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.

In early 2005 GW put a thread on the EoT titled "Droning On..." It dealt with the issue of Tau Shield Drones under 4th edition. I think it was authored by Peter Haines. You can't reference this thread now because the EoT does not archive material.

In this thread, GW stated the following:

They acknowledged that Tau Shield Drones had been nerfed by the 4th edition Mixed T&A rules.
They confirmed that the Tau FAQ v4 sustained this nerfing although it was wrong.
They stated the principle that a core rule should not be overturned by an FAQ.
Therefore Tau players should be patient and wait for a new codex.
(I paraphrase somewhat.)

Unfortunately GW released the Eldar FAQ at roughly the same time. It contradicted the core rule about AP1 vs Skimmers Moving Fast.

This kind of thing makes it quite plain that GW literally don't know what they are doing.

I am wondering if an FAQ that was released prior to a new edition of rules would still rank precedence.

i agree with green bloater. the bbb takes precedence, if you read the new WD uk it states something along the lines of the faq's are not available to all players so the latest codex edition for the army list takes presedence. As for the BBB its the main rules. The BBB is newer than the necron codex so it overides that. the necron codex was done in 3rd edition where you could snipe charactors and IC with templates. You cant do that now. As for the Faq's they dont get updated even when they are supposed to.

Posted By beef on 09/03/2006 1:01 AM
The BBB is newer than the necron codex so it overides that.

ok I want whatever it is that beef is smoking, at least it gives me an easy victory over necrons(sorry, your codex wont work anymore). in my mind FAQ:s IS the new codex, as GW used to have cut and paste FAQ:s in the old WD:s.

FYI beef, all the current FAQ state that they are version 4.1 or 4.0.1.

All of the FAQs posted on GW's site were released after the 4th edition rulebook and most definitely take precedence.

I am with beef. Stating you want to smoke whatever he is smoking has nothing at all to do with any discussion regarding the rules. Let's all observe the first rule. Now what Ghaz said is true and this bears important relevance to the discussion.

Now what Ghaz said is true and this bears important relevance to the discussion.

As opposed to unimportant relevance?

Posted By bigchris1313 on 09/03/2006 6:01 PM

Now what Ghaz said is true and this bears important relevance to the discussion.

As opposed to unimportant relevance?

No.  As opposed to important irrelevance

There's no point releasing FAQs if they don't take precedence. The point of an FAQ is to update and correct the rules.

That said, there's some awful claptrap in the FAQs, but we all know there's some awful claptrap in the BGB as well.

There's no winners where GW rules are concerned.

I don't see how there is a debate on this one. FAQS that were posted AFTER version 4 obviously take precedence. However, it is the players job to produce the FAQ when playing a game.

It is simply disingenuous to state you get to do X action because Y FAQ says so. You have to show proof by furnishing the FAQ to your opponent. Thus I can see WD saying that the BBB is the ultimate in rules. THat is correct. It is also true that when a player presents an updated FAQ that those rules in the BBB are replaced by the relevant and official FAQ.

I forgot that the FAQs were re-released following the new ruleset. So I agree these FAQs take precedence. Thanks for clearing up this misconception of mine!

Moving a squad to a distance so that the only casualty that your opponent can take from your shooting is the Veteran Sergent/Warlock/Generic squad upgrade person/alien/bi/tri/quad pedaled monsterious thingy

Posted By Celtic Strike on 09/06/2006 2:38 AM
Moving a squad to a distance so that the only casualty that your opponent can take from your shooting is the Veteran Sergent/Warlock/Generic squad upgrade person/alien/bi/tri/quad pedaled monsterious thingy

Eh...

 

If you leave your vet sgt hanging, as it were, I think your opponent MUST seize the opportunity to take him out. Its a kill of opportunity and one which you provided for your opponent. And its not like its hard to counter, just don't stick him out front.

What about sniping characters via careful placement of vehicles?

Like this?

 

While a bit of a 'cheap trick', I don't think its an abuse of a rules loophole or anything like that. Case in point, if the targeted model survives the tables are reversed and the character can then snipe right back at the special/heavy weapon that targeted him.

If your character is in such a position that this can happen, chances are that he was doing some shooting of his own (read Libby w/ Fury).

Prevent this from happening by placing models directly between him and the enemy, or by hiding behind terrain. If you need for you character to draw LOS to the enemy there is ALWAYS the chance that the enemy will figure out a way to draw LOS right back at him. Thats simply the price one must pay.

No one is immune to kills of opportunity simply because their shoulder pads have gold trim.

It seems pretty dirty... almost as bas as the monolith snipe... so I never do it.

Posted By Green Bloater on 09/05/2006 3:42 PM
I forgot that the FAQs were re-released following the new ruleset. So I agree these FAQs take precedence. Thanks for clearing up this misconception of mine!

*Falls over dead*

Ya, I'd never do it either. But if my opponent managed to set it up against me I wouldn't throw a fit.

Fool me once...

is there an faq for the BBB? i think not so the rules in the BBB are correct untill GW publishes a set of faqs to correct mistakes in the BBB. so if they have not doen that then that meens the BBB is correct in the basics of the rules. so if the BBB says you cant target an IC then you cant. its that simple.

There is no FAQ for BBB yet as they have not found someone stupid enough to write it.

Stupid, or brave? I think it'd take more courage than anything to write a FAQ considering how harsh the community has been about it. Be thankful they're not giving up FAQs completely...yet...

Also, another way to avoid the "character snipe" is to make sure at least one model is behind the character. That way, particularly for ICs, they won't be obscured for assaults (so they can reach BtB contact) and the model behind can always be taken off as a shooting casualty since infantry models don't block line of sight. Having a model in front can help in some ways, though, such as preventing an enemy from reaching BtB with him with a powerfist or somesuch.

Actually better to have the ablative model in front. If they are going to all the trouble to snipe then they will probably make sure the character is just in range as well.

uh lets be clear here the bbb does not say you cannot shoot at an ic

 

it does say however you cannot target the ic if the ic is not the closest model or within another model that is withn 6" .. however if you block line of site

 

this whole thing about blocking line of site is to me not a rules abuse but good tactics

 

if your the enemy and you dont protect your general hes dead meat and id do it every chance i could get

 

if you wont do it then thats great where are you at and when do you play at tournaments?

yeah but the necron partial whip template thing thats ap1 in the centre hole. peole think you can target the IC with that, if he is the closest model then yes but not if he is in the middle of a squad.

Posted By beef on 09/08/2006 4:14 PM
yeah but the necron partial whip template thing thats ap1 in the centre hole. peole think you can target the IC with that, if he is the closest model then yes but not if he is in the middle of a squad.

Yes, you can target the IC with the hole in the center of the template if he's joined to the squad.  You're targeting the squad with the template.  Hitting the IC with the hole is just a side effect of the legal placement of the template.

"it does say however you cannot target the ic if the ic is not the closest model or within another model that is withn 6"

Only half of this is correct under 4th edition rules.

therefore you cant target the Ic then.

You are not targetting the IC, you´re just hitting him with the AP 1 hit.

Much like if he was joined to aunit and was the only model in LOS.

If you purposely place the center of the ordnance template over a specific model so as to kill it with S9 AP1 shooting attack then you are definitely targeting that model. Don't try to use lawyer talk to represent it any other way. That is exactly what it is. If the Necrons FAQ says you can do it then that is fine, just don't try to make it out to be something it is not for when you do so bright people are naturally going to call you on it. BS is BS... it is just that simple.

Posted By Green Bloater on 09/10/2006 5:43 PM
If you purposely place the center of the ordnance template over a specific model so as to kill it with S9 AP1 shooting attack then you are definitely targeting that model.

No, you are not specifically targeting the IC.  You are targeting the unit and by happenstance you can place the template so that the IC is under the hole in the center of the template.  Nothing in the rules makes that illegal.