just daft. If we eliminate all rules, rulings and FAQs that were slightly imperfect the entire world of 40k could be printed on a postcard.

The only answer that makes any sense, from GW, is #1.

Also:

for those that are claiming FAQs are house rules: It is a VERY big house..it literally encompass the known universe. And...just because they are house rules it does not give you the right to disobey them.

If you can browbeat your "friends" into houseruling the houserules, than you win! Yea! Victory for you! Woo hoo!

If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.

About like 2-3 pages back someone literally said that the source of the ruling is irrelevant if they didn't like the ruling. Basically they're already arguing for the Death of the Author Trope just to justify how they're not wrong.

 Forcast wrote:
Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

Why would GW answer 'Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists'? 'Yes', when they actually meant 'No' ..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Forcast wrote:
Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

Why would GW answer 'Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists'? 'Yes', when they actually meant 'No' ..?

I'm not familiar with what you are talking about. Did they reverse an FAQ or something?

If so then I'll be ok with a new FAQ that changes their answer to no, but until then it seems pretty silly to argue that by saying "yes" they meant "lol yes but if you read the rules its not possible, so actually no" when they could have just not answered at all and gotten the same result.

At the same time, nothing is preventing anyone from posting on their Facebook page and asking for clarification.

If they clarify then great, but if they don't then its pretty ridiculous to find some lawyery way around the FAQ to make it say "no" instead.

Charistoph and Jeffersonian00,

in your opinion is this faq item just a house rule?

.

 Forcast wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Forcast wrote:
Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

Why would GW answer 'Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists'? 'Yes', when they actually meant 'No' ..?

I'm not familiar with what you are talking about. Did they reverse an FAQ or something?

If so then I'll be ok with a new FAQ that changes their answer to no, but until then it seems pretty silly to argue that by saying "yes" they meant "lol yes but if you read the rules its not possible, so actually no" when they could have just not answered at all and gotten the same result.

At the same time, nothing is preventing anyone from posting on their Facebook page and asking for clarification.

If they clarify then great, but if they don't then its pretty ridiculous to find some lawyery way around the FAQ to make it say "no" instead.

The posted picture said that Apothecaries could take the various weapons. In the post itself, they said "Oops, we goofed, it's suppose to be no." (not necessarily in those words).

Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

What GW provides in the faq answers are official rulings, not house rulings.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written.

What, then you would do about erratas without an explanation?

If GW had put the exact same verbiage on the errata page you would magically be gung-ho in favor of it? Even knowing that GW is terrible at differentiating the two?

You trust GW's clerical abilities that much?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

If by faq responder you mean the actual rules team who wrote the rules.

And if by how they would play it they mean no you are wrong and playing incorrectly and this is how we wrote the rules that you don't understand how to play.

Then yes you are correct!!!

People already supported thier statements with many many pages of arguments ymdc on many topics. The fact you continue to ignore all the people who stated you can't share rules with independant characters (and other similar arguments) and even now still continue to argue how the rules team who wrote the rules are wrong and somehow your interpretation is the only correct interpretation shows that you are to stubborn to accept the fact you are wrong. It's somehow both funny and sad you and a handful of others continue to make a mess of this forum.

I think the purpose of the FAQ is to help when two players have an argument.

In the case of an argument between two players on whether you can embark on a Night Scythe, they would turn to the official FAQ and find the answer is Yes.

That means that, effectively, everyone is just going to play it that way because why not? And if you don't think it should happen virtually any TO is going to cite the Official FAQ.

So yeah, I think this argument is pretty moot. Though, its not official just yet so perhaps they will overturn it.

gungo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

If by faq responder you mean the actual rules team who wrote the rules.

And if by how they would play it they mean no you are wrong and playing incorrectly and this is how we wrote the rules that you don't understand how to play.

Then yes you are correct!!!

People already supported thier statements with many many pages of arguments ymdc on many topics. The fact you continue to ignore all the people who stated you can't share rules with independant characters (and other similar arguments) and even now still continue to argue how the rules team who wrote the rules are wrong and somehow your interpretation is the only correct interpretation shows that you are to stubborn to accept the fact you are wrong. It's somehow both funny and sad you and a handful of others continue to make a mess of this forum.

I already tried pointing out how GW's own facebook page stated this came from the authors who wrote the rules. I was basically told that the rules team didn't understand the intention behind their own rules. Apparently their word is worth jack unless printed in a codex, then they're just idiots for not printing the right set of words that conform to a very specific, very weirdly read english sentence.

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

Plus a lot of these people are claiming the skies are falling when GW themselves stated that, being a first Draft, these can be overturned. Plus it's not like they really need to give us a heads up for overturning rules either; the FAQs of Olde never did. Remember when the Helturkey's Baleflamer could no longer be farted out the back? I do

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

I suspect that you're blowing a very small group up into something far out of proportion here.

 insaniak wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

I suspect that you're blowing a very small group up into something far out of proportion here.

If I remember the thread lasted for a good few pages and it wasn't the usual "two people bickering" type either, which to me says that there are a good deal more people that believe it than the usual troublemakers. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

gungo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

If by faq responder you mean the actual rules team who wrote the rules.

And if by how they would play it they mean no you are wrong and playing incorrectly and this is how we wrote the rules that you don't understand how to play.

Then yes you are correct!!!

People already supported thier statements with many many pages of arguments ymdc on many topics. The fact you continue to ignore all the people who stated you can't share rules with independant characters (and other similar arguments) and even now still continue to argue how the rules team who wrote the rules are wrong and somehow your interpretation is the only correct interpretation shows that you are to stubborn to accept the fact you are wrong. It's somehow both funny and sad you and a handful of others continue to make a mess of this forum.

I already tried pointing out how GW's own facebook page stated this came from the authors who wrote the rules. I was basically told that the rules team didn't understand the intention behind their own rules. Apparently their word is worth jack unless printed in a codex, then they're just idiots for not printing the right set of words that conform to a very specific, very weirdly read english sentence.

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

Plus a lot of these people are claiming the skies are falling when GW themselves stated that, being a first Draft, these can be overturned. Plus it's not like they really need to give us a heads up for overturning rules either; the FAQs of Olde never did. Remember when the Helturkey's Baleflamer could no longer be farted out the back? I do

First baseless assumptions and ad hominem attacks on the rules team because they didn't intend the rules you interpreted to be your assumptions is completely fabricated and unfounded. Because some random person told you they have no idea what their intentions are?

Secondly GW directly stated this draft of faqs will not be overturned. This isn't a popular vote system. Seriously where do you come up with your nonesense?

Finally the reason a good portion said to wait for the final draft isn't to overturn rules it's because the rules team still aren't clear in thier rules writing. And 40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want. No one ever claimed GW are good rules writers.

gungo wrote:
40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want.

Sig worthy

 adamsouza wrote:

gungo wrote:
40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want.

Sig worthy

I'm pretty sure that needs to be the official description of YMDC on the forum index page.

 EnTyme wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

gungo wrote:
40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want.

Sig worthy

I'm pretty sure that needs to be the official description of YMDC on the forum index page.

I confess I enjoy reading some of the ludicrous results of strict RAW interpretations. I think it helps me to better understand the rules and to better design any house rules I might want to come up with. "Usually" for the really silly arguments people are very clear about the fact that they're arguing about what the RAW actually say - not how they, or any decent human being, should actually play the game.

Even when the occasional person does cling to a strict RAW interpretation of a silly rules interaction I can at least understand where they're coming from.

Having said that, this bizarre argument that GW published a rules change in an FAQ, not an Errata so therefore it doesn't apply, is a new bottom of the absurdity barrel.

....4 pages of meaningless back and forth and I chime in just in time for the red warning.

Back to the actual topic please.

If there's no new discussion until the next FAQ then, well, we'll cope.

We can do without the spam too -- this includes posts that are just images.

Thank you.

gungo wrote:
Secondly GW directly stated this draft of faqs will not be overturned. This isn't a popular vote system. Seriously where do you come up with your nonesense?

Did they state that before or after their posting of a "we goofed" response with a change to one of the FAQs?

I'd say there's a chance they might find another mistake, but odds are very good that no other particular statement will be overturned. Unfortunately, there probably won't be further elaboration on the FAQ answers where it would help clarify some things.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

Codex Tyranids HERE

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights HERE

Codex Necrons HERE

Codex Chaos Daemons HERE

Chaos Daemon FAQ is up. This should be the last draft FAQ unless they decide to add Deathwatch.

The Nurgling grenade question was confusing. I saw the "No" before completely reading the question and was about to rage. Why did they pick such and awkwardly worded question.

FYI: Yes, they can still throw poop grenades

Making Exalted Flamers into Jump Infantry was ...odd. Jet-Pack Infantry would have made them better. But at least now you can move them with Flamers or get them into a good position to fire their Heavy weapons.

Kinda sad that Tetrad Khorne Princes can't be Psykers, but it makes sense at least.

-

I am not a fan of the command benefit they put in the errata at the end. I think what that means is that fateweaver from a CAD would only know three change powers while fateweaver from a Daemonic incursion would know six. If you have a screamerstar that consists of two heralds and one herald is from a CAD and one is from Daemonic incursion they need two different charts to generate from.

Maybe I'm alone in disliking identical models using different rules depending on which book they are taken from.

 vercingatorix wrote:
I am not a fan of the command benefit they put in the errata at the end. I think what that means is that fateweaver from a CAD would only know three change powers while fateweaver from a Daemonic incursion would know six. If you have a screamerstar that consists of two heralds and one herald is from a CAD and one is from Daemonic incursion they need two different charts to generate from.

Maybe I'm alone in disliking identical models using different rules depending on which book they are taken from.

Fateweaver doesn't generate his Change powers, he always knows them all, so there would never be a difference between him from a CAD or from an Incursion. He would know all 7 powers either way.

This rule allows Incursion Psykers to lift the "half generated for your Patron god" restriction in the main codex. So a ML3 LoC from a CAD can only generate 2 powers from Change, whereas form an Incursion he could generate all 3, then would gain Flickering fire for Psychic focus.

It's interesting that Daemons get Chaos focus and Psychic focus. So a Pink Horror unit can have 3 powers (but only use 1)

-

 Galef wrote:

 vercingatorix wrote:
I am not a fan of the command benefit they put in the errata at the end. I think what that means is that fateweaver from a CAD would only know three change powers while fateweaver from a Daemonic incursion would know six. If you have a screamerstar that consists of two heralds and one herald is from a CAD and one is from Daemonic incursion they need two different charts to generate from.

Maybe I'm alone in disliking identical models using different rules depending on which book they are taken from.

Fateweaver doesn't generate his Change powers, he always knows them all, so there would never be a difference between him from a CAD or from an Incursion.

This rule allows Incursion Psykers to lift the "half generated for your Patron god" restriction in the main codex.

Okay, yeah, looks like your right. I had a knee-jerk reaction. It does mean that the LoC can't take advantage of the endless grimoire unless he's in an incursion. Which sucks because that's what I was using for my list. Oh well.

So does this mean we definitely are replacing the old change table?

i like the hint that FNP should never be better than 2+, for some odd combination some marines with clan Raukaan tried to attain in the past.

 vercingatorix wrote:


Okay, yeah, looks like your right. I had a knee-jerk reaction. It does mean that the LoC can't take advantage of the endless grimoire unless he's in an incursion. Which sucks because that's what I was using for my list. Oh well.

So does this mean we definitely are replacing the old change table?

Yes, the tables are definitely replaced. Or at least nothing MAKES you use the old tables.

I'm not sure how you were using the Endless Grimoire for your LoC before this Errata, since a LoC is ML2 base and could not generate all it's powers from Change. Only a ML1 Psyker could benefit before this Errata. Now Psykers in the Incursion can benefit no matter how many ML they have, but not before.

-

I got conflicting feelings about the Exalted flamers too. Jetpack Infantry seemed like it would fit like a glove for that unit. Here's hoping that down the road (either in a new errata or a codex update) they change the guns to being Assault instead of Heavy.

 Galef wrote:

 vercingatorix wrote:


Okay, yeah, looks like your right. I had a knee-jerk reaction. It does mean that the LoC can't take advantage of the endless grimoire unless he's in an incursion. Which sucks because that's what I was using for my list. Oh well.

So does this mean we definitely are replacing the old change table?

Yes, the tables are definitely replaced. Or at least nothing MAKES you use the old tables.

I'm not sure how you were using the Endless Grimoire for your LoC before this Errata, since a LoC is ML2 base and could not generate all it's powers from Change. Only a ML1 Psyker could benefit before this Errata. Now Psykers in the Incursion can benefit no matter how many ML they have, but not before.

-

NOVA, Adepticon, and ITC all ruled that the "half rounding up" rule was out. As it doesn't make sense with 6 options on the table. Obviously RAW it isn't allowed but who plays by straight rule book?/s

I wonder how they will "house rule" it now that it makes the new command benefit errata redundant?
Tourney house rules are great when they clarify stuff, but once they start flat out ignoring or changing rules, I have an issue with that.

It doesn't seem like a purposeful nerf to CAD characters.

I doubt this conversation ever happened
"Well, these characters are from a cad so I think it makes sense that they can't generate three powers. Oh, also we only want level 1 heralds from CADS using the endless grimoire. It really makes the best sense for LoC and DPs to be from an incursion to use this wargear"

I find inadvertent complication more frustrating then tourney house rules ignoring rules. Each to their own though.

How on earth is a new daemon player supposed to make sense of this? Saying "The new daemon book powers completely replace the new powers, including the ban on generating all your powers on one table." is what all the tournaments did because it was simple, doesn't change power levels all that much, and for those reasons, seems RAI.

If they're still limiting the psykers ability to generate I think there is some argument for using the old table, even for fatweaver.

Though I doubt people would. I guess I'm just frustrated that this is a "solved issue" so to speak that had an elegant solution and is now "solved" with an inelegant one.

Finally the Chaos Focus vs Psychic Focus debate can rest!

 Shandara wrote:
Finally the Chaos Focus vs Psychic Focus debate can rest!

Agreed, even though I don't like the ruling, at least the debate is over. So now pink horrors can roll on Malefic and gain 3 total powers (Flickering Fire, Summoning & whatever was rolled), but only ever cast 1 per turn (since ML1)

Lord Perversor wrote:
i like the hint that FNP should never be better than 2+, for some odd combination some marines with clan Raukaan tried to attain in the past.

Well that's probably related to I think the initial, general FAQ draft saying "FNP can't be better than 2+ from now on". So, in the past it WAS possible, even though clearly not intended.

What codexes are we missing at this point?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codexes are we missing at this point?

Aside from a potential Deathwatch one, I think all have been covered.

Maybe we'll start getting the finished "un-draft" products?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codexes are we missing at this point?

The following could (but not necessarily will) receive FAQ's:

- Codex: Deathwatch
- Stronghold Assault
- Codex: Cadia (Astra Militarum Supplement)


I think that's it.

I know I'm late to the party, but I'm quite surprised that the discussion about the Necron FaQ was only about some gun and how to embark on a transport when it gave a ruling that I find rather gamebreaking:
There is no way now to bring RP in a decurion with Cryptek/Szeras to worse than 4+?
This right here killed off every answer to necrons I had. So far I used Vindicators and ID to bring them down to 5+ to at least have a chance to kill something, with this ruling there is absolutely no way to kill them. Playing against Necrons is already very tiresome, as they don't need tactics and simply won't die, you needed the largest weapons to kill off their basic line troopers. But now? There is only D weapons and stomps left. Which I don't have available now that GW pulled the Knight box from the retailers...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I know I'm late to the party, but I'm quite surprised that the discussion about the Necron FaQ was only about some gun and how to embark on a transport when it gave a ruling that I find rather gamebreaking:
There is no way now to bring RP in a decurion with Cryptek/Szeras to worse than 4+?
This right here killed off every answer to necrons I had. So far I used Vindicators and ID to bring them down to 5+ to at least have a chance to kill something, with this ruling there is absolutely no way to kill them. Playing against Necrons is already very tiresome, as they don't need tactics and simply won't die, you needed the largest weapons to kill off their basic line troopers. But now? There is only D weapons and stomps left. Which I don't have available now that GW pulled the Knight box from the retailers...

While annoying for sure, it's not surprising. Most people I know played it that you totalled up all the modifiers before seeing what the end result was, meaning that a Cryptek in a squad in a Decurion would prevent it from suffering the penalty due to Instant Death weapons. While there may be some tactical or strategic implications of this, it was not unexpected.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codexes are we missing at this point?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/930/689817.page#8858024

 Yarium wrote:
The following could (but not necessarily will) receive FAQ's:

- Codex: Deathwatch
- Stronghold Assault
- Codex: Cadia (Astra Militarum Supplement)


I think that's it.

The Cadian list already has an errata in the Astra Militarum FAQ.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

There is no way now to bring RP in a decurion with Cryptek/Szeras to worse than 4+?
This right here killed off every answer to necrons I had. So far I used Vindicators and ID to bring them down to 5+ to at least have a chance to kill something, with this ruling there is absolutely no way to kill them. Playing against Necrons is already very tiresome, as they don't need tactics and simply won't die, you needed the largest weapons to kill off their basic line troopers. But now? There is only D weapons and stomps left. Which I don't have available now that GW pulled the Knight box from the retailers...

There is soo much hyperbole in this post...must resist....

You don't destroy Necrons like they are Space Marines, you destroy Necrons with volume of fire.

This seems like an alien concept to some players, since armies designed around facing MEQs usually do well against everything, that isn't Necrons.

NOTE: To the one guy who is going to provide some ridiculous Math Hammer example of exactly how many shots to kill something with 4+/4++ om average takes, you can save those precious minutes typing. You have to force them to make saves, or they don't die. Getting worked up on how many saves is counterproductive. Math hammer relies on averages, averages happen over time. Your Bolter fire could be met with a fistful of 1s, 2s, and 3s on his RP saves.

I'm a Necron player. I've explained this dirty little secret to the other people in my gaming group, and they must think I'm employing some Tzeentch level tactics, since they returned with more Thunder Hammers and Grav Cents, instead of more bolters. It didn't go well for them.

You might claim that, but you can't engage Necrons with boltguns. You need high ROF S6/7 to force the kinds of saves necessary to get enough failures. S4 is too low. I know this, because S4 is too low to engage marines, who have inferior durability. Necrons will table you before you stop them with bolters.

You don't shoot necrons and expect to wipe them out efficiently, you sweep them in combat.

Martel732 wrote:
You might claim that, but you can't engage Necrons with boltguns. You need high ROF S6/7 to force the kinds of saves necessary to get enough failures. S4 is too low. I know this, because S4 is too low to engage marines, who have inferior durability. Necrons will table you before you stop them with bolters.

I agree with this. RoF works against Necrons but only if it wounds on 2+ or your Marines have assault 20 bolters.

 Red Corsair wrote:
You don't shoot necrons and expect to wipe them out efficiently, you sweep them in combat.

Bingo
Although Necrons do have some of the best CC counter units, so there is that

-

 adamsouza wrote:

You don't destroy Necrons like they are Space Marines, you destroy Necrons with volume of fire.

This seems like an alien concept to some players, since armies designed around facing MEQs usually do well against everything, that isn't Necrons.

This. Even the Eradicator, which is practically the Guard's Anti Necron specialist struggles to make enough of a dent before the counter fire starts. The only reliable answer i've found is the Punisher Vulture, with the Wyvern a distant second thanks to the regularity of getting popped early.

The Thing about Necrons which I believe adamsouzea is highlighting, is that your 'junk' codex options from a MEQ/CEQ perspective are the better choice in general, beyond and above the Bolters. HBolters, flamers, hell even whirlwinds are valid against the Necron phalanx. AOE attacks in particular have the peculiar effect of turning the 50%/75% resilience bonus into something of a liability since they just get more blast weapon wounds.

 malamis wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

You don't destroy Necrons like they are Space Marines, you destroy Necrons with volume of fire.

This seems like an alien concept to some players, since armies designed around facing MEQs usually do well against everything, that isn't Necrons.

This. Even the Eradicator, which is practically the Guard's Anti Necron specialist struggles to make enough of a dent before the counter fire starts. The only reliable answer i've found is the Punisher Vulture, with the Wyvern a distant second thanks to the regularity of getting popped early.

The Thing about Necrons which I believe adamsouzea is highlighting, is that your 'junk' codex options from a MEQ/CEQ perspective are the better choice in general, beyond and above the Bolters. HBolters, flamers, hell even whirlwinds are valid against the Necron phalanx. AOE attacks in particular have the peculiar effect of turning the 50%/75% resilience bonus into something of a liability since they just get more blast weapon wounds.

You can't kill them in CC(okay, with the best elite units you might kill some unsupported warriors, but that's it) because of their LD value and I2 AP2 weapons. Let alone wraiths which are probably the best tarpit unit in the game. The only thing you can do against Necrons is hope for hold objective X cards all game and win because of obsec. You won't kill them, you try to survive until the game ends and collect points. Thanks to the harvest Necrons will probably have some scarabs which are the only killable unit in their entire codex (+ transports). If you have a friendly opponent he might be willing to not use anything that brings RP to 4+. Actually that proved to be an exciting and balanced game when we did that.

Today's faq is a post asking for questions regarding a deathwatch faq which it sounds like will be posted next week for clarification.

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1676232199364079/?type=3&source=54

gungo wrote:
Today's faq is a post asking for questions regarding a deathwatch faq which it sounds like will be posted next week for clarification.

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1676232199364079/?type=3&source=54

Thanks for the link! Hopefully they clarify whether or not assault terminators can take a CML

 Red Corsair wrote:
You don't shoot necrons and expect to wipe them out efficiently, you sweep them in combat.

Good luck putting wounds on them in CC. I guess Space Wolves can. BA certainly can't cause enough damage to get past LD 10.

Wulfen and Thunderwolves killed off an orikan / nemesor / obyron / dlord star at the weekend. Needed 10 wulfen at different times.

Good for SW! At least there is one Imperial list that functions as intended other than vanilla marines.

Martel732 wrote:
Good for SW! At least there is one Imperial list that functions as intended other than vanilla marines.

It was the only time my wulfen did what they were really supposed to all weekend. Faced knights first two games, rapid firing battle cannon are NASTY

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Good for SW! At least there is one Imperial list that functions as intended other than vanilla marines.

It was the only time my wulfen did what they were really supposed to all weekend. Faced knights first two games, rapid firing battle cannon are NASTY

I guess. Most opponents kind of laugh at them. Riptide don't care!

I think necrons serve as a great army at stopping armies other than eldar/SM/daemons from reaching the top tables. Daemons can either corrupt objectives and win that way or get a D-thirster and win that way. Space marines sit on all the objectives or have giant death star of doom and run over even the most resilient necron star. Eldar make a wraithknight invisible and let it stomp out all those annoying characters.

Other armies don't really have the tools to deal with necrons all that well.


Also, none of this matters if you bring the pylons with characters. That will clear the table in short order, ESPECIALLY against death stars.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

Codex Tyranids HERE

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights HERE

Codex Necrons HERE

Codex Chaos Daemons HERE

Main Rulebook FINAL FAQ posted HERE.

Main Rulebook FINAL FAQ posted.

Q: Does the Preferred Enemy special rule allow you to re-roll
Gets Hot rolls of 1 for blast weapons (e.g. a plasma cannon)?
A: Yes.

Hooray!

Q: Does the ability to re-roll 1s allow you to re-roll scatter dice?
A: No.

Boo!

At least there's a definitive answer.

Worth a whole re-read some changes again from their previous position on the FAcebook change.


Also final no-no for abtle brothers sharing transports on deployment, only exception is 2 detachments from same fation.

Lord Perversor wrote:
Worth a whole re-read some changes again from their previous position on the FAcebook change.


Also final no-no for abtle brothers sharing transports on deployment, only exception is 2 detachments from same fation.

Which might be important depending on which units are listed as part of Codex: Imperial Agents.

So, unless I am missing something it is no longer allowed to take Krannon (the Crimson Slaughter) lord? In the (6th ed) Codex I have he was shown as a special character but created as a Lord with 3 crimson slaughter artifacts, the relevant other wargear and no marks.

They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

Q: Do non-scoring and non-Victory Point units such as Spore
Mines count as ‘units destroyed’ on Tactical Objective cards?
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Lol, well there goes the Tyranid army that you can't score Slay the Warlord against. Shame, because I thought that was REALLY clever!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on
the battlefield.

I'm pretty sure this puts the Genestealer Cult making snap shots on arrival to bed. Deploying your models from Cult Ambush is the same as Arriving from Reserves, and so is definitely considered movement!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Does a unit that is embarked on a Transport that Jinks also count as having Jinked?
A: No.

Huge, but not as big as this...

Q: If a blast template scatters onto a Skimmer, can that Skimmer still Jink even though it was not actually targeted by the shot?
A: No.

Looks like we're back to using blasts to richochet stuff again!

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.

Good tweak.

Overall, I think it's a good FAQ. Here's my highlights:

MCs/GMCs must be 25% obscured by cover in order to obtain a cover save.

Only one grenade may be used per unit per phase (including assault). So, 15 tankbustas get to use a single melta bomb in CC. I'm not a fan, but it is what it is.

Jinking has no effect on embarked passengers. Change from the draft.

One relic per model.

Blasts and templates hit all units underneath them, regardless of multiple levels.

PE does let you reroll gets hot, another change from the draft.

Blasts/templates that obtain the skyfire rule can't target a flyer. Change from the draft.

Formation rules do not apply to attached HQs (such as HQs attached to the skyhammer formation).

MCs (and presumably walkers, superheavies, etc) cannot assault multiple enemy units. A change from the draft.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

MCs (and presumably walkers, superheavies, etc) cannot assault multiple enemy units. A change from the draft.

The wording for this sucks as it has no bearing on "single model units" or units of MCs. There is no "presumably". This applies to MCs only
It can be argued that single model units can still attempt to charge 2 units, as long as they aren't MCs
And that unit of 3 Carnifexes cannot multi-charge no matter what because the FAQ.

"Psykers embarked in Transports or buildings can only cast Witchfire powers."

I'm not a big fan of that ruling. You would think that they should be able to cast blessings on a unit in the transport or building with them, or on the transport if it's that kind of blessing.

 Galef wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

MCs (and presumably walkers, superheavies, etc) cannot assault multiple enemy units. A change from the draft.

The wording for this sucks as it has no bearing on "single model units" or units of MCs. There is no "presumably". This applies to MCs only
It can be argued that single model units can still attempt to charge 2 units, as long as they aren't MCs
And that unit of 3 Carnifexes cannot multi-charge no matter what because the FAQ.

Honestly, I don't think the concept of single models multi assaulting was even introduced until the draft FAQ - at least, I hadn't ever heard of it. I don't think it has an official ruling in the BRB. So, I don't know if MCs only are restricted, as there's nothing that allows it for other units, to the best of my knowledge.

And for a brood of MCs, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to multi assault. The rule seems to apply just to lone MCs.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

I'm okay with this, personally it never made sense to me that a whole squad would just start chucking grenades at something like baseballs. That's not how actual combat works. What I do think they should have done to compensate was change the strength of some of the different grenades to make them more viable
now.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Honestly, I don't think the concept of single models multi assaulting was even introduced until the draft FAQ - at least, I hadn't ever heard of it. I don't think it has an official ruling in the BRB. So, I don't know if MCs only are restricted, as there's nothing that allows it for other units, to the best of my knowledge.

I've known of this issue since 5th ed. Under the 7th ed rules, it is "possible" but mathematically improbably if you must move in a straight line to your primary target. I liked that they changed the answer to "No", but wish they worded it more inclusively

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

And for a brood of MCs, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to multi assault. The rule seems to apply just to lone MCs.

"Seems to apply" doesn't mean it does.
My point is that the wording they used was sloppy, and has everything to do with the question that was posed by "us"
What you ask the right question, you get a better answer. Whoever asked "Can an MC charge multiple units?" should have asked "Can a single model unit charge multiple units?"


So this one I think "we" and GW can take a bit of blame for the ambiguity.
"Us" for asking a less thorough question and GW for not rewording it for clarity.

 Togusa wrote:
What I do think they should have done to compensate was change the strength of some of the different grenades to make them more viable
now.

Or better yet, make it so that the 1 grenade you get to use auto-hits. It would represent how the other members of the unit are "distracting" the target so that the 1 model using the grenade gets it attacks. That's that way it works in movies anyway.

-

 Togusa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

. . .That's not how actual combat works. . .

Obviously I can't change the ruling, but that argument never made sense to me for a number of reasons. But rather than re-hash that entire debate, the clearest issue with the ruling to me is the "twenety-man unit with lots of grenades is only as effective as a three-man unit with one grenade."

Monstrous Creature Independent Characters CANNOT join units now.

- Wraithseer just got a pretty big nerf.
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".
- How do you use Farsight Enclaves with O'vesa? Can it still start as a part of the Eight, but just never join a new unit?

Brotherhood of psykers just got a huge buff. One casting of iron arm affects the whole unit. Cursed earth dont stack. You can summon daemonkin bloodthirsters!!

-these were my takeaways. The brotherhood one is huge.

 Dayknight wrote:

Brotherhood of psykers just got a huge buff. One casting of iron arm affects the whole unit. Cursed earth dont stack. You can summon daemonkin bloodthirsters!!

-these were my takeaways. The brotherhood one is huge.

These are all unchanged from the FAQ first drafts posted last May.

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

Hey look, it seems they changed the absurdity of the draft's Gets Hot ruling, allowing re-rolls of a 1+ to work with Blasts again.

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

And casting the amount of psy powers equal to your level is an intresting shake up as now a level 1 casts one power even though they may know 2 or more. Level 2 powers and so on. They also confirmed the one power attempt per unit per power regardless if an independant character is there with the same powers.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

Where on Earth does the not an MC part come from? The rule just makes the Tyrant an IC when trying to join the Tyrant Guard which does nothing now.

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

Where on Earth does the not an MC part come from? The rule just makes the Tyrant an IC when trying to join the Tyrant Guard which does nothing now.

The rule states it acts like a IC that CAN.. again "CAN" join this unit.... why is that so hard for you? Now you are just arguing semantics to argue.

Rules state "Codex rules over BrB" Codex states "This unit CAN join the Hive Tyrant"

End.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

IC is not a unity type, it's a special rule. If you treat a Monstrous Creature as an Independent Character, it becomes a Monstrous Creature Independent Character, it doesn't lose it's Monstrous Creature unit type.

I am arguing this because that's what the YMDC forums are for. To discuss what the exact RAW of a given rule is. While Codex does usually win over BRB, there is no conflict here for it to win out on. The Codex gives you permission to treat the MC as if it had the independent character special rule for the purpose of joining a particular unit. No problem there. You now have a unit that may join exactly as if it were an independent character. Unfortunately, The Independent Character rule was just changed in the FAQ to restrict what Independent Characters can join. So while the codex rule successfully treats the Tyrant as an independent character, it does not give it permission to ignore all the normal joining restrictions.

Just like giving a unit permission to shoot as if it had a bolter would not allow it to shoot after it had already run. Permission to shoot is not permission to ignore shooting restrictions. Permission to join is not permission to ignore joining restrictions.

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

IC is not a unity type, it's a special rule. If you treat a Monstrous Creature as an Independent Character, it becomes a Monstrous Creature Independent Character, it doesn't lose it's Monstrous Creature unit type.

I am arguing this because that's what the YMDC forums are for. To discuss what the exact RAW of a given rule is. While Codex does usually win over BRB, there is no conflict here for it to win out on. The Codex gives you permission to treat the MC as if it had the independent character special rule for the purpose of joining a particular unit. No problem there. You now have a unit that may join exactly as if it were an independent character. Unfortunately, The Independent Character rule was just changed in the FAQ to restrict what Independent Characters can join. So while the codex rule successfully treats the Tyrant as an independent character, it does not give it permission to ignore all the normal joining restrictions.

Just like giving a unit permission to shoot as if it had a bolter would not allow it to shoot after it had already run. Permission to shoot is not permission to ignore shooting restrictions. Permission to join is not permission to ignore joining restrictions.

yes... it can join that unit..... are you arguing it cant?

Or are you arguing it cant leave then rejoin, and use its IC and MC rules to do buffs? What are you even arguing at this point?

The BRB's current as writen now even say you cant join IC to MC into units in the 1st paragraph. This never been an issue before.

Edit: Quoted from you "It doesnt lose MC rule b.c its IC" well vice versa

Okay, let's compare that to another rule that says a unit can do something. Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrix. - "One use only. A non-Walker vehicle with this upgrade can fire one weapon, at the vehicle’s full Ballistic Skill, after moving Flat Out in the Shooting phase."

The unit CAN.. again "CAN" fire a weapon at full ballistic skill. Can the unit fire at full ballistic skill if it jinked? No, it must snap fire. Saying a unit CAN do something does not give it permission to ignore every other restriction that would affect that action. Saying a unit "can" do something gives it permission to attempt it, while obeying all normal restrictions unless specifically stated otherwise.

So while the Tyrant has permission to attempt to join as if it were an Independent Character, the new FAQ has made it so that a Monstrous Creature Independent Character would not be able to join, so the join attempt fails.


This has nothing to do with independent characters joining MC units, this has to do with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters joining normal units - which they cannot do as per the new FAQ.

"Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character,
can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then
join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: No, to both question."

Q: If the Veil of Darkness is used while with a group of warriors and you go into Ongoing Reserves due to a Deep Strike Mishap, can you come in by Deep Striking?
A: Only if all of the models involved have the Deep Strike rule.

Q: If a unit has successfully manifested the Gate of Infinity psychic power but mishaps with its Deep Strike and gets the Delayed result, how does it come back into play the next round – walking on from its own table edge or by Deep Strike?
A: It arrives by Deep Strike.

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

No Chapter Masters for the Demi-Company.

Still that crap about ICs not having detachment rules apply to them, never mind that most operate in the same method as Stubborn, Slow and Purposeful, etc.

And still that crap about using a grenade in Assault as being "thrown".

Bojazz wrote:
Okay, let's compare that to another rule that says a unit can do something. Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrix. - "One use only. A non-Walker vehicle with this upgrade can fire one weapon, at the vehicle’s full Ballistic Skill, after moving Flat Out in the Shooting phase."

The unit CAN.. again "CAN" fire a weapon at full ballistic skill. Can the unit fire at full ballistic skill if it jinked? No, it must snap fire. Saying a unit CAN do something does not give it permission to ignore every other restriction that would affect that action. Saying a unit "can" do something gives it permission to attempt it, while obeying all normal restrictions unless specifically stated otherwise.

So while the Tyrant has permission to attempt to join as if it were an Independent Character, the new FAQ has made it so that a Monstrous Creature Independent Character would not be able to join, so the join attempt fails.


This has nothing to do with independent character joining MC units, this has to do with Monstrous Creature Independent Character joining normal units - which they cannot do as per the new FAQ.

"Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character,
can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then
join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: No, to both question."

Thst rules in question was talking about after moving flat out, not at all times or when jinking... Also 1 ruling from a different rule cant alway be used for another rule, we've seen this turn out wrong many times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Q: If the Veil of Darkness is used while with a group of warriors and you go into Ongoing Reserves due to a Deep Strike Mishap, can you come in by Deep Striking?
A: Only if all of the models involved have the Deep Strike rule.

Q: If a unit has successfully manifested the Gate of Infinity psychic power but mishaps with its Deep Strike and gets the Delayed result, how does it come back into play the next round – walking on from its own table edge or by Deep Strike?
A: It arrives by Deep Strike.

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

No Chapter Masters for the Demi-Company.

Still that crap about ICs not having detachment rules apply to them, never mind that most operate in the same method as Stubborn, Slow and Purposeful, etc.

And still that crap about using a grenade in Assault as being "thrown".

The BB in transport vs 2 formations.

That makes sense that, If i had 2 DE formations and 1 Eldar, my DE can use each others vehicles in Depolyment, its there technology, its their vehicles still, where the eldar vehicles are theirs.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Thst rules in question was talking about after moving flat out, not at all times or when jinking... Also 1 ruling from a different rule cant alway be used for another rule, we've seen this turn out wrong many times.

And the Guard rule is talking about treating the Tyrant like an Independent Character, not giving it blanket permission to join.

Okay, let's look at a closer scenario.
If the Tyrant guard were locked in combat, would the Hive Tyrant be able to join them? No, because Independent Characters cannot join units that are locked in combat. Here you see that the restrictions on what Independent Characters can and cannot join still apply, the Shieldwall special rule does not give the Tyrant blanket permission to ignore all restrictions. It gives the Hive Tyrant permission to join when an Independent Character normally would be able to. The FAQ just changed when a MC IC would be able to to "Never".

As I said earlier, I doubt anyone would actually deny you the ability to join, because it is clearly the RAI - however I feel the new ruling in the FAQ broke the RAW on this one.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

Where on Earth does the not an MC part come from? The rule just makes the Tyrant an IC when trying to join the Tyrant Guard which does nothing now.

The rule states it acts like a IC that CAN.. again "CAN" join this unit.... why is that so hard for you? Now you are just arguing semantics to argue.

Rules state "Codex rules over BrB" Codex states "This unit CAN join the Hive Tyrant"

End.

"as if it were an IC". So like IC's it can't join the unit. You got a page number for codex over brb?

Amishprn86 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

The BB in transport vs 2 formations.

That makes sense that, If i had 2 DE formations and 1 Eldar, my DE can use each others vehicles in Depolyment, its there technology, its their vehicles still, where the eldar vehicles are theirs.

It is a double standard since Battle Brothers and units from the same Faction both treat each other exactly the same according to the rulebook, "friendly units". No distinction of difference is noted during Deployment in either Transport Rules, Ally Rules, or the Deployment section. They can Embark on each others' Transports during the game, but they couldn't have hopped a ride?

Eldar make as much sense as Space Marines in this case. Dark Eldar were using Eldar equipment before Space Marines were created, and should be sufficiently familiar.

 Charistoph wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

The BB in transport vs 2 formations.

That makes sense that, If i had 2 DE formations and 1 Eldar, my DE can use each others vehicles in Depolyment, its there technology, its their vehicles still, where the eldar vehicles are theirs.

It is a double standard since Battle Brothers and units from the same Faction both treat each other exactly the same according to the rulebook, "friendly units". No distinction of difference is noted during Deployment in either Transport Rules, Ally Rules, or the Deployment section. They can Embark on each others' Transports during the game, but they couldn't have hopped a ride?

Eldar make as much sense as Space Marines in this case. Dark Eldar were using Eldar equipment before Space Marines were created, and should be sufficiently familiar.

10k years is a long time tho, enough could have changed

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

. . .That's not how actual combat works. . .

Obviously I can't change the ruling, but that argument never made sense to me for a number of reasons. But rather than re-hash that entire debate, the clearest issue with the ruling to me is the "twenety-man unit with lots of grenades is only as effective as a three-man unit with one grenade."

I think the whole point of this ruling is to simulate each model carrying one grenade. If all 15 tankbustas used a meltabomb in each combat (I know, almost impossible) then the unit would detonate 210 melta bombs total. If 1 tankbusta used a grenade in each combat (same caveat) they would use 14.

Not very satisfactory, but I think that is what they were getting at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think they clarified tank shock very well. Crunch is still possible, even likely in many cases. Trukks are back as light D weapons....just leave 1 guy standing in a pocket and the rest of his unit goes bye-bye:

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.

It is referring the Grenades that are used in Assault as "thrown" that gets me. If it was just those in in base contact, it would make sense, but ignoring how you used your own words is a mockery.

 Galef wrote:
I've known of this issue since 5th ed. Under the 7th ed rules, it is "possible" but mathematically improbably if you must move in a straight line to your primary target. I liked that they changed the answer to "No", but wish they worded it more inclusively

It's not possible at all, and hasn't been for several editions now at least.

In the current edition, the rules for charging in multiple combats very specifically forbid you from moving a model into contact with a secondary target unless it is unable to make contact with the primary. And if you're unable to make contact with the primary target, that charge fails.

So there is no legal way for a single model unit to successfully charge two separate units, even if you manage to fluke their placement so that they are perfectly equidistant.

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Thst rules in question was talking about after moving flat out, not at all times or when jinking... Also 1 ruling from a different rule cant alway be used for another rule, we've seen this turn out wrong many times.

And the Guard rule is talking about treating the Tyrant like an Independent Character, not giving it blanket permission to join.

Incorrect. The rule allows the Tyrant to join the unit, exactly as if it were an IC, which it is not.

Okay, let's look at a closer scenario.
If the Tyrant guard were locked in combat, would the Hive Tyrant be able to join them? No, because Independent Characters cannot join units that are locked in combat. Here you see that the restrictions on what Independent Characters can and cannot join still apply, the Shieldwall special rule does not give the Tyrant blanket permission to ignore all restrictions. It gives the Hive Tyrant permission to join when an Independent Character normally would be able to. The FAQ just changed when a MC IC would be able to to "Never".

As I said earlier, I doubt anyone would actually deny you the ability to join, because it is clearly the RAI - however I feel the new ruling in the FAQ broke the RAW on this one.

The FAQ just stopped the silly "This MC IC will join last rules lawyering that everyone was saying was possible"

Guys, I guarantee you that the change to IC MCs will hit affect the hive Tyrant. Getting in to nutty gritty debate about it is entirely a waste of time.

Fragile wrote:
The FAQ just stopped the silly "This MC IC will join last rules lawyering that everyone was saying was possible"

I totally get that this was the reason for the rule change, and I agree with the reasoning, but they ended up breaking this at the same time. If the Hive Tyrant is allowed to ignore joining restrictions because it is not an Independent Character even though it is being treated as one, then would you also allow it to join Tyrant Guard locked in combat? Tyrant Guard across the table? Tyrant Guard that are currently in Reserve? These are all restrictions for Independent Characters joining units. If not, then why would you force it to abide by those restrictions but not the new one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:
Guys, I guarantee you that the change to IC MCs will hit affect the hive Tyrant. Getting in to nutty gritty debate about it is entirely a waste of time.

Nobody disagrees with that point. As has been stated several times already, we all realize nobody would play this way - We are simply discussing the RAW. This IS the YMDC forum, devoted to discussing rules as they are written.

Let's wait until we see what the Tyranid FAQ says about the Hive Tyrant joining the Hive Guard first.

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The FAQ just stopped the silly "This MC IC will join last rules lawyering that everyone was saying was possible"

I totally get that this was the reason for the rule change, and I agree with the reasoning, but they ended up breaking this at the same time. If the Hive Tyrant is allowed to ignore joining restrictions because it is not an Independent Character even though it is being treated as one, then would you also allow it to join Tyrant Guard locked in combat? Tyrant Guard across the table? Tyrant Guard that are currently in Reserve? These are all restrictions for Independent Characters joining units. If not, then why would you force it to abide by those restrictions but not the new one?

Again your failing to apply basic vs advanced. You have a codex rule telling you to allow a Tyrant to join a unit exactly like an IC would. It does not give the Tyrant the IC rule, which would be the scenario you put forth. So you follow all of those rules in the IC section for joining.

BRB says it cant join because its a MC.
Codex says it can join due to special, specific rule.

Codex wins.

Your making more complicated than it is.

edit:: I bet Ovesa get a rule stated similarly, whenever they update

Fragile wrote:
Again your failing to apply basic vs advanced. You have a codex rule telling you to allow a Tyrant to join a unit exactly like an IC would. It does not give the Tyrant the IC rule, which would be the scenario you put forth. So you follow all of those rules in the IC section for joining.

BRB says it cant join because its a MC.
Codex says it can join due to special, specific rule.

Codex wins.

Your making more complicated than it is.

edit:: I bet Ovesa get a rule stated similarly, whenever they update

A few of the FAQs also ignore the Basic vs Advanced rule as well.

I was letting DE players keep their BS while jinking anyway. I guess my opinion was vindicated in the end. DE did not need that kick in the balls. I get a little help for my sternguard on board stormravens, assuming I ever use them again.

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

I disagree that Tau Empire Signature Systems are "Relics/Artifacts". Doesn't match the fluff. They're not unique and beautiful snowflakes. They're generally pieces of prototype wargear which would presumably be handed out in limited numbers for testing purposes before being rolled out en masse. For an in game perspective, look at a couple of the weapons that used to be "relics", but are now available to any Crisis Suit. In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

I disagree that Tau Empire Signature Systems are "Relics/Artifacts". Doesn't match the fluff. They're not unique and beautiful snowflakes. They're generally pieces of prototype wargear which would presumably be handed out in limited numbers for testing purposes before being rolled out en masse. For an in game perspective, look at a couple of the weapons that used to be "relics", but are now available to any Crisis Suit. In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

They are not relics, but they seem sufficiently "special snowflake" for me to put them in the same category as a relic would be for any other faction, particularly given their parallel rule structure and layout to every other faction's relic-equivalents, and thus should be subject to "relic" rules generally.

It's ultimately mostly an inconsequential interpretive element, given our agreement on your second point - that by allowing them to take "items" and not "an item" they have "specifically noted" an allowance to take multiple Signature Systems such that the FAQ's clarification wouldn't apply to the Tau Empire's "relics" regardless.

 Kriswall wrote:
In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

Does that mean Farseers and Autarchs ("May take items from the Remnants of Glory") can take more than one Remnant?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

Does that mean Farseers and Autarchs ("May take items from the Remnants of Glory") can take more than one Remnant?

Seems reasonable to me, given there is no further limitation in the Remnants of Glory rules (in the same way that there's no further limitation in the Signature Systems rules).

Looking further, a lot of commander units have that same wording. Space Marine Captains, for one.

That makes the wording alone more dubious, unless there is different wording for other commander units.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

I disagree that Tau Empire Signature Systems are "Relics/Artifacts". Doesn't match the fluff. They're not unique and beautiful snowflakes. They're generally pieces of prototype wargear which would presumably be handed out in limited numbers for testing purposes before being rolled out en masse. For an in game perspective, look at a couple of the weapons that used to be "relics", but are now available to any Crisis Suit. In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

Are they are only allowed one per army like any other Relic?

We will see if the Tau are singled out to allow multiple special snowflake items on a single model or not.

Bojazz wrote:
Okay, let's compare that to another rule that says a unit can do something. Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrix. - "One use only. A non-Walker vehicle with this upgrade can fire one weapon, at the vehicle’s full Ballistic Skill, after moving Flat Out in the Shooting phase."

The unit CAN.. again "CAN" fire a weapon at full ballistic skill. Can the unit fire at full ballistic skill if it jinked? No, it must snap fire. Saying a unit CAN do something does not give it permission to ignore every other restriction that would affect that action. Saying a unit "can" do something gives it permission to attempt it, while obeying all normal restrictions unless specifically stated otherwise.

So while the Tyrant has permission to attempt to join as if it were an Independent Character, the new FAQ has made it so that a Monstrous Creature Independent Character would not be able to join, so the join attempt fails.


This has nothing to do with independent characters joining MC units, this has to do with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters joining normal units - which they cannot do as per the new FAQ.

"Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character,
can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then
join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: No, to both question."

It's the Hive Tyrant an IC Monstrous creature no.

The codex just points that there is an exception where they can join a tyrant guard as an IC would join other units but that doesn't make him an IC just follow the normal rules the Hive Tyrant it's still a normal MC (with character) and the Tyrant guard it's still a normal infantry unit.

Remember the Hive tyrant DO NOT become a Monstrous Creature IC you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

But it's still an MC so it can't join things according to the IC rules.

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

It doesn't tell you to ignore anything. It gives you the Independant Character rule regarding one unit not permission to ignore anything.

pm713 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

It doesn't tell you to ignore anything. It gives you the Independant Character rule regarding one unit not permission to ignore anything.

Perhaps you should reread the rule, you appear confused as to what the rule actually says.

Fragile wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

It doesn't tell you to ignore anything. It gives you the Independant Character rule regarding one unit not permission to ignore anything.

Perhaps you should reread the rule, you appear confused as to what the rule actually says.

I know it says to follow the IC rules.

pm713 wrote:

I know it says to follow the IC rules.

And the Ic rules properly says.

"In order to join a unit, an (Independent Character/Hive Tyrant on this case) simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."


Again the Codex gives you a specific permission to join the unit and how it's must be done.

IC cannot join MC or MC (IC) cannot join other units = general restriction
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

The Codex just points you to follow the Joining and Leaving a Unit part of IC rules when the HIve Tyrant joins the Tyrant guard.

Lord Perversor wrote:
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

Specific codex permission to join a Tyrant Guard unit in the same way an IC joins units means "not at all" if the model performing the joining action is a Monstrous Creature. The permission the codex gives has been made useless by the new FAQ because it doesn't specifically override the new restriction.

More comparisons!
If a special rule gave the Hive Tyrant "the ability to stomp exactly like a gargantuan creature", and then the Gargantuan Creature rules were later FAQ'd to say "only imperial gargantuan creatures can stomp", then the Hive Tyrant would not be able to stomp, even though the special rule gives him permission to stomp like a gargantuan creature could, because the Tyrant does not belong to an imperial faction. Once again, permission to perform an action does not grant permission to ignore all restrictions while performing that action - only those which are specifically called out. In the case of shieldwall, no restrictions are called out, so none are ignored.

The IC restrictions are General for all IC while the Nyd Codex grants a very specific permission.

General vs specific as much as basic vs advanced

Im pretty sure that nobody will have a problem with it as its fair to say that the intention is that they are allowed to join.

Its is also worth noting that its an faq and not an errata so it shouldnt be treated excatly like a rule . We dont know what the answer would be if we asked about the hive guard. We can take the faq as a ruling on what its specificly talking about which is ic monstrous creature

In the case of the shield wall special rule techncily the hive tyrant is never turned into a ic monsters creature . Its simple states it may join a unit of guard as if it where a ic

The important part here is ....as if it where .... so you follow the rules for ic but you never change the unit type .
This means the faq has no bearing on this situation as the hive tyrant is still just a monstrous creature so you can safely say that the faq is not refering to the shield wall special rule . Its is only adressing ic monstrous creatures

Bojazz wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

Specific codex permission to join a Tyrant Guard unit in the same way an IC joins units means "not at all" if the model performing the joining action is a Monstrous Creature. The permission the codex gives has been made useless by the new FAQ because it doesn't specifically override the new restriction.

It specifically does override. How can a rule giving permission for a non IC to join a unit like it was an IC not be specific. Its current status as a non- IC, MC is ignored due to permission from the rule. Otherwise, your claiming the rule did not work pre-FAQ as well.

I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

Lord Perversor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

I know it says to follow the IC rules.

And the Ic rules properly says.

"In order to join a unit, an (Independent Character/Hive Tyrant on this case) simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."


Again the Codex gives you a specific permission to join the unit and how it's must be done.

IC cannot join MC or MC (IC) cannot join other units = general restriction
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

The Codex just points you to follow the Joining and Leaving a Unit part of IC rules when the HIve Tyrant joins the Tyrant guard.

This is how I was reading it, but many are reading it you now are considered a IC, not using its general rules but are now identified as IC, so you can no longer join b.c your a IC MC.


I read it as the Tyranid Guards is giving permision for the HT to join "In the same way a IC would" and is NOT giving the HT IC rule, no where in the rules does it say "it becomes an IC".

 insaniak wrote:
I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

I literally typed this before I saw your message.
Edit: English is hard for me, it takes me a long time to type everything out and re-read to make sure i'm correct.

Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

 Crazyterran wrote:
Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

The FAQ makes a reference to a unit infiltrating, outflanking or exploring, but says nothing about normal deployment.

Wich boils down to the same argument as before can an infiltrate unit deploy normally (on his table edge) and be joined by an IC or it must deploy using the infiltrate rules always.

P.S: nevermind find this one while scrolling again.

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Something I noticed that has changed - the draft FAQ stated gargantuan creatures could stomp at I1 even if they were no longer engaged.

But the final release changed it and says neither super heavy walkers nor gargantuan creatures can stomp if they are not still engaged.

Was wondering if this was connected to the LVO involvement as that's one of their house rules isn't it?

They also said yes to los! Stomps but NOT if overrun is rolled, which I think is a change.

SolentSanguine wrote:
Something I noticed that has changed - the draft FAQ stated gargantuan creatures could stomp at I1 even if they were no longer engaged.

But the final release changed it and says neither super heavy walkers nor gargantuan creatures can stomp if they are not still engaged.

Was wondering if this was connected to the LVO involvement as that's one of their house rules isn't it?

Q: If there are no models left in close combat with a Super-heavy
Walker or Gargantuan Creature at the Initiative 1 step, can it
still make a Stomp attack?
A: No.

You can be unengaged but still in combat (ie, you've killed everything in BTB) and still stomp.

The ruling, as I understand it, is to stop a super-heavy from completely wiping out all enemies in the combat at I4, and then stomping on to another unit out of combat at I1.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

Only if the unit also has Infiltrate, this was also pointed out by the FAQ.

 insaniak wrote:
I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

Just one thing, regardless of rules etc, think a bit about it people, guards are LITTERALLY created by the Hive Fleet to guard HIVE TYRANTS, its their sole purpose in this universe, saying they can't is fething stupid.

Rule application or not, its what they are meant to do.

Sometimes rules lawering helps in difficult scenarios, sometimes just use common sense for 5 secs.

Its the kind of thing i wouldn't dare to pull Vs a Nid player, because the reasoning is way too stupid, sometimes you need to lay off the rule shenanigans and just play it how its meant to be.

Tyrant Guards, guards Hive tyrants...

 insaniak wrote:
I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

MOVING ON, YES?

Trasvi wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
Something I noticed that has changed - the draft FAQ stated gargantuan creatures could stomp at I1 even if they were no longer engaged.

But the final release changed it and says neither super heavy walkers nor gargantuan creatures can stomp if they are not still engaged.

Was wondering if this was connected to the LVO involvement as that's one of their house rules isn't it?

Q: If there are no models left in close combat with a Super-heavy
Walker or Gargantuan Creature at the Initiative 1 step, can it
still make a Stomp attack?
A: No.

You can be unengaged but still in combat (ie, you've killed everything in BTB) and still stomp.

The ruling, as I understand it, is to stop a super-heavy from completely wiping out all enemies in the combat at I4, and then stomping on to another unit out of combat at I1.

If i'm not wrong there was some FAQ question about GMC or SHW being able to stomp *IF they killed the enemy due swinging at I 1 * and the answer was yes able to stomp due both attacks and stomp happening at once.. maybe that's the answer SolentSanguine thinks to remember.

Apothecaries are back to carrying special weapons again.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Apothecaries are back to carrying special weapons again.

Source?

 Ghaz wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Apothecaries are back to carrying special weapons again.

Source?

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1628732777447355/1628732440780722/?type=3&theater

That's the draft, and isn't that also the one where the text isn't the same as the image?

So it is, I'm a nob.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

Codex Tyranids HERE

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights HERE

Codex Necrons HERE

Codex Chaos Daemons HERE

Main Rulebook FINAL FAQ posted HERE.

All Codex FINAL FAQS posted HERE

All Codex Final FAQs posted.

Deathwatch shotgun with bolter is out. that was great while it lasted.

TRAITOR LEGIONS FAQ wrote:
Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+
in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in
the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule.
How do these interact?
A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way.

Well that sucks a lot. What a bizarre ruling. Why would you ever take the insurgency force if its major benefit literally does nothing.

They say they don't interact in a stackable way, but what other way could they interact? Would two chances be considered stacking? You wouldn't get more than one unit back.

 Roknar wrote:
They say they don't interact in a stackable way, but what other way could they interact? Would two chances be considered stacking? You wouldn't get more than one unit back.

You are still stacking the effect to increase the odds of getting a unit back.

Abaddon no longer is subject to Dark Apotheosis or Spawnhood. Nice to have that back.

Kharn hits invisible on a 2+. That's a big one.

TS Sorcerers must roll on Tzeentch, but they always also get the primaris due to psychic focus. That's not horrible.

The Alpha Legion ruling sucks.

Hold on! In the Grey Knights FAQ it states that a Grey Knight from a Nemesis Strike Force can't start the game in another detachment's Drop Pod as you can't start in an ally's drop pod. HOWEVER, previously they said you can start in their Drop Pod if you're from the same Faction. Will keep reading, but I think I see a major inconsistency here. Yup, in the Space Marine FAQ it says that a character can't join the Skyhammer unless that character also has an ability that allows them to deploy on turn 1. So, the reasoning given here is inconsistent, but the actual answer is not.

Same codex equals able to deploy in transport
Different codex means can't deploy in transport

Separate rule on formation benefits means
Even if you are from the same codex but not under a specific detachment or formations special rule. Means a unit that is not part of that detachment does not benefit from the special rule. This usually means you can't use the special rule if you add a character or in some instances you can't even add a special character to the formation. Movement special rules are also a bit different as sometimes you lose the benefit (wulfen) and sometimes they just need to stay in coherency.

 Yarium wrote:
Hold on! In the Grey Knights FAQ it states that a Grey Knight from a Nemesis Strike Force can't start the game in another detachment's Drop Pod as you can't start in an ally's drop pod. HOWEVER, previously they said you can start in their Drop Pod if you're from the same Faction. Will keep reading, but I think I see a major inconsistency here. Yup, in the Space Marine FAQ it says that a character can't join the Skyhammer unless that character also has an ability that allows them to deploy on turn 1. So, the reasoning given here is inconsistent, but the actual answer is not.

Grey Knights don't have drop pods, IIRC.

So... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the BRB rulebook official FAQ...

Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side.

And... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the IK codex official FAQ

Q: How do you determine which side of an Imperial Knight is hit by a Barrage weapon (which are always resolved against a vehicle’s side armour) for the purposes of determining if the Knight gets an ion shield save?
A: Use the direction of the firing model to determine the facing of the attack for the purposes of the Knight’s ion shield, but resolve the attack against its side armour as normal.

See a problem anyone? The ion shield part is clear, but they completely contradict each other on what Armor Facing/AV value to use. The BRB FAQ says assume shot comes from center of the blast, but IK FAQ says use side armour "as normal". Except it's not normal, because their own BRB FAQ says otherwise.

GW... please get your heads out of your butts and read your existing FAQ's before you write more FAQ's because this is just plain stupid and sloppy.

Also... can someone explain to me why a Leman Russ can fire its side sponsons at a very slight inward angle.. but an IK's can't now?

Lord Perversor wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

The FAQ makes a reference to a unit infiltrating, outflanking or exploring, but says nothing about normal deployment.

Wich boils down to the same argument as before can an infiltrate unit deploy normally (on his table edge) and be joined by an IC or it must deploy using the infiltrate rules always.

P.S: nevermind find this one while scrolling again.

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

BUT...

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.’

and this:

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.

I'd say that FAQ implys if you don't use the Infiltrate rule, then the units don't count as Infiltrators, and you can join whatever you want.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the BRB rulebook official FAQ...

Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side.

And... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the IK codex official FAQ

Q: How do you determine which side of an Imperial Knight is hit by a Barrage weapon (which are always resolved against a vehicle’s side armour) for the purposes of determining if the Knight gets an ion shield save?
A: Use the direction of the firing model to determine the facing of the attack for the purposes of the Knight’s ion shield, but resolve the attack against its side armour as normal.

See a problem anyone? The ion shield part is clear, but they completely contradict each other on what Armor Facing/AV value to use. The BRB FAQ says assume shot comes from center of the blast, but IK FAQ says use side armour "as normal". Except it's not normal, because their own BRB FAQ says otherwise.

GW... please get your heads out of your butts and read your existing FAQ's before you write more FAQ's because this is just plain stupid and sloppy.

Also... can someone explain to me why a Leman Russ can fire its side sponsons at a very slight inward angle.. but an IK's can't now?

Well, we are told that hits from a Barrage are always resolved against side armour. But to determine which side is hit (because there might be a wall granting cover against it, or say that a tank has a 4+ save against hits from the back), we assume the hit is coming from the center of the blast and hits the nearest side.

So assume my barrage blast is placed directly behind a tank, with a wall between it and the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle would therefore get a cover save from the wall, but I would still resolve my hit against the side armour value.

I find it much more interesting that we use the direction of the firing model when determining whether an Ion Shield works or not instead of the blast direction.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I'd say that FAQ implys if you don't use the Infiltrate rule, then the units don't count as Infiltrators, and you can join whatever you want.

then why the Deep Strike bit...?

Given the last seven or so answers in the Blood Angel's FAQ were about imperial guard, do I need to read all the faqs to ensure I get all of my updates?

Banbaji wrote:
Given the last seven or so answers in the Blood Angel's FAQ were about imperial guard, do I need to read all the faqs to ensure I get all of my updates?

I don't see any Imperial Guard questions in the Blood Angel FAQ at this time.

 Ghaz wrote:

Banbaji wrote:
Given the last seven or so answers in the Blood Angel's FAQ were about imperial guard, do I need to read all the faqs to ensure I get all of my updates?

I don't see any Imperial Guard questions in the Blood Angel FAQ at this time.

Interesting. I just went to the following site (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/01/20/faqs-for-every-codex-live-now/) and looked at the BA FAQ, and the extra questions are not there. I repeated what I did this morning, were I extracted them from the "download all" zip and there were extra questions. Why would these be different?

Because GW fixed the probelm

Banbaji wrote:
Why would these be different?

Because someone probably pointed it out to them and they fixed the standalone FAQ and not the one in the ZIP file.

OK. That makes sense. And now that you all have mentioned I can see the revision update in the file name. Thank you all!

 Aenarian wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the BRB rulebook official FAQ...

Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side.

And... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the IK codex official FAQ

Q: How do you determine which side of an Imperial Knight is hit by a Barrage weapon (which are always resolved against a vehicle’s side armour) for the purposes of determining if the Knight gets an ion shield save?
A: Use the direction of the firing model to determine the facing of the attack for the purposes of the Knight’s ion shield, but resolve the attack against its side armour as normal.

See a problem anyone? The ion shield part is clear, but they completely contradict each other on what Armor Facing/AV value to use. The BRB FAQ says assume shot comes from center of the blast, but IK FAQ says use side armour "as normal". Except it's not normal, because their own BRB FAQ says otherwise.

GW... please get your heads out of your butts and read your existing FAQ's before you write more FAQ's because this is just plain stupid and sloppy.

Also... can someone explain to me why a Leman Russ can fire its side sponsons at a very slight inward angle.. but an IK's can't now?

Well, we are told that hits from a Barrage are always resolved against side armour. But to determine which side is hit (because there might be a wall granting cover against it, or say that a tank has a 4+ save against hits from the back), we assume the hit is coming from the center of the blast and hits the nearest side.

So assume my barrage blast is placed directly behind a tank, with a wall between it and the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle would therefore get a cover save from the wall, but I would still resolve my hit against the side armour value.

I find it much more interesting that we use the direction of the firing model when determining whether an Ion Shield works or not instead of the blast direction.

Please read through the FAQ's I quoted more carefully. The BRB FAQ states clearly "Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker and hits the nearest side."

This completely overrides the spot in the BRB that tells you to always use side armor, meaning there is nowhere are we told (that is valid any longer) to use side armor other than the IK FAQ.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the BRB rulebook official FAQ...

Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side.

And... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the IK codex official FAQ

Q: How do you determine which side of an Imperial Knight is hit by a Barrage weapon (which are always resolved against a vehicle’s side armour) for the purposes of determining if the Knight gets an ion shield save?
A: Use the direction of the firing model to determine the facing of the attack for the purposes of the Knight’s ion shield, but resolve the attack against its side armour as normal.

See a problem anyone? The ion shield part is clear, but they completely contradict each other on what Armor Facing/AV value to use. The BRB FAQ says assume shot comes from center of the blast, but IK FAQ says use side armour "as normal". Except it's not normal, because their own BRB FAQ says otherwise.

GW... please get your heads out of your butts and read your existing FAQ's before you write more FAQ's because this is just plain stupid and sloppy.

Also... can someone explain to me why a Leman Russ can fire its side sponsons at a very slight inward angle.. but an IK's can't now?

Well, we are told that hits from a Barrage are always resolved against side armour. But to determine which side is hit (because there might be a wall granting cover against it, or say that a tank has a 4+ save against hits from the back), we assume the hit is coming from the center of the blast and hits the nearest side.

So assume my barrage blast is placed directly behind a tank, with a wall between it and the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle would therefore get a cover save from the wall, but I would still resolve my hit against the side armour value.

I find it much more interesting that we use the direction of the firing model when determining whether an Ion Shield works or not instead of the blast direction.

Please read through the FAQ's I quoted more carefully. The BRB FAQ states clearly "Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker and hits the nearest side."

This completely overrides the spot in the BRB that tells you to always use side armor, meaning there is nowhere are we told (that is valid any longer) to use side armor other than the IK FAQ.

I interpreted the FAQ answer as saying that the blast hits the 'nearest side' as left or right side, not that every single vehicle facing was suddenly an option.

Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

Anyone notice the nerf to the Beacon Angelis? It no longer works on the turn it arrives.
I wouldn't mind this, except that the Beacon Angelis uses the exact same wording as the Icons of Chaos, and yet the Icons of Chaos are allowed to work as soon as they arrive.

 coblen wrote:

TRAITOR LEGIONS FAQ wrote:
Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+
in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in
the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule.
How do these interact?
A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way.

Well that sucks a lot. What a bizarre ruling. Why would you ever take the insurgency force if its major benefit literally does nothing.

Stackable refers to receiving multiple benefits. So you can't get two units coming back from one being wiped out, but you can still have two chances (from the two separate rules) to bring back one unit. It's fairly obvious if you think about it, otherwise as you say there's no point to the Insurgency Force rule.

It's just like casting psychic powers from different sources. You can try multiple times but unless otherwise stated the benefits don't stack.

It just seems super weird. I mean, #1, it was two differently named rules. #2 both rules placed a copy of the destroyed unit into Ongoing Reserves, and not the original unit just being brought back, so there's no reason you couldn't get two copies of one unit. #3 Alpha Legion's symbol is the frikkin Hydra, a creature known for growing multiple more heads whenever one is cut!

Just a little salty over this because I thought it was cool, even if it was just Cultists, and you would statistically end up net even on cultists at the end of it.

Blood Angels have the same situation. The Angel's Blade Strike Force has 'The Red Thirst' as one of it's Command Benefits which is the exact same special rule that their Battle Demi-company already has.

 Ghaz wrote:
Blood Angels have the same situation. The Angel's Blade Strike Force has 'The Red Thirst' as one of it's Command Benefits which is the exact same special rule that their Battle Demi-company already has.

At least that bonus applies to the other Formation and Unit choices in that Meta Detachment.

Insurgency Force only applies to Cultists and the only way they can be taken in a meta Detachment is the Lost and the Damned Formation, making it 100% worthless compared to 80% worthless like the Blood Angels Red Thirst.

Oh snap, Tau can't use supporting fire on models with Banshee Masks anymore. This makes me happy The Draft FAQ said they could.

Do I really read the Traitor Legions FAQ correctly, have GW ruled that Alpha Legion do not get any benefit for their Insurgency Force?

Why on earth would you create a Formation which doesn't get a benefit?

Does anyone know the best way to send a FAQ query to GW?

 lighterthief wrote:
Do I really read the Traitor Legions FAQ correctly, have GW ruled that Alpha Legion do not get any benefit for their Insurgency Force?

Why on earth would you create a Formation which doesn't get a benefit?

Does anyone know the best way to send a FAQ query to GW?

'Doesn't stack' presumably means you can't get two units of Cultists. You roll twice, but can't double the number of available models.

Wonderful...they made it so Knights can't hit anything directly in front of them...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wonderful...they made it so Knights can't hit anything directly in front of them...

If it's only 3" wide, and is dead center on the knight then yes the arm guns can't hit. You'll have to resort to firing your hull heavy stubbers or carapace guns at it

This won't affect how I use my Knight at all.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 lighterthief wrote:
Do I really read the Traitor Legions FAQ correctly, have GW ruled that Alpha Legion do not get any benefit for their Insurgency Force?

Why on earth would you create a Formation which doesn't get a benefit?

Does anyone know the best way to send a FAQ query to GW?

'Doesn't stack' presumably means you can't get two units of Cultists. You roll twice, but can't double the number of available models.

This is how I interpret it. A rerollable 4+ to regen the cultists is still really good but it's not exactly game-breaking to allow the cultists to come back twofold. It is actually kind of fluffy that you kill one squad and two take its place. I'm not happy about it but it's not as bad as it could have been, I suppose. It's also kind of obnoxious that it was the only thing that got FAQ'd out of the whole book...

Remember, GW is not above making you pay for things that give no benefit. Mad Dok Grotsnik has to pay for a cybork body even though it has no effect.

Most likely if you ask GW they will say there is one (and only one) roll.

I noticed the question has been asked several times on the fb page.

Of course, GW ignores it.

Always mention that you would have to buy muuuch more Cultists if the rules would stack and maybe they will think about it again, because MONEY!

That never works for orks. Is a 4+ shoota boy really worth 11 points? If they dropped the point cost, they would sell more of them.

Presumably the profit is far to low for them to be interested.

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

Again, you are over thinking it. The side the attack comes from normally determines AV facing, however in this instance AV is determined by the nature of the attack (Barrage) while the actual side hit can be subject to other rules (Ion Shield). The ruling tells us where to count the attack as having come from regardless of how other rules change the attack.

SJ

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

They would FAQ it because vehicles have two Sides but only one front and rear. So the question was "which side does it hit" - not which facing, but which of the two sides.

GW said "the nearest side" which makes sense because it is still the side but clarifies which one.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

They would FAQ it because vehicles have two Sides but only one front and rear. So the question was "which side does it hit" - not which facing, but which of the two sides.

GW said "the nearest side" which makes sense because it is still the side but clarifies which one.

There is no reason to specify which side though, as there is no vehicle in the game that has 2 sides with different armor. If it always struck side armor, it would be irrelevant which side as there is no scenario I can think of where it matters which side you hit. Even in vehicle listings, it's just "F/S/R", not "F/S/S/R". In normal English, when you say the word side without any adjectives around it, it means any side, not just right or left.

If someone was standing behind me, and I told you they poked my nearest side, and then asked you what side they poked, what would your answer be? You would say my back. You wouldn't say right or left because I've used no other terms or adjectives that would exclude my rear.

By using the word "side" without the words "armor facing" or "armor value" to specify that they're referring to an actual game value or concept, not just the general concept of side, they're failing to exclude the front and rear armor.

As far as overthinking it, I'll point out that I didn't question what the BRB FAQ stated and meant. I was pretty certain what it meant after one read through. Someone else questioned my interpretation. I questioned why GW's FAQ's directly conflicted, not what they meant as currently worded.

There are things in the game that make it matter which side is hit though, such as a Knight's ion shield, which can protect the right but not the left side.

And yes, you would be correct if the rulebook didn't already say to use Side Armour Value and the FAQ just clarified which "side" since vehicles have two and sometimes it matters, if a vehicle has some type of direction that can only protect one Side Armou facing at a time.

It never matters whether the blast is hitting left or right armor facing, because the ion shield is determined by the direction of the firer, not the blast, per the IK codex FAQ. The ion shield is determined in a completely different manner than the armor facing with barrage, which removes it as a valid example of why left or right would ever matter.

I'm still failing to come up with any example of why it would ever matter whether something hits left or right side armor value on a vehicle, and if I can't come up with an example of why that would matter I can only be led to believe that they meant the general English meaning of "side" not "side armor value".

Also, they've already demonstrated in multiple FAQ's that they're perfectly willing to put out FAQ's that directly contradict what the actual rulebook says, so saying the rulebook says one thing is not a valid argument or line of logic either.