Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reading through the new FAQ I am struck that most of these FAQ's are common sense. Many of the debates that have flown across the interwebs have been resolved. (GW has been reading the forums no doubt.)

1. Models that do not have the Power in Pain rule do not benefit from pain tokens. (sad panda...or I should say sad Kymera)

2. The dais of destruction cannot be upgraded. This does beg the question that is it a KP? if it is part of Vect's kit and unmodifiable do you have to kill Vect and the dais to get the KP? I will play it separately (not that I will ever bring the Dais now.)

3. Void Ravens can drop the void mine while going any speed. I like this as it gives them a bit more utility.

4. The Duke can be deployed independently if there are no kabalites or true born in the army.

5. Use of multiple animus vitae's have been clarified. No you cannot get two pain tokens from one kill. (this one was obvious to me but there are always someone looking for a loophole to take advantage of)

There are a few other clarifications and on the whole I would say a pretty good FAQ.

What the FAQ means is that Beastmaster units are a bit less resilient, and Void Ravens are a bit better. Also I do not think we will see many Dais's out there.

acsmedic wrote:2. The dais of destruction cannot be upgraded. This does beg the question that is it a KP? if it is part of Vect's kit and unmodifiable do you have to kill Vect and the dais to get the KP? I will play it separately (not that I will ever bring the Dais now.)

The Dias is still a separate unit, and thus its own kill point.

solkan wrote:

The Dias is still a separate unit, and thus its own kill point.

I agree, I can just see someone try to argue otherwise and I will play it as it's own KP.

acsmedic wrote:5. Use of multiple animus vitae's have been clarified. No you cannot get two pain tokens from one kill. (this one was obvious to me but there are always someone looking for a loophole to take advantage of)

You notice how you can totally cheat now, the Animus Vitae is one per army? I suppose you can now take two of the others that are not one per army.

Homer

acsmedic wrote:

solkan wrote:

The Dias is still a separate unit, and thus its own kill point.

I agree, I can just see someone try to argue otherwise and I will play it as it's own KP.

How could people argue that anymore then any other dedicated transport? The rulebook clearly identifies that just because two units take up the same force organization choice does NOT make them the same unit.

Anyone trying to play that the Dias is part of the same unit as Vect means the game instantly implodes...a unit cannot embark upon itself and Vect is required to start the game on his Dias...

Also, Implosion missles cannot be used to snipe models. Wonder if that means the Shattershard cannot either.

puma713 wrote:Also, Implosion missles cannot be used to snipe models. Wonder if that means the Shattershard cannot either.

I'd have a hard time believing anyone would try to claim otherwise giving the similarity between the two weapon's rules...and its not like its crystal clear how to play the shattershard without the FAQ anyway.

1) Pain Tokens. Sure, Beastmaster units took a giant nerf hit, but not that much really. Any time I used the unit, it would be the subject of strength 6+ weapons anyway, so no early FNP is no biggie. Who uses Harlies in a DE list anyway?

2) The example given for the heamonculi seems to indicate that it can take two of the same weapon, but since they cannot be used together, why bother? Shame for those double Scissor Hands users. You can take two, but you can only use one.

3) GW had its chance to clarify if the Reaver attack required a line or a straight line, and it seems GW decided to make Reaver owners happy. Zip around to your hearts content. This is one I was waiting for, and I couldn't be more happier.

4) Dias... Who cares? Why wasn't this thing errata'd out of the codex?

5) The fact that you cannot disembark before using the Aether Sails sucks, but workable. No biggie here really.

6) Lelith got a boost. She can now get into combat with an IC and two idiots, and get an absurd amount of strength 3 attacks. Hmmm, Maybe I should use her now?

7) Duke and his special rule. Fine by me, that's how I played it anyway.

Overall, I am quite happy with this FAQ.

Not sure I agree with your conclusion about the Reavers Buffo. The FAQ I saw related to them is...

"... simply pick any model in the unit as the start point and mark that spot. Then move the unit and pick any model as the end point. One unengaged, non-vehicle unit under the line between the two markers can then be chosen to be the target of the attack"

That still seems a straight line to me, they just made movement easier so you dont need to figure out the angles each jetbike needs to take in so it goes over the unit in question...

BuFFo wrote:1) Pain Tokens. Sure, Beastmaster units took a giant nerf hit, but not that much really. Any time I used the unit, it would be the subject of strength 6+ weapons anyway, so no early FNP is no biggie. Who uses Harlies in a DE list anyway?

2) The example given for the heamonculi seems to indicate that it can take two of the same weapon, but since they cannot be used together, why bother? Shame for those double Scissor Hands users. You can take two, but you can only use one.

3) GW had its chance to clarify if the Reaver attack required a line or a straight line, and it seems GW decided to make Reaver owners happy. Zip around to your hearts content. This is one I was waiting for, and I couldn't be more happier.

4) Dias... Who cares? Why wasn't this thing errata'd out of the codex?

5) The fact that you cannot disembark before using the Aether Sails sucks, but workable. No biggie here really.

6) Lelith got a boost. She can now get into combat with an IC and two idiots, and get an absurd amount of strength 3 attacks. Hmmm, Maybe I should use her now?

7) Duke and his special rule. Fine by me, that's how I played it anyway.

Overall, I am quite happy with this FAQ.

Lelith didn't get a boost. The ruling just clarified that she only gets bonus attacks equal to the difference between hers and the highest in base contact, if hers is higher. (preventing her from getting bonus attacks against WS10 models, and preventing her from getting +6 Attacks if she's in base contact with a guardsman and someone with WS>3.

Some people fail so badly they have to find loopholes to win. @calypso2ts i agree with you. it still seems like a straight line and you simply target any squad you just flew over.

line == straight line unless told otherwise.

I agree that the FAQ seems to say that the bladevines require a straight line.

Xca|iber wrote:Lelith didn't get a boost. The ruling just clarified that she only gets bonus attacks equal to the difference between hers and the highest in base contact, if hers is higher. (preventing her from getting bonus attacks against WS10 models, and preventing her from getting +6 Attacks if she's in base contact with a guardsman and someone with WS>3.

True, good call on that. I misread it myself. Thank you for the clarification!

Was gonna say the reaver thing is cool you can move your guys anywhere you like but because you picking one model and where you end up it prevents you from doing as what I and other people have said on the matter. No1 mention that they cleared up the Deep striking raiders then assaulting.

Because it was clear in the rules in any case?

yakface wrote:

puma713 wrote:Also, Implosion missles cannot be used to snipe models. Wonder if that means the Shattershard cannot either.

I'd have a hard time believing anyone would try to claim otherwise giving the similarity between the two weapon's rules...and its not like its crystal clear how to play the shattershard without the FAQ anyway.

Do note that the Implosion Missile and the Shattershard are two different beasts (metaphorically speaking).

The Implosion Missile is a weapon with a range, Strength value and AP. It's the Strength value that has a special rule. Instead of causing wounds normally, you'd roll a Wounds test and if succesful, inflict a wound with Instant Death. You then get to save against it normally, except that with AP 2, armour saves are not in the picture. What GW clarified in the FAQ is that an Implosion Missile actually causes wounds that therefore can be allocated.

The Shattershard, however, does not actually cause wounds. Models hit are removed from play. Therefore, it acts similar to the SW Jaws of the World Wolf power. And GW specifically states in the SW FAQ that that may be used to remove specific models in units.

Mandor wrote:
Do note that the Implosion Missile and the Shattershard are two different beasts (metaphorically speaking).

The Implosion Missile is a weapon with a range, Strength value and AP. It's the Strength value that has a special rule. Instead of causing wounds normally, you'd roll a Wounds test and if succesful, inflict a wound with Instant Death. You then get to save against it normally, except that with AP 2, armour saves are not in the picture. What GW clarified in the FAQ is that an Implosion Missile actually causes wounds that therefore can be allocated.

The Shattershard, however, does not actually cause wounds. Models hit are removed from play. Therefore, it acts similar to the SW Jaws of the World Wolf power. And GW specifically states in the SW FAQ that that may be used to remove specific models in units.

What?

A Shattershard is identical except that its range is 'template' (which is normal for template weapons), the initiative test is taken on Toughness instead of Wounds and it doesn't allow saves.

But they both use exactly the same wording and neither produces wounds by the RAW. Their is no reason under the sun not to apply the exact same reasoning.

Here's GW Implosion Missile answer:

A: Although the implosion missile causes wounds in an unusual way it should be treated the same as any other blast weapon. A unit will suffer a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath the blast marker. Using the majority Wounds value of the unit roll to see how many wounds are caused and then allocate these in the usual manner.

And here's all it takes to apply the same reasoning to the Shattershard:

Although the Shattershard causes wounds in an unusual way it is treated the same as any other template weapon. A unit suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath the template. Using the majority Toughness value of the unit, roll to see how many wounds are caused and then allocate these in the usual manner.

@Yak: Then why doesn't JotWW work the same way? The game mechanic is exactly the same for the Implosion Missile, Shattershard, and JotWW. Each describes how you determine who is affected, the characterstic to be tested against, and the consequences for failing the test.

Why should JotWW be allowed to snipe specific models if the Implosion Missile and Shattershard are not?

Simply put, all of these items should function almost identically, with the sole difference being in how the models affected by the item/power in question are determined.

SW are Super duper, that's why!

Edit also Yak is almost always right.

@Saldiven - I don't know what JotWW actually says, but in the case of these two missiles, it seems that they inflict X number of hits (the number under the blast/template), you roll wounds/toughness test, and then allocate. I don't see any reason in the above quoted that should shed any doubt on that.

Why does JotWW work differently? I don't know. Because it's SW and they need shinier things than DE. :-/

The Answer to the Implosion Missile of the DE FAQ makes no sense. I will be disregarding it based on two things.

1) The wording of both the Shattershard and Implosion Missile overtly imply that the MODELS hit must take the characteristic test. There is no moving wounds around because no wounds were ever dealt. You place the Template/Blast over a unit, and the individual models hit must take the test. This is clear as day.

2) Okay, since both weapons operate the same, if you go by the FAQ, then only the Implosion Missile gets the 'nerf' and the Shattershard still is a boot leg sniper weapon. There is zero RAW reason to apply the wording in the FAQ for the Implosion Missile to the Shattershard.

If you play with this house rule answer, both weapons, worded the same in their descriptions mind you, are played completely different.

So now we can just ignore all references to the word 'model' in game descriptions because we feel like it? Why is there a stink over the Blood Angel ruling about some power only affecting models now? I bet its because people want the word model to mean one thing here, and yet another thing there.

If you are a DE player, and you are not the .1% who play in tournaments, just take this FAQ regarding the Implosion Missile and ignore it. It makes zero sense in any context.

Saldiven wrote:@Yak: Then why doesn't JotWW work the same way? The game mechanic is exactly the same for the Implosion Missile, Shattershard, and JotWW. Each describes how you determine who is affected, the characterstic to be tested against, and the consequences for failing the test.

Why should JotWW be allowed to snipe specific models if the Implosion Missile and Shattershard are not?

Simply put, all of these items should function almost identically, with the sole difference being in how the models affected by the item/power in question are determined.

Obviously in a perfect world all their rulings would be completely consistent...I agree that they could have ruled the opposite way (more like JotWW), in fact that's how we ruled on the version of the INAT that's out right now.

However, there is definitely a difference between Shattershard/Implosion Missile and JotWW and the difference is that Shattershard/Implosion Missile have a ranged weapon profile with the 'blast' or 'template' type that comes with it a standard procedure for how these types of weapons are resolved. On the other hand JotWW is written in a very general style as a psychic shooting attack without any kind of 'type' for its magical line, so there is no additional baggage or expectation going in as to how hits/wounds, etc should be resolved for that weapon type.

Now we ALL agree that trying to interpret how to play the Shattershard/Implosion Missile it seems like you start following the blast/template rules but then stop before you get to allocate wounds out because these weapons don't actually cause wounds.

However, this FAQ question makes it clear that either the author (or the FAQ author if they are different) intended that these weapon properties were meant to be followed within the existing framework of the blast/template rules as much as possible even though it requires a bit of a disconnect of assuming that the effects caused by these weapons='wounds' when it comes to the concept of allocation.

So again, if you read the FAQ answer it isn't written as though they believe they are changing the rules at all, but rather explaining that they expected the normal blast rules to be used with the effects caused by the Implosion Missile counting as a 'wound' for this regard.

IMHO, given that the Shattershard also uses some standard weapon rules (template) that it would naturally follow the same logic presented in the Implosion Missile ruling...if for no other reason that trying to play the Shattershard rules 'as written' leads to a bunch of other questions anyway (as to when exactly the models killed by it are removed in relation to other shooting by the unit firing the Shattershard as just one example).

BuFFo wrote:The Answer to the Implosion Missile of the DE FAQ makes no sense. I will be disregarding it based on two things.

1) The wording of both the Shattershard and Implosion Missile overtly imply that the MODELS hit must take the characteristic test. There is no moving wounds around because no wounds were ever dealt. You place the Template/Blast over a unit, and the individual models hit must take the test. This is clear as day.

2) Okay, since both weapons operate the same, if you go by the FAQ, then only the Implosion Missile gets the 'nerf' and the Shattershard still is a boot leg sniper weapon. There is zero RAW reason to apply the wording in the FAQ for the Implosion Missile to the Shattershard.

If you play with this house rule answer, both weapons, worded the same in their descriptions mind you, are played completely different.

So now we can just ignore all references to the word 'model' in game descriptions because we feel like it? Why is there a stink over the Blood Angel ruling about some power only affecting models now? I bet its because people want the word model to mean one thing here, and yet another thing there.

If you are a DE player, and you are not the .1% who play in tournaments, just take this FAQ regarding the Implosion Missile and ignore it. It makes zero sense in any context.

I hate to bring this up, but the rules for the Implosion Missile do not make ANY kind of reasonable sense without some sort of FAQ answer:

1) The Implosion Missile allows cover saves, but cover saves can only be taken against wounds in the rules.
2) Saves are taken at a specific step in the shooting resolution, but what happens if the unit firing the Implosion Missile is also causes other normal wounds? Are you able to allocate 'normal' wounds onto the models that have failed their characteristic test (but are waiting to take their cover save)?


Yes, we can all make up our own answers to these issues but there is *NOT* any clear way to play that everyone could possibly agree on!

So in short, playing by this FAQ makes a whole crap ton of sense in that it clarifies exactly how these weapons work. The fact that the FAQ doesn't cover Shattershard specifically does NOT mean it functions differently from the Implosion Missile, it just means they didn't put an answer one way or another in the FAQ about the Shattershard.

Their FAQ answer is a clarification of how they expect(ed) these weapons to be played, they are not an errata changing the rules. So while you think that the rules were clear about 'models' being hit, you have to remember that both blast and template weapons hit 'models' as well...its just that part of the blast/template weapon rules is then that you get to allocate wounds caused by these weapon types out amongst the unit.

While you may think that it is clear that these weapons don't cause 'wounds' (and therefore can't be allocated), the FAQ answer lets you know that as far as GW is concerned the effects of these weapons DO equal 'wounds'.

Of course, if you want to ignore the FAQ that's always your choice, but just know that in order to play these weapons in ANY regard you're going to have to be making some stuff up to fill in the gaps...there is no clear way to play that GW screwed up with their FAQ answer.

By my reckoning the shattershard still works here's my train of thought;

A)DE Codex p.61 - Any non vehicle model hit by the shattershard must take a toughness test. If they fail this test they are removed from play with no saves of any kind.(under line my emphasis)

B)BRB p.29 - Wounds inflicted by template weapons do not have to be allocated on the models actually covered by the template, but can be put on any model in the unit(under line my emphasis)

C)BRB p.29 - Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template so that the narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models. This suggests that it aint that great a sniping weapon as you HAVE to cover as many models in the enemy unit as possible.

So here goes a Shattershard is placed as a template weapon under the rules in the BRB (C) then the rules in the codex kick in(A) where every model hit must take a toughness test or be removed from the board. Allocating to other models isn't possible as the shattershard causes no wounds to be allocated (C).

As for the argument involving the DE FAQ and the implosion missile - it's not even close to the same weapon the implosion missile causes Instant Death which is a function of wounding (guess if you have Eternal Warrior you just shrug it off?)and allows cover and invul saves; where as the shattershard removes the model with no saves (not a function of wounding) and says models hit. If anything the shattershard has more in common with the Jaws of the World Wolf SW psychic power and the Ork Shokk Attack gun on a double 6.

Please review the rules for the Shattershard and the Implosion Missile again. Because the wording on both is not the same.

A model hit by the Implosion Missile blast marker must make a Wounds test or suffer Instant Death. It follows the normal way of resolving shooting. The only special rule here is that the to-wound roll is replaced by the Wounds test. GW just clarified (perhaps poorly) that the Wounds test is actually replacing the to-wound roll. Because of this, wounds may be allocated and cover and invulnerable saves may be rolled (and armour saves may not, because this weapon actually has an AP of 2).

A model hit by a Shattershard is removed from play without any save allowed. This breaks the normal rules for shooting, similar to how JotWW breaks it. Because of this, the Shattershard works similar to the JotWW rules. And because of this, the Shattershard can be used to snipe.

The Strange Dude wrote:
As for the argument involving the DE FAQ and the implosion missile - it's not even close to the same weapon the implosion missile causes Instant Death which is a function of wounding (guess if you have Eternal Warrior you just shrug it off?)and allows cover and invul saves; where as the shattershard removes the model with no saves (not a function of wounding) and says models hit. If anything the shattershard has more in common with the Jaws of the World Wolf SW psychic power and the Ork Shokk Attack gun on a double 6.

The big question still left with that Shattershard interpretation is when exactly models affected by the weapon are removed when the firing unit has also inflicted 'normal' wounds on the same unit...and actually the same question technically applies to JotWW as well. There's nothing that says the models are immediately removed, and given that this happens in the process of shooting, one can reasonably conclude that the models could be meant to be removed as the same time as normal casualty removal. And with that interpretation in play then the natural question is whether or not players can 'dump' the normal wounds onto the models they already know are going to be removed from play via the Shattershard?

While I certainly conceded that removing a model from play and suffering instant death are definitely two different concepts, the two rules are functionally similar to each other. If GW came out with a ruling tomorrow in a FAQ update that ruled essentially the same exact way for the Shattershard would anyone be surprised?

The only reason that GW only put a ruling up for the Implosion Missiles is because the FAQ has all of its questions (mainly) pulled from Gwar's FAQ, and for some reason the earlier drafts of his FAQ had the question regarding the Implosion Missile but didn't cover the Shattershard.

Now that the INAT FAQ has been put out, there's a decent chance with the way they seem to be updating FAQs that we'll see a ruling (one way or the other) on the Shattershard as well.

And while you guys may turn out to be right, I would not be surprised to see it ruled the other way. Both weapons 'hit' specific models and yes, while the Implosion Missile causes Instant Death, as written (without GW's FAQ) there's no indication that this instant death effect is a function of a wound any more than the Shattershard's 'remove the model from play' is.

So I do agree with your reasoning...its the same reasoning we went with in the INAT FAQ, but my point is that same line of reasoning worked with the Implosion Missile before GW's FAQ regardless of the fact that one causes instant death and the other removes models from play.

Homer S wrote:

acsmedic wrote:5. Use of multiple animus vitae's have been clarified. No you cannot get two pain tokens from one kill. (this one was obvious to me but there are always someone looking for a loophole to take advantage of)

You notice how you can totally cheat now, the Animus Vitae is one per army? I suppose you can now take two of the others that are not one per army.

Homer

This has been stealth update: the FAQ is now 1.0a, which is not noted on the website. This item has been deleted.

So, I guess that means two things:

1) They unanswered the are duplicate Arcane Wargear items allowed.

2) We all have to load and double check the FAQs every day to see if anything else was stealth updated.

Homer

There is a problem with the shattershard becuase say you hit 4 of 10 guys in a squad because its a template weapon your enemy can pick what models are Hit then roll for toughtness tests.

ThatMG wrote:There is a problem with the shattershard becuase say you hit 4 of 10 guys in a squad because its a template weapon your enemy can pick what models are Hit then roll for toughtness tests.

Your enemy doesn't pick which targets are hit. Wounds are assigned to (groups of) models, not hits.

Mandor wrote:

ThatMG wrote:There is a problem with the shattershard becuase say you hit 4 of 10 guys in a squad because its a template weapon your enemy can pick what models are Hit then roll for toughtness tests.

Your enemy doesn't pick which targets are hit. Wounds are assigned to (groups of) models, not hits.

Thats what I ment by hit i mean the rule that models that are under a part of the tamplate do not have to take the wound the owning player may allocate the wound to any other model in that unit.

Thus meaning Template/Blast weapons that follow JAWS design rules NEVER snipe models. Unless it states you can snipe models as normal.