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.

So... we have an apokalypse battle coming up and i want to run 2 weirdboys/warpheads in my Kustom Mega Stompa, what happens if i end up having to drop a template on myself? Am i safe because i am in a vehicle? The template would just hit the walker, yes?

Im pretty sure the eadbang has no effect whe you're in a vehicle.

If the rules for the blast marker (NOT template ) effect dont mention an exemption for being inside a vehicle, then the marker is placed and ONLY the vehicle can be hit.

Or you could just check the GW Ork FAQ:

Q. Does a Weirdboy embarked on a vehicle still
roll for his powers? If so, can you clarify what
happens in all cases?
A. He still rolls for his powers and the effects are
as follows:
•‘Eadbanger: Causes a Strength 6 hit on the
vehicle’s rear armour.
•Frazzle: Fired from the vehicle following the
normal rules for passengers firing.
•Zzap: Fired from the vehicle following the
normal rules for passengers firing.
•Warpath: Applies as normal to the embarked
unit.
•‘Ere we go: Applies as normal to the embarked
unit. No effect on the vehicle.
•Waaagh! Applies as normal.

Ok thanks guys!

Yeah, RaW there is nothing to deal with what happens, though the FAQ makes a nice compromise IMO.

Wait theres a GW FAQ that actally answers questions

Also, damn i got cheated last game

Yes but Gwar!'s arguement would be that it is an FAQ, not errata, and therefore as valid as any houserule is. I, however, believe that FAQ's released by GW, although they may not necessarily be written exclusively by them, should be followed in the cases of confusion, and/or RAW inconsistencies.

Sandyman11 wrote:Yes but Gwar!'s arguement would be that it is an FAQ, not errata, and therefore as valid as any houserule is. I, however, believe that FAQ's released by GW, although they may not necessarily be written exclusively by them, should be followed in the cases of confusion, and/or RAW inconsistencies.

They're the official solution offered by GW to a problem with their codex; you can take it or devise your own if you don't like it.

Owain wrote:

Sandyman11 wrote:Yes but Gwar!'s arguement would be that it is an FAQ, not errata, and therefore as valid as any houserule is. I, however, believe that FAQ's released by GW, although they may not necessarily be written exclusively by them, should be followed in the cases of confusion, and/or RAW inconsistencies.

They're the official solution offered by GW to a problem with their codex; you can take it or devise your own if you don't like it.

A few problems with that:
1) They are not "official" and are never stated to be.
2) They are, by GW's own definition, house rules
3) As shown with my SW FAQ and the multiple FAQs they borrowed from the INAT, they just steal Questions from elsewhere and don't write them themselves, meaning that they are not RaI either, since the author did not write the answers.

Gwar! wrote:
3) As shown with my SW FAQ and the multiple FAQs they borrowed from the INAT, they just steal Questions from elsewhere and don't write them themselves, meaning that they are not RaI either, since the author did not write the answers.

Well, those were Frequently Asked Questions so should be included regardless. And they could be RAI, c'mon, even you get it right once in a while......................
Or are you saying that all of your answers are not RAI............?

don_mondo wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
3) As shown with my SW FAQ and the multiple FAQs they borrowed from the INAT, they just steal Questions from elsewhere and don't write them themselves, meaning that they are not RaI either, since the author did not write the answers.

Well, those were Frequently Asked Questions so should be included regardless. And they could be RAI, c'mon, even you get it right once in a while......................
Or are you saying that all of your answers are not RAI............?

Nope. My Answers are either RaW or Rules Changes because the RaW is really silly or a Clarification of an Ambiguous Rule.

At no time do I claim that my FAQs are what was "intended".

So RAW and RAI are of necessity two different things?

And you do know I'm poking fun at you, I hope.........

don_mondo wrote:So RAW and RAI are of necessity two different things?

And you do know I'm poking fun at you, I hope.........

Yes I do know.

RaW and RaI are in 90% of cases, the exact same thing. The 10% of cases it is up to GW to issue an Errata.