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.

As long as you measured where you were gonna move before pivoting, there is no change. I have always played it this way: Measure from my hull to where I want to go, place a dice/marker there, then pivot however I want and move to the dice/marker. No part of my hull would pass that dice/marker.

I think this FAQ needs an FAQ.

 carldooley wrote:
so, are Signature Systems artifacts or relics, or can we Tau players be pedants and still use the Buffmander? considering that they are Signature Systems, and not artifacts or relics. . .

I gak you not if any Tau player tries telling me that's how it works in person, I will slap them.
You know fully well those are the relics for Tau in all but name. Just like Arcana mechanicum for Cult mechanicus, Enigmas of the black library for harlequins, Gifts of Gork and Mork for Orks and any others I might have skipped.

Tau already are the most frustrating race to play in the entire game, I'm not letting them get away with this one.

 Grimmor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
ostensibly there was a reason they didnt have access to drop pods in the first place...so I dont get the reasoning to make them FA so units that shouldnt have access to drop pods...can get access to drop pods

The BB transport thing is dumb anyway as it only helped Codexes that where hurting in the frst place (except Skitarii) On top of this there are 3, i repeat, 3 Codexes that do not have Battle Brothers.

Tau
Necrons
Orks

Thats it. Everyone else has Battle Brothers even if they dont take advantage of them. I know that Craftworld Eldar liked to put Dark Reapers in Raiders, i know that Sisters of Battle liked putting Repentia in Inquisitorial Land Raiders and putting everything in Drop Pods, i know the Tempestus Scions liked using Drop Pods. Actually this ruling probably hurts Inquisition the most.

And to top it all off this ruling does absolutely nothing to impact the Big 4 in any way, because out of the Big 4 only 1 of them reliably used allies and that was Space Marines and it wasnt for transports.

Actually, for the Repentia bit, it really only hurts if you were trying to put them in a Stormraven (which, actually, I used to do - so much for that). For a Land Raider, just deploy them behind it, using the LR to block line of sight, then get in during the first movement phase. Which you'd have had to do anyway, since the Inquisitorial LR is a dedicated transport. Though I suppose you didn't if it was an Astartes LR, since those are HS choices. You can do that for Raiders and Howling Banshees or Striking Scorpions, too. Or the Reapers, for that matter: they have SnP anyway so they can just QWOP into the transport turn 1, then shoot. But they can't use it to deep strike.

The abusive trick where you attach a WWP Haemonculus or Archon to Wraithguard without a transport, then deep strike them in that way, still stands.

This does kill podding Dominions, Skitarii and Scions, though (but at least the Scions can still deep strike. Granted, Dominions have Scout so they aren't hurting too much as is, but...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DaPino wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
so, are Signature Systems artifacts or relics, or can we Tau players be pedants and still use the Buffmander? considering that they are Signature Systems, and not artifacts or relics. . .

I gak you not if any Tau player tries telling me that's how it works in person, I will slap them.
You know fully well those are the relics for Tau in all but name. Just like Arcana mechanicum for Cult mechanicus, Enigmas of the black library for harlequins, Gifts of Gork and Mork for Orks and any others I might have skipped.

Tau already are the most frustrating race to play in the entire game, I'm not letting them get away with this one.

It kills the buffmander, but hell no, I don't know anyone who'd try to lawyer it that way.

Take a giant unit of Crisis Bodyguards and slap one relic on each of them, sure, but that's legal, and a 32 point tax per relic (assuming you're not arming them, and for the ones with the PENchip or NSJ, you should).

 Selym wrote:
I think this FAQ needs an FAQ.

Good thing it's a draft then

Reading the Tau codex, it says Tau commanders can buy multiple signature systems and even goes as far to describe how some interact with each other if a model has for example the C&C node and sensor suite.

So unless this is an errata change, i'd say buffmander is still kicking.

 Purifier wrote:

Well, mostly the fact that he never said no models could ever ride in it, ... .

He claimed that models could not embark into transport vehicles 'before the game only during the movement phase'. That would prevent any model from ever embarking on a drop pod. I asked him to clarify that point.

Seriously, you're making a mountain of a molehill, here.

 vipoid wrote:

A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase."

It comes down to whether you read it as -
- "...from where [that part] started the Movement phase."
or
- "...from where [the vehicle] started the Movement phase."


The former means that a 4" long vehicle that has pivoted 180 degrees and then moves has moved 4" before it even goes anywhere (but doesn't move if all it does is pivot, even though that would result in parts of the vehicle having moved) while the latter means that you simply measure the movement from where the rear of the vehicle used to be to where the front of the vehicle is now (which is fine for straight line movement, but problematic for vehicles moving around obstacles, or on anything other than a straight line for any other reason, and largely renders the instruction to pivot vehicles on their centre point meaningless, since it really makes no difference how you turn the vehicle if all that matters is how far away it is from where it started...)


As the FAQ response is written, I feel it reads more as the first option... but I strongly suspect the second is what they were actually going for.

 insaniak wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Well, mostly the fact that he never said no models could ever ride in it, ... .

He claimed that models could not embark into transport vehicles 'before the game only during the movement phase'. That would prevent any model from ever embarking on a drop pod. I asked him to clarify that point.

Seriously, you're making a mountain of a molehill, here.

 vipoid wrote:

A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase."

It comes down to whether you read it as -
- "...from where [that part] started the Movement phase."
or
- "...from where [the vehicle] started the Movement phase."


The former means that a 4" long vehicle that has pivoted 180 degrees and then moves has moved 4" before it even goes anywhere (but doesn't move if all it does is pivot, even though that would result in parts of the vehicle having moved) while the latter means that you simply measure the movement from where the rear of the vehicle used to be to where the front of the vehicle is now (which is fine for straight line movement, but problematic for vehicles moving around obstacles, or on anything other than a straight line for any other reason, and largely renders the instruction to pivot vehicles on their centre point meaningless, since it really makes no difference how you turn the vehicle if all that matters is how far away it is from where it started...)


As the FAQ response is written, I feel it reads more as the first option... but I strongly suspect the second is what they were actually going for.

I am really, really hoping you're correct about their intent with this, because vehicles REALLY don't need any nerfs to their movement right now.

DaPino wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
so, are Signature Systems artifacts or relics, or can we Tau players be pedants and still use the Buffmander? considering that they are Signature Systems, and not artifacts or relics. . .

I gak you not if any Tau player tries telling me that's how it works in person, I will slap them.
You know fully well those are the relics for Tau in all but name. Just like Arcana mechanicum for Cult mechanicus, Enigmas of the black library for harlequins, Gifts of Gork and Mork for Orks and any others I might have skipped.

Tau already are the most frustrating race to play in the entire game, I'm not letting them get away with this one.

Calm down, ITG. Besides, I'd like to see you try.

Anyway, I can see why you would be frustrated because Tau are a difficult army to play against, but as it was noted by Bryan01, it's pretty clearly-written in the codex and the intent is crystal clear: commanders are allowed to take multiple signature systems, and it's even specifically noted in the rules how the different systems interact when taken in combination with each other. If you weren't "supposed" to take multiple signature systems on the same model and it isn't what GW intended, then it stands to reason they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of explaining how two pieces of gear interact with each other when taken on the same model ("______can be used at the same time as ______.", which is used in the description for several items). Right?

The "Buffmander" was not only perfectly legal, but GW themselves even encouraged "stacking" items in the rules. It wasn't an accident and there was absolutely no room for debate there. If the FAQ is trying to change that now by saying you can't take more than one signature system on the same model, then it's not an FAQ, it's changing how the rule is written, straight-up.

Personally I don't think this issue is worth assaulting someone over, and I believe that anyone of average intelligence could read the rules presented in the Tau codex and come to the same conclusion, that a single commander is obviously meant to be able to take multiple signature systems, and that this isn't "clarifying" the issue but rather changing how the rules work entirely. If you wanna slap me for saying that's how it works as if I was trying to pull one over on you or cheat you or some gak, when I can hand you the fething book and let you read for yourself that that is exactly how it works, then by all means, "come at me, bro".

jade_angel wrote:

Actually, for the Repentia bit, it really only hurts if you were trying to put them in a Stormraven (which, actually, I used to do - so much for that). For a Land Raider, just deploy them behind it, using the LR to block line of sight, then get in during the first movement phase. Which you'd have had to do anyway, since the Inquisitorial LR is a dedicated transport. Though I suppose you didn't if it was an Astartes LR, since those are HS choices. You can do that for Raiders and Howling Banshees or Striking Scorpions, too. Or the Reapers, for that matter: they have SnP anyway so they can just QWOP into the transport turn 1, then shoot. But they can't use it to deep strike.

The abusive trick where you attach a WWP Haemonculus or Archon to Wraithguard without a transport, then deep strike them in that way, still stands.

This does kill podding Dominions, Skitarii and Scions, though (but at least the Scions can still deep strike. Granted, Dominions have Scout so they aren't hurting too much as is, but...)

Oh my god i didnt even realize what it did to flying transports. Well that sucks even more!

Honestly i wasnt even using Drop Pods because they are objectively better, i was using them because i could call the list Descent of Angels and have it be as near to literal as possible. The fact that it was also awesome made it that much better.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Anyway, I can see why you would be frustrated because Tau are a difficult army to play against, but as it was noted by Bryan01, it's pretty clearly-written in the codex and the intent is crystal clear: commanders are allowed to take multiple signature systems, and it's even specifically noted in the rules how the different systems interact when taken in combination with each other. If you weren't "supposed" to take multiple signature systems on the same model and it isn't what GW intended, then it stands to reason they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of explaining how two pieces of gear interact with each other when taken on the same model ("______can be used at the same time as ______.", which is used in the description for several items). Right?

well...in theory, probably. With GW? That all depends on whatever brand new intern they have writing the rule or FAQ that day...

Well, considering it's been this long, and has gone through two new codexs, I'm pretty sure they can.

Little ol thing like that? Hasnt stopped em with other things, like the grenades in assaults change

Note that I'm not actually trying to argue one way or another on buffmander, only trying to point out that GW is monstrously inconsistent and will sometimes deliver answers directly contrary to what everyone would have otherwise thought.

 Cleatus wrote:

 Drasius wrote:

 Ankhalagon wrote:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.

Great Omnissiah!!! Who the feth asked that?

A player in my local GW who had already bought, built and painted the army. We will all still let him play it.

Ok, I have to know. What buildings were in the list? Possibly something like Fortress of Redemption, Aquila Strongpoint, Bastion, maybe some VSG's?

 corpuschain wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.

Hahaha! Did someone actually ask that?

Drasius, your pics are broken. could you post links, or was there never actually pics at all?

sorry, I cheated.
http://s687.photobucket.com/user/Drasius_Rift/media/40K/DSC_0790_zps82amt9lc.jpg.html

http://s687.photobucket.com/user/Drasius_Rift/media/40K/DSC_0792_zps2mgmmap6.jpg.html

 carldooley wrote:
Drasius, your pics are broken. could you post links, or was there never actually pics at all?

Right click ->view image.

It's an army of buildings with a couple of Assassins hiding amongst them.

I thought the FAQ was supposed to be official yesterday? shouldn't they be up?

They are probably looking for ways to make it a mandatory £15 purchase for all 40k players.

 Selym wrote:
They are probably looking for ways to make it a mandatory £15 purchase for all 40k players.

Warhammer 40k 7.5 confirmed.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Numerous people played it that a "free" pivot meant that you could move a Rhino up 6 inches, then spin around, and then disembark from that access point, effectively giving the unit more inches forward. The rules already pretty much said you couldn't do this, but it wasn't entirely clear.

At the same time, if you don't move in any other way, pivoting the vehicle is indeed free movement. It doesn't cost anything, so you don't count as moving for purposes of firing weapons or passengers, but if you had any other horizontal or vertical movement during the turn, then it does count.

The big issue with the "free pivot" interpretation some people used allowed them to use a vehicle's length to get extra movement out of long vehicles (specifically Ghost Arks and Raiders)

Yea, a common tactic In my group was to deploy, for example, a Ghost Ark at the very edge of the deployment zone, presenting broadside. Then turn 1, pivot, move a full 12" (or 6 or however many). Same thing with bikes.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Numerous people played it that a "free" pivot meant that you could move a Rhino up 6 inches, then spin around, and then disembark from that access point, effectively giving the unit more inches forward. The rules already pretty much said you couldn't do this, but it wasn't entirely clear.

At the same time, if you don't move in any other way, pivoting the vehicle is indeed free movement. It doesn't cost anything, so you don't count as moving for purposes of firing weapons or passengers, but if you had any other horizontal or vertical movement during the turn, then it does count.

The big issue with the "free pivot" interpretation some people used allowed them to use a vehicle's length to get extra movement out of long vehicles (specifically Ghost Arks and Raiders)

Yea, a common tactic In my group was to deploy, for example, a Ghost Ark at the very edge of the deployment zone, presenting broadside. Then turn 1, pivot, move a full 12" (or 6 or however many). Same thing with bikes.

So glad they stopped this. Not because it was broken (in truth I have never played anyone who did this), but because I got tired of people thinking that "free pivot" over-rode "no part of the model may end it's move more than x" from where it started". If you started in one place and do a million pivots, you still cannot "pass" any point beyond your original starting point.

-

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I thought the FAQ was supposed to be official yesterday? shouldn't they be up?

No. They were taking feedback on the first draft until yesterday to give to the design studio to clarify any unclear FAQ questions.

 Yarium wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
I just want to give the biggest hug or slap in the face, im not sure which at this point, to the nerdball who asked:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.



My god.

You know what? After reading this, I think I want to have a game of this. Attacking/invading force has to destroy as many buildings as possible.

So you want to play 40k tower defence?

 Yarium wrote:

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
I just want to give the biggest hug or slap in the face, im not sure which at this point, to the nerdball who asked:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.



My god.

You know what? After reading this, I think I want to have a game of this. Attacking/invading force has to destroy as many buildings as possible.

find an Imperial fists player, he'll be extatic to play a game vs lots of fortifications I bet

 KharnsRightHand wrote:
Yea, a common tactic In my group was to deploy, for example, a Ghost Ark at the very edge of the deployment zone, presenting broadside. Then turn 1, pivot, move a full 12" (or 6 or however many). Same thing with bikes.

Personally I'm kinda glad they changed it, because this kind of thing was always a pet peeve of mine. I just thought it looked silly on the table.

 Saber wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Saber wrote:
The confusing thing about the ruling on Gets Hot and blast weapons is that it directly contradicts the last paragraph in the Gets Hot rule on page 164 of the rule book.

I mean, the rule couldn't be any clearer.

^ This is the problem.

People misunderstanding the FAQ.

Re-rolls still allow the re-roll of the get's hot dice.

However re-rolls with special requirements such as "re-roll all hit results of 1" do correctly not affect blast weapons because they use alternative hit methods. Those re-rolls never specify a re-rolling of the gets hot dice. It's an extreme RAW, but it's not actually in contradiction with the BRB. Hell the FAQ even has an example of Get Hot Blast weapons in it using the normal Re-roll, via twin linked iirc.

But the rulebook also mentions rerolls for BS 6+ being a valid source of rerolling a Gets Hot! die for a blast weapon. So clearly it's not just twin-linking (or other rules that let you reroll all misses) that let you reroll the Gets Hot! die, but any source of rerolls, even those that aren't a full-fat reroll all misses. Why does BS 6 allow the reroll but not Preferred Enemy or Space Marine doctrines or what have you?

The rulebook is clearly just presenting examples of situations when the die can be rerolled, and is not making an all-inclusive list of the situations when you can do it. I get what they're going for with the FAQ answer it just seems to be a completely nonsensical reading of the rule.

Ah, but that's just it, if you are BS6+ and miss the shot, you ALWAYS get to reroll the To Hit dice. Granted, you only miss on a one to begin with, and you don't necessarily hit at your normal BS with the reroll, but you will ALWAYS be granted that reroll if you miss the initial To Hit roll. That is not the case with conditional rerolls like those granted by PE. This just confirms that GW sees a distinct difference between a rule granting a blanket reroll (ie, always rerolling To Hit failures) vs a rule that offers conditional rerolls (only rerolling certain To Hit results).

 Selym wrote:
I think this FAQ needs an FAQ.

It's a draft, not a final version - the intention being to see what is still unclear in player's feedback.