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.

Looks like they agreed with me on Typhus' force plaguebringer

One thing I noticed...

Typo Noticed - The first page of Daemonhunters Queries are listed as CSM Queries.

What does "free shooting" mean? (DH Mystics)

While I agree with Mauleed that it would be nice to have all players playing the same set of rules, I disagree with some of your rulings. They're entirely subjective. The willy-nilly application of RAW or "whatever the hell the authors want," apparently at random, is rather infuriating.

It would've been nice if you used and explained some sort of universal metric to solve the ambiguous rules, instead of simply ruling by the seat of your pants.

I don't understand the ruling in regards to the Gaurdian weapon platforms. That is an obvious change rather then a clarification. Why change a rule that is clear?

These decisions were not made at the seat of anyones pants. They were done after careful discussion between several experienced players.

No you don't need to use these rules; you just have to use them if you come to Adepticon. Some rule has to be made when hundreds of people come to play from all over the country.

This FAQ really goes into a lot of detail. Hopefully there will not be as many questions this year. Job well done.

- G

studderingdave wrote:why dont most of the ork characters have the waaagh rule? i would think that big bad named ork characters would DEFINATLY gain the power of the waaaagh.

Only Wazzdakka and Zagstruk have had their Waaagh! removed and only because the Waaagh! doesn't do anything for non-infantry models (which both of them are). So either way you slice it they aren't getting anything from the Waaagh! and it is likely that the fact they even have it is a typo since there are several other instances in the codex of units being listed as having a special rule in one section of the codex and not in the other section.

IntoTheRain wrote:Few thinks I would like to see added. (hopefully I didn't just miss them)

-Turbo boosting bikes vs psycannons.
-Does a model with a Goblet of Spite hit skimmers on a 3+ in CC?
-Does Tigurius's Hood of Hellfire double the range of Fear of the Darkness?

*Turbo Boosting vs. Psycannons is covered (RB.76C.01).
*I'll have to check out the Goblet of spite (thanks).
*The Tigirius question is answered (SM.49.01).

Death By Monkeys wrote:One thing I noticed...

Typo Noticed - The first page of Daemonhunters Queries are listed as CSM Queries.

Hmmm. . .

That seems to be some sort of formatting error when it gets converted to a PDF. It looks fine in my Word document, so I'll have to loook into that. Thanks!

ColonelEllios wrote:What does "free shooting" mean? (DH Mystics)

While I agree with Mauleed that it would be nice to have all players playing the same set of rules, I disagree with some of your rulings. They're entirely subjective. The willy-nilly application of RAW or "whatever the hell the authors want," apparently at random, is rather infuriating.

It would've been nice if you used and explained some sort of universal metric to solve the ambiguous rules, instead of simply ruling by the seat of your pants.

The "free" shooting by the mystics is the shot the unit is allowed to take at any unit deep striking within range of the mystic. Do I need to make this more clear in your opinion?

As for your overall points about the FAQ I would like to address them:

All FAQs are subjective as they are made by people and people have differing opinions. On the last page of the FAQ I wrote a little bit about the reasoning for why the FAQ is written the way it is. The goal of the FAQ isn't to always 'get it right' by the RAW, but rather to provide a smooth gaming experience for the majority of the players at the tournament. As I say in the document, most players who attend a tournament are not going to read a nearly 90 page document, they are just going to show up and play their games. If the FAQ irks a few players ahead of time (but they adjust) and the vast majority of players never even have to know the FAQ exists (because they're already playing the way the FAQ rules) then I think we've done our job of making a document that assists in creating a smooth running tournament.

The fact is, you cannot make a FAQ that adheres strictly to the RAW. If you did the game would be ridiculously unplayable, believe me. So when you claim that we've made rulings "willy-nilly" basically what you are saying is that we've ruled in some places to make rules changes where you personally wouldn't have. That feeling is entirely understandable.

We have been very clear in which cases we feel we've changed the rules (by denoting them as a [rules change] ) and in some extreme cases I have put a further description of why the change was made. But to be honest, whether we explain our rationale behind making a rules change or not, it isn't likely to change the disatisfaction you have with the rule being changed in the first place. So really the only thing an explanation as to why a rule was changed along with every [rules change] would only serve to inflate an already overly long document to ridiculous proportions.

If you have any specific gripes with the rules changes by all means post them in this thread (or over on the awc boards).

I hope this has clarified things a bit for you but I fully understand that there are always going to be some people who are unsatisfied no matter how the FAQ is written (certain people get angry if a FAQ sticks to closely to the RAW while others get angry if a FAQ strays too far from the RAW).

Mahu wrote:I don't understand the ruling in regards to the Gaurdian weapon platforms. That is an obvious change rather then a clarification. Why change a rule that is clear?

A decision was made because the ability of a Guardian unit to place its gunners on either side of the unit and then 'jump' the gun to either end of the unit as needed (even in the shooting phase after seeing what other units had destroyed) seemed ridiculous to the majority of the players in the council. As such, a rules change was made to force the gunner models within 2" of each otehr as it seemed the simpilest way to resolve the issue and was in-keeping with a similar ruling we had made regarding IG weapon teams that are based separately.

Great product, well illustrated, a pleasure to read.

Though I note you did leave out the frequently asked question on marine sexual preferences.

I have a formatting suggestion. Each codex section refers back to other pages, which is convienent during the drafting stage and good if you intend to walk around with the entire 88 page document.

However players who want to simply print out the FAQ for their own codex will be caught without some answers.

So I recommend cutting and pasting the answers for 'know no fear' etc into each section.

I'd also replace refrences to RAW to 'rules as written' you don't use acronyms for the other rationales and unlike 'FAQ' RAW is not a common term in either English or GW rules, I've really only seen it on Dakka.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Great product, well illustrated, a pleasure to read.

Though I note you did leave out the frequently asked question on marine sexual preferences.

That would be for the FARQ: Frequently Asked Rhetorical Questions.

Okay here goes:

Stelek wrote:
RB.39.02A – Q: If models fighting an existing close
combat are within cover and charged by a new
enemy unit do they get the cover bonus? Do the
Attacking models get to use grenades?
A: No. Once locked in combat, models within cover gain
no further benefit from it and therefore attackers cannot
use grenades or Flesh Hooks against them [rules change].

Question: I think you should make it a bit clearer that you still roll difficult terrain to charge, but then resolve attacks in normal initiative order for all combatants.

I see where you're going, but the ruling doesn't involve moving through terrain at all. I'm not sure that including that would clarify or confuse things more (because people may wonder why the heck I'm mentioning movement in the answer at all).

RB.47B.01 – Q: What constitutes a shooting
casualty for causing a morale check? Do models
killed by an exploding vehicle count?
A: Any casualty suffered in the shooting phase counts,
regardless of the source [rules change].

I'm curious why this was decided as a good thing? It would also include losses to being shot out of a transport vehicle, so if I'm not 'entangled' I might run away because my Rhino was blown up? Really?

You also don't cover casaulties from game mechanics in the movement phase. If you do the above, why not also cover this?

Seems very odd for a deffrolla to crush my Rhino, force me out, I lose guys and don't care; but the lootas that did the same thing to second squad might make them run.
It's not consistent.

What exactly constitutes a shooting casualty sadly isn't defined in the rulebook. The last official GW FAQ to cover the subject (in 3rd edition) did rule that casualties caused by an exploding vehicle indeed counted towards morale checks. And if you think about it, it does make sense. When you destroy a vehicle through shooting the explosion is a direct result of that shooting, ergo it is a casualty caused by shooting. So rather than do a whole bunch of clarifications based on case-by-base basis of wierd special rules (and risk missing a ruling on a particular item) it is much simpler to make a blanket ruling that anything in the shooting phase counts as a shooting casaulty for morale checks.

As for casualties in the movment phase causing morale checks, it was a topic brought up. Ultimately it was decided that it would be too much of a strech on our part to start imposing a brand new morale check in a phase that normally doesn't have one. You are right that it is incosistent, but I think it is one of those inconsistencies that we (as the council) will have to live with. When we go back over the FAQ based on this feedback I will bring this point up again and see what everyone thinks.

RB.51.02 – Q: When Independent Characters are
joined to, or part of a unit, and that unit is wiped
out by shooting or close combat, does the
character still take Morale and Pinning tests as if
he was part of the unit (including the -1 Ld
modifier for the unit being under 50% strength)?
A: Yes, for Morale and Pinning purposes, they count as
being part of the unit through the end of the phase in
which the unit was wiped out [rules change].
Also, enemies who fired at the unit that was
subsequently wiped out may still declare a charge against
the (now) lone IC in the following Assault phase.

You don't cover additional shooting in this instance. Do they also count as being part of the unit through the end of the phase for other purposes? If so, this effectively strips IC's of their IC status until the shooting phase is over. Lascannons away!

Just what the ruling actually says: for morale and pinning purposes (and for the ability to declare a charge on the IC in the subsequent assault phase) they count as part of the unit until the end of the phase. The character would still immediately benefit from the IC targeting restriction if his unit was destroyed around him.

Under Psychic powers, you list Nurgles rot as using a template. Since the word template is defined as one of three templates....and rot does not use these, you might want to change that.

That is most definitely an error I will fix (it should be '3' instead of a '2'). Thanks!

RB.52.05 – Q: Can a Psyker use more than one
psychic power per player turn?
A: Each codex lists their army’s particular psychic
limitations [RAW]. If no limitation is listed (such as the
Tyranid codex), a psyker is free to use as many psychic
powers per player turn as allowed by the rules for their
psychic powers. However unless specified otherwise,
each particular power may not be used more than once
per turn [rules change].
Ref: CSM.32.01

You don't mention Force Weapons. These have a restriction of 'this or nothing else' in the BBB. There are exceptions (Mephiston).

At the time I wrote this ruling I did a pretty thorough check of the codices. I believe that any codex that uses a Force Weapon also has a 'one power per turn' psyker clause in it. I could be wrong and if I am I'd appreciate the heads-up.

RB.54B.01 – Q: Can a jetbike model carrying a
rapid fire or heavy weapon (as opposed to a bikemounted
weapon) fire it and then charge into
combat in the subsequent Assault phase?
A: Yes, a jetbike model may fire any heavy or rapid fire
weapon and still charge into combat. Note that the rapid
fire weapon may only be fired at maximum range if it is
actually bike-mounted [RAW].
Ref: RB.53B.01

I don't see any mention of heavy weapons for the Jetbike being able to be used and then a Jetbike move. I do see it for Jump Infantry. Shouldn't this be covered?

To my knowledge, the only model that can carry a heavy weapon on a jetbike is an Eldar Autarch. As such, this ruling is found only in the Eldar section (which we ruled that he could indeed move and shoot a heavy weapon). If I've missed another jetbike model that carries a heavy weapon, please let me know.

RB.61.02G – Q: Can a Skimmer choose to enter
difficult terrain rather than hovering over it?
A: A Skimmer may not normally choose to enter difficult
terrain unless it has a special rule that allows it to do so
[RAW].

RB.61.02H – Q: Can a Skimmer Tank Shock enemy
units in area terrain? If so, does the Skimmer
move into the terrain?
A: A Skimmer tank that declares a Tank Shock against a
unit in area terrain is allowed to (and must) move into
the terrain to do so, but it will take a dangerous terrain
test like a non-Skimmer to do so [rules change].

So what happens if the Skimmer cannot exit the terrain because it's moved as far as it's going to--what if it gets stunned and cannot move further as a result of a DOG attack? These two rules contradict each other in that instance.

I don't see these two rulings as contradicting. Normally a skimmer cannot enter terrain but if it tank shocks a unit in terrain it must do so. If the skimmer is forced to end its move in the terrain it will do so over the terrain as normal (although I do think I should clarify that last bit so it is clear what to do if the Tank Shock movement ends in terrain).

RB.74G.02 – Q: If two units locked in combat with
each other both have the Hit & Run USR, how is
that situation handled?
A: The unit with the higher Initiative characteristic (use
the majority rule) makes its Hit & Run move first. If both
units have the same Initiative, randomly determine which
unit moves first [rules change].

This seems bad. Why isn't this resolved just like Pile In moves are, player whose turn it is goes first? Seems kindy bs that a higher Init unit that got charged, can hit & run away from another unit that also has hit & run but is lower init. Gives the advantage to one player always, instead of as designed--to the player whose turn (and assault phase) it is.

Well, you do realize that both units still get to make the hit-and-run fall back move right? As this ruling stands just the one with the higher initiative does it first. I can make that more clear and I'll bring it up the council to see if we want to change it to what you suggest. It doesn't really have a major game impact (that I can see) either way it is ruled.

RB.81A.01 – Q: If a single Force Organization
choice is made up of several units (such as an
Imperial Guard Platoon) and only some of those
units can Infiltrate/Deep Strike/etc, can those
abilities be utilized or must the entire choice be
deployed at the same time?
A: Units with a special deployment ability are free to
utilize it, even if it they will be deployed at a different
time from the rest of their Force Organization choice
[clarification]. However, all units from a single Force
Organization chart using the same special deployment
ability are deployed at the same time.

You do realize this is not really practical? 6 IG teams cannot all be deployed at the same time when deep striking, or do you really expect IG players to place 6 unit leaders down; roll scatter for each; and place each? I know I wouldn't want to bother with it.

All this ruling means is that if you have several infiltrating units from the same force Org choice (for example) they'd have to still be deployed together as a single 'choice' when it came time to deploy a unit.

As for Deep Striking a platoon, you most certainly have to roll for scatter with each unit. . .there isn't any other way without drastically altering the Deep Strike rules.

RB.81A.02 – Q: When the mission says that units
may not be deployed within 18” inches of the
enemy. Does that mean they can be exactly 18”
away or that they must be set up more than 18”
away from each other?
A: Models must be set up more than the distance
specified apart from each other. Meaning that models
that are able to move 6” and assault 12” are unable to
charge on the very first player turn [clarification].

Yet, cannot all of the units that CAN make that move, also fleet? So by definition, they can ALL assault first turn as the minimum roll for fleet is 1"? The only exception I believe is Tyranid Warriors?

It was simply an example to emphasize that if you have to set up 18" away from each other if models move exactly 18" in a turn they would be unable to assault each other in one player turn. I guess I'll change the example to models that move 12" in the movement phase and 6" in the assault phase and add "as an example" so as not to confuse anyone.

RB.84C.02 – Does Deep Striking into difficult
terrain count as moving into the terrain for models
that have to take Dangerous Terrain tests when
moving into terrain?
A: Yes [rules change].

If possible, you should clarify how far the models are counted as moving, since that would for say Land Speeders actually be TWO dangerous terrain tests since they currently count as moving over 12". Tau Crisis Suits can fire, so they would be defined as moving 6", so they'd only take 1 test. Just a suggestion.

The GW FAQ specifies that vehicles count as moving 12" when DS. I don't there any vehicles that DS besides skimmers (which don't actually DS into the terrain) and walkers (that take difficult terrain tests as infantry). non-vehicle models it doesn't matter "how far" they moved, just that they did move. If I'm wrong on any of these points feel free to let me know.

RB.84I.07 – Q: What happens to units in Reserve
that never arrive on the table the whole game?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.85.03

By definition, this means that units aboard transports that never arrived would not count as destroyed. Might want to clear that up a bit.

Ah I see you did here, might want to add it up there.

RB.85.03 – Q: Do Vehicles that end the game off
the table give up Victory Points?
A: Unless specified otherwise, units off the table at the
end of the game count as destroyed and give full Victory
Points to your opponent [rules change]. This rule does
not apply to ‘Type: Flyer’ vehicles and units embarked on
transports (that are on the table) at the end of the game.
Ref: RB.62.01, RB.84I.06

I see your point and I'll see what I can do to clear it up.

Whew!

Hey Yak -

As a side for ease of navigation - what would you think of inserting hyperlinks in the table of contents so that players could click to each section. We do it with all of our ISO documents that are PDFed. It works out really well for navigating documents quickly. This is more or less if you have time.

Greg

That sounds like a good idea! I'll PM you about this.

Ok here is one to add to the dark eldar faq

Q: Do combat drugs that say "Always strikes first" overide the Eldar's Howling Banshee banshee masks which state on the first turn of close combat ignores terrain and grenades, and effectively allows them to strike at I10?

A: Yes ( banshee masks do not override the dark eldar's combat drugs that say always strikes first. The RAW is very clear on what the howling banshee masks can and cannot negate).

I have had this come up in several events and the results are always the same.

For those that will say dice for it, i say NO not NOW not EVER. Not beng unreasonable here, but if the powers that be intended for the unit to negate that then they would have made it that way. They did not nor have they faq'd it.

Yak:

Force Weapons require a psychic test, but are not actually psychic powers per se. Since you can have multiple powers (and your FAQ allows them to use multiple powers unless otherwise specificed) and the BBB says you can NOT use a force weapon AND cast any other powers (exceptions are mephiston and ahriman I believe) this should be outlined to players--alot of people do NOT know this rule, and merrily Warptime/Force Weapon. It's not allowed.

Seraphim are slow, but Lictors and Shining Spears are fast. It doesn't matter if both units get to hit & run, GW has setup the assault phase so the player currently doing the assault gets to do everything BEFORE the other player. Essentially, you are using 'initiative' of a unit to break the games basic tenet that he who moves first gets to go first, choose what assaults to fight, moves models into base first, and hits/runs first. This is not only unfair, it isn't needed. Just clarify that the person who moves first hits/runs first, like everyone actually plays it. Don't change a rule without precedent. It's just meddling.

Sammael carries a plasma cannon, but he isn't a Eldar Jetbike--but he's still a Jetbike. Not sure if that really answers your question.

I understand what you are thinking I'm saying in regards to casaulties during the movement phase. It isn't what I'm saying though, so I will rephrase it and try again. Under the FAQ, you are ONLY talking about the SHOOTING phase. That's fine and dandy, but tank shock occurs in the MOVEMENT phase. The vehicle is dead either way, right? In the shooting phase, the casaulties count towards morale checks--but the movement phase casaulties do not. This doesn't make sense. If I suffer casaulties in ANY phase, I should either have to take casaulties or not. It's a continuity issue. You've also left out what happens when someone assaults my rhino, blows it up, and I lose 3 out of 8 guys. Again, under the FAQ, I don't care and stand pat. Why? Either I care about getting forced out of my vehicle, or I don't. Making an arbitrary statement that ONLY during shooting do your troops care, is irrational at best. It should ALWAYS be the same in-game result for the same in-game event.

Deep striking. What I meant was, it is IMPOSSIBLE and unfair to ask IG players to roll SIMULTANEOUSLY for all their deep strikes! I know the rule was meant to cover infiltrate, but it was used with a too broad brush and also covers deepstrike--which is unplayable. Example: I drop a full IG platoon. 6 units. I place them all simultaneously even thought that isn't what the rules say (one at a time) and then I roll 6 scatter dice and 12 d6? Come on, it's silly to require that just to make infiltrate all setup--and you also open pandora's box by IMPLYING that one reserve roll will bring in a IG platoon in all circumstances. Many a scenario has altered those rules.
Just my concerns on overcomplication.

Tank shock. Anytime you have 1 ruling clearly contradicting another, you should clearly say 'exception: event' so people don't argue and have to dig for another ruling to "clear it up".

Hope that helps.

Also....are the Witchhunter units known as Zealots out of the white dwarf still a viable unit in current formats?

Stelek wrote:
Force Weapons require a psychic test, but are not actually psychic powers per se. Since you can have multiple powers (and your FAQ allows them to use multiple powers unless otherwise specificed) and the BBB says you can NOT use a force weapon AND cast any other powers (exceptions are mephiston and ahriman I believe) this should be outlined to players--alot of people do NOT know this rule, and merrily Warptime/Force Weapon. It's not allowed.

OK so you're basically just saying that I should include a question mentioning that you can't use a psychic power on the same turn as a force weapon (essentially just reiterating what the rulebook says) because most people don't notice that rule?

Seraphim are slow, but Lictors and Shining Spears are fast. It doesn't matter if both units get to hit & run, GW has setup the assault phase so the player currently doing the assault gets to do everything BEFORE the other player. Essentially, you are using 'initiative' of a unit to break the games basic tenet that he who moves first gets to go first, choose what assaults to fight, moves models into base first, and hits/runs first. This is not only unfair, it isn't needed. Just clarify that the person who moves first hits/runs first, like everyone actually plays it. Don't change a rule without precedent. It's just meddling.

Fair enough. It will likely be changed in the next update.

Sammael carries a plasma cannon, but he isn't a Eldar Jetbike--but he's still a Jetbike. Not sure if that really answers your question.

That's good to know, but I guess the question regarding the Autarch more stems from the fact that he carries the Reaper Launcher (as opposed to having it mounted on his bike). I'm not sure anything really needs to be changed in the FAQ regarding this.

I understand what you are thinking I'm saying in regards to casaulties during the movement phase. It isn't what I'm saying though, so I will rephrase it and try again. Under the FAQ, you are ONLY talking about the SHOOTING phase. That's fine and dandy, but tank shock occurs in the MOVEMENT phase. The vehicle is dead either way, right? In the shooting phase, the casaulties count towards morale checks--but the movement phase casaulties do not. This doesn't make sense. If I suffer casaulties in ANY phase, I should either have to take casaulties or not. It's a continuity issue. You've also left out what happens when someone assaults my rhino, blows it up, and I lose 3 out of 8 guys. Again, under the FAQ, I don't care and stand pat. Why? Either I care about getting forced out of my vehicle, or I don't. Making an arbitrary statement that ONLY during shooting do your troops care, is irrational at best. It should ALWAYS be the same in-game result for the same in-game event.

But the issue has nothing to do with suffering casualties from vehicle disembarkation. It has to do with morale checks in phases outside of the shooting phase. There are several ways units can suffer casualties outside of the shooting phase: Walking through Castellan minefields, for example.

For whatever reason, the rules don't have morale checks simply for suffering casualties in the movement phase (and in the assault phase only for losing combat). The possibility of forcing players to take morale checks in the movement phase when they suffer casualties was brought up but ultimately the majority of the council felt that, because of the way the rules were written, most people just don't take morale checks in the movement phase when they suffer 25% casualties and that introducing such an element would be counter-productive to a smooth game.

I understand that you want to focus the issue on embarked models suffering casualties (because it isn't consistent across the different phases) but to be honest it really is just about the way the rules fail to have morale checks for casualties caused in odd ways in the movement & assault phases.

When it comes to casualties in the shooting phase, once you start to draw a line and try to say: "only these types of casualties count towards morale checks" you open a bigger can of worms because there is such a myriad of wierd shooting weapons that you just create a whole new slew of: "do casualties from X weapon count as casualties?"

Also if you disallow casualties caused by exploding vehicles to count towards morale checks now players have to keep track of which models were killed by regular shooting and which were killed by exploding vehicles, something that isn't always easy in a hectic shooting phase.

By making a blanket ruling: 'all casualties in the shooting phase count as shooting casualties' it makes it very simple to keep track of how many casualties a unit has suffered that phase without having to worry about exactly what killed them.


Now, if you are lobbying for a morale check to be added to the movement phase if the unit suffers 25% casualties, then I will take that information back to the council and we will discuss it for the next update, but I can say that we did discuss it previously and the idea was ultimately decided to be counter-productive.

Deep striking. What I meant was, it is IMPOSSIBLE and unfair to ask IG players to roll SIMULTANEOUSLY for all their deep strikes! I know the rule was meant to cover infiltrate, but it was used with a too broad brush and also covers deepstrike--which is unplayable. Example: I drop a full IG platoon. 6 units. I place them all simultaneously even thought that isn't what the rules say (one at a time) and then I roll 6 scatter dice and 12 d6? Come on, it's silly to require that just to make infiltrate all setup--and you also open pandora's box by IMPLYING that one reserve roll will bring in a IG platoon in all circumstances. Many a scenario has altered those rules.
Just my concerns on overcomplication.

I'm just not sure how you're getting what you're getting from the FAQ answer I've written. That said, I guess I'll just ged rid of the (supposed) clarification sentence at the end. Apparently it is causing more confusion than clarification.

Tank shock. Anytime you have 1 ruling clearly contradicting another, you should clearly say 'exception: event' so people don't argue and have to dig for another ruling to "clear it up".

Its already changed for the next release.

Rle68 wrote:Also....are the Witchhunter units known as Zealots out of the white dwarf still a viable unit in current formats?

That is an Adepticon tournament question (as opposed to a rules question) but the answer is pretty much yes. You should go to the Adepticon page and look in their tournament rules for more details about what rules are allowed in each particular tournament.

Here's one -

To score an objective (Secure and control for example) you have to be within a certain distance of the objective. Does the entire unit have to be entirely that distance or less, or does just having one model within the distance count? Can a squad capture multiple objectives?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I have a formatting suggestion. Each codex section refers back to other pages, which is convienent during the drafting stage and good if you intend to walk around with the entire 88 page document.

However players who want to simply print out the FAQ for their own codex will be caught without some answers.

So I recommend cutting and pasting the answers for 'know no fear' etc into each section.

I'd also replace refrences to RAW to 'rules as written' you don't use acronyms for the other rationales and unlike 'FAQ' RAW is not a common term in either English or GW rules, I've really only seen it on Dakka.

The formatting suggestion is a good one, but the whole point of this FAQ was to make something that wasn't disjointed like the rest of GW's FAQs and one of the ways to accomplish that is to reference back from multiple places to a single ruling. It would be possible to include multiple versions of every question in the appropriate section but that too would seriously bulk up the size of the document.

Of course then players might be more likely just to print up the sections for their codex. . .


As for 'RAW', the definition is included both in the introduction to the document and in the 'glossary of abbreviations' in the back. I don't think people will have too hard a time finding out the meaning if they need to. Plus even Jervis Johnson used 'RAW' in his standard bearer article so I'm sure it has penetrated a fair amount of gamer's brains.

skyth wrote:Here's one -

To score an objective (Secure and control for example) you have to be within a certain distance of the objective. Does the entire unit have to be entirely that distance or less, or does just having one model within the distance count? Can a squad capture multiple objectives?

That is one that should be addressed. It will be in the very front of the FAQ and will apply to all ranges and references of distance in the game.

On the psychic powers table (pg 16), you state that neither Eldritch Storm nor Mind War require line of site. The Eldar codex does not specify whether or not Eldritch Storm requires line of site, but I've always assumed that LoS is needed since no exemption is given. The Eldar codex does specify that Mind War requires LoS. Any reason for changing this in the FAQ?

You've changed star engines to be useable only if the vehicle is not shaken, stating that the vehicle must voluntarily give up its shooting (pg 49). You correctly mark this as a rule change, but why make this change? This eliminates one of the main uses of star engines. It also brings up the question of whether or not a vehicle can use star engines if all its weapons have been destroyed, but this is not addressed. As a comparison, I would note that a model with fleet and no gun is not giving up a chance to shoot when it makes its movement in the shooting phase.

Lastly, you state the Wraithlord does not receive +1A for having two close combat weapons (pg 50). You have this marked as a rule change, but I don't think it is. The wraithlord entry of the Eldar codex does not say anything to suggest that he has two CCWs. I think this would better be marked as a clarification.

Let me also say what a fantastic piece of work this is! I hope it goes over well at Adepticon.

Great job Yak and crew. While I have yet to read the document, your continued efforts in providing the support that GW can't is much appreciated.

Hopefully 5th edition will be a little tighter so you guys can expedite a similar document for 5th.

Thanks.

shirou wrote:On the psychic powers table (pg 16), you state that neither Eldritch Storm nor Mind War require line of site. The Eldar codex does not specify whether or not Eldritch Storm requires line of site, but I've always assumed that LoS is needed since no exemption is given. The Eldar codex does specify that Mind War requires LoS. Any reason for changing this in the FAQ?

Mind War is a mistake. The codex does clearly state that LOS is required and that will be amended. As for Eldritch Storm, at the top of the page of Warseer powers it cleary states that the powers do not require line of sight unless specified otherwise (as with Mind War). Since Eldritch Storm doesn't specify otherwise, it does not require LOS to use.

You've changed star engines to be useable only if the vehicle is not shaken, stating that the vehicle must voluntarily give up its shooting (pg 49). You correctly mark this as a rule change, but why make this change? This eliminates one of the main uses of star engines. It also brings up the question of whether or not a vehicle can use star engines if all its weapons have been destroyed, but this is not addressed. As a comparison, I would note that a model with fleet and no gun is not giving up a chance to shoot when it makes its movement in the shooting phase.

Because the rules for the Star Engine are that it may be used "in lieu" of shooting. In other words, star engines are used as a replacement for shooting and if you cannot shoot you cannot use the Star Engines. The idea behind the [rules change] tag was that by that interpretation a vehicle that moved over 12" couldn't use Star Engines as it isn't allowed to shoot when moving that fast and we were trying to still allow that to happen provided you at least had the option to shoot that turn.

In comparison, the fleet rule only specifies that the unit not shoot (or use a psychic power that replaces shooting) the same turn it fleets.

With all that said, I think this may be a bad ruling that slipped through. I'll make sure we discuss it before the revision is published.

Lastly, you state the Wraithlord does not receive +1A for having two close combat weapons (pg 50). You have this marked as a rule change, but I don't think it is. The wraithlord entry of the Eldar codex does not say anything to suggest that he has two CCWs. I think this would better be marked as a clarification.

Fair enough. But it actually doesn't have anything to do with having two CCWs but rather two single-handed weapons (which is all it takes to get a +1 in combat). Since the game often doesn't define what is single or two-handed, players can theoretically look at the Shuriken Catapults on each hand and say: He has two single-handed weapons, he should get +1A in close combat!

But the FAQ does clarify what exactly counts as a single or two-handed weapon so I do believe you are correct that this would be more properly labeled as a clarification.


Thanks!

Yak,

Question on plasma weapons. Does the get hot rule mean that two saves will be made in 1's or 2's are rolled or is it one save if it gets hot on a 1 or 2. Hope the question is clear. The UK FAQ back a few months ago had it as one save and I was curious if it was talked about in the group. Also the FAQ is absolutely great. You guys are a credit to the game.

Well "free shot" is about as ambiguous as it gets. Some questions, like, "does my "free shot" with my plasma pistol mean I get a shot, even if the unit is 18" away?" are resolved easily by common sense (no, since a pistol can only physically shoot in this game out to 12"). But questions like "does line of sight count" for a unit that is "deep striking"?" and "free shot is singular; can rapid fire weapons fire twice?" and even "what if the unit moved in their last turn?" are harder to answer, and could really go either way. What about vehicles? Do they only get to shoot one weapon system, or all weapons? The rule is actually quite ambiguous, because it deals with all unit types and variable range and such.

As far as how you ruled, I just wish you weren't so eager to follow player majority and instead consider that some of your "rule changes" work against already weak armies, effectively excluding players from coming (and expecting to do well). After all, I would expect that players that come DO read the rules, because I'd be pissed if I got across the table from someone who wasn't considerate enough to check the event rules and now has to spend a half hour checking the pertinent stuff, not to mention the more in-depth stuff...

"rule changes" work against already weak armies, effectively excluding players from coming (and expecting to do well).

In both posts you manage to make a some broad sweeping comments with providing any concrete examples to make your case. Could you provide a case for your assertion above? Seems to me that all codexes have a viable build, and I personally don't see how any of our rulings have made any army "unplayable".

Was it intentional that your land raider crusaders only carry 7 terminators? 15/2=7.5...

You nerfed the Psycannon (unnecessary?...I asked Yak about this here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/46258.page#top)

Your "clarification" of the Guardian Platform rules still allows for the abuse, to a lesser extent, and misses the foundation against doing so in the rules (wargear on a model cannot be "passed" to another model)

And mystic "free shots" should probably be clarified.

And, while simultaneously diregarding the RAW on psycannons, needlessly weakening already overpriced wargear, you allow a techmarine on a bike or in terminator armor while quoting RAW as your precedent! These last two ideas I know players in my area find reprehensible and silly. AND Techmarines don't need the help.

I truly appreciate all the effort you put into this, but some of the changes seem so...ill informed. They're minor, sure, but why make modifications that penalize players for taking diverse yet strategically questionable unit choices?

If you're going to implement a [rule change] and claim that "that's what people will expect" is a little shortsighted, IMO. You have a lot of newcomers this year, and I imagine it'd be pretty frustrating to have someone shove a printed out FAQ in your face and say, "um...you can't do that here." Especially if it weakens unit choice(s) the player has made, expecting what his codex says to be the final word.

EDIT: Adding as I notice more...

You completely nullify the use of Mind War against Imperial Guard heavy weapons, and for some reason change the universal rule that models cannot "swap" wargear, allowing the same potential (yet minor) abuse that you failed to resolve with Guardian platforms.

You disallow star engines from being used on shaken/stunned vehicles, nullifying one of their more practical uses...While simultaneously allowing smoke launchers to be used if a vehicle is stunned or shaken...and if an Eldar Tank has all it's weapons destroyed, has it "voluntarily" given up its ability to fire? I'd hardly call your reasoning objective on these issues...

Why prevent consolidation when you hit the Avatar's fearless bubble? Don't all regrouping units make a consolidation move?

Neural Shredders causing instant death? Even when their mechanic is based on leadership? Do I have to say more?

The Guardian heavy weapon platform and the Guard heavy weapons don't involve any swapping.

warzonekos wrote:Yak,

Question on plasma weapons. Does the get hot rule mean that two saves will be made in 1's or 2's are rolled or is it one save if it gets hot on a 1 or 2. Hope the question is clear. The UK FAQ back a few months ago had it as one save and I was curious if it was talked about in the group. Also the FAQ is absolutely great. You guys are a credit to the game.

Honestly, I don't even understand why this was included in the UKGT. I've never met anyone in a game who has been confused by the rules on this or tried to play it any differently than the RAW (which is any roll of 1 or 2 causes a wound, so two wounds may be caused by one weapon).

We'll get it added into the next revision.

ColonelEllios wrote:Well "free shot" is about as ambiguous as it gets. Some questions, like, "does my "free shot" with my plasma pistol mean I get a shot, even if the unit is 18" away?" are resolved easily by common sense (no, since a pistol can only physically shoot in this game out to 12"). But questions like "does line of sight count" for a unit that is "deep striking"?" and "free shot is singular; can rapid fire weapons fire twice?" and even "what if the unit moved in their last turn?" are harder to answer, and could really go either way. What about vehicles? Do they only get to shoot one weapon system, or all weapons? The rule is actually quite ambiguous, because it deals with all unit types and variable range and such.

I'm confused by your confusion, so please help me understand. When I write "free shot" it is a reference to the Mystic's ability to allow a unit to shoot at deep striking units. All the pertinent information is in the Mystic's rules the only question here is whether the Drop Pod counts as deep striking or not (which by the RAW it does not but most people do play that it does). All the questions you pose are clearly answered (as far as I can tell) by the Mystic's rule. And just so you know the terminology of the "free shot" is taken directly from the Mystic's rules, its not some random term I created.

As far as how you ruled, I just wish you weren't so eager to follow player majority and instead consider that some of your "rule changes" work against already weak armies, effectively excluding players from coming (and expecting to do well). After all, I would expect that players that come DO read the rules, because I'd be pissed if I got across the table from someone who wasn't considerate enough to check the event rules and now has to spend a half hour checking the pertinent stuff, not to mention the more in-depth stuff...

Which is exactly the point of how this FAQ is written. You have read the FAQ and you know how to adjust your game. The person who hasn't read the FAQ is not likely to be the kind of person who plays by the strictest RAW interpretations and will therefore already be playing the way the FAQ has ruled.

I have been to MANY tournaments where the FAQ supports the RAW against how most people play the game and I can safely say that is when you have to bust out the FAQ every 20 minutes to point stuff out to your opponent who hasn't read it.

ColonelEllios wrote:Was it intentional that your land raider crusaders only carry 7 terminators? 15/2=7.5...

If you read the question carefully you will notice that only applies when you are taking a unit with mixed armor. In other cases you use the standard Crusader rules. Someone else pointed this out to me and it will be more clear in the next update.

You nerfed the Psycannon (unnecessary?...I asked Yak about this here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/46258.page#top)

I will post a poll in the YMDC forum and if I am wrong about how the vast majority of players play with the Psycannon then I will change the ruling.

Your "clarification" of the Guardian Platform rules still allows for the abuse, to a lesser extent, and misses the foundation against doing so in the rules (wargear on a model cannot be "passed" to another model).

How does our ruling allow for abuse? And if you have a suggestion on how the ruling should be made, then make it.

And, while simultaneously diregarding the RAW on psycannons, needlessly weakening already overpriced wargear, you allow a techmarine on a bike or in terminator armor, two ideas that I know players in my area find reprehensible and silly. AND Techmarines don't need the help.

Is there any reason why a Techmarine shouldn't be able to take a bike or Terminator armor? If you're saying that it is because you think the majority of players play the opposite way then, again I can run a poll and if we're totally wrong changes can be made.

If you're going to implement a [rule change] and claim that "that's what people will expect" is a little shortsighted, IMO. You have a lot of newcomers this year, and I imagine it'd be pretty frustrating to have someone shove a printed out FAQ in your face and say, "um...you can't do that here." Especially if it weakens unit choice(s) the player has made, expecting what his codex says to be the final word.

As I stated above, I think you're getting things backward. Being the kind of person I am who tends to know all the little rules and exactly what tournament FAQs say I can say from a lot of experience that the people who like to follow the RAW in all cases are exactly the type of people who will have READ this FAQ. The people who don't read FAQs are the people who just play the way everyone else does. I'm not going to say this FAQ will make everything perfect because there always will be people who buck the norms AND don't read the FAQ, but I am confident that for the most part this will make for an easier tournament experience for most players.

You completely nullify the use of Mind War against Imperial Guard heavy weapons, and for some reason change the universal rule that models cannot "swap" wargear, allowing the same potential (yet minor) abuse that you failed to resolve with Guardian platforms.

We are consistent between the two rulings. In both cases you have one weapon that is crewed by two people. We haven't nullified the use of Mind War against these unit types, you just have to kill both crewman (i.e. you can't do it in a single attack). Whether or not IG weapon teams are based together or separately they should play pretty much exactly the same which is the only thing that we have done with the IG ruling.

You disallow "inactive" wraith units to defend themselves in assault, despite the fact that in every other instance of units being incapacitated in some way that they fight on normally (such as stunned dreadnaughts, pinned squads, etc)

Now I'm really confused. The only ruling we made about inactive Wraithlord/Wraithguard is what happens if they don't pile in and when rending attacks are used against them. Their basic rules in the codex don't allow them to move, shoot, assault or attack in close combat and they are hit automatically in close combat. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

You disallow star engines from being used on shaken/stunned vehicles, nullifying one of their more practical uses...While simultaneously allowing smoke launchers to be used if a vehicle is stunned or shaken...and if an Eldar Tank has all it's weapons destroyed, has it "voluntarily" given up its ability to fire? I'd hardly call your reasoning objective on these issues...

First of all, the smoke launcher rules specifically state that they may be used while the vehicle is shaken. Second, the Star Engines ruling is going to be looked at (and likely changed) in the next revision. I stated this earlier in this very thread.

Why prevent consolidation when you hit the Avatar's fearless bubble? Don't all regrouping units make a consolidation move?

Because the unit would have already made its fall back move that turn. In all other cases units only regroup before making a fall back move. Basically its stopping a unit from essentially moving twice in one movement phase. It is consistent with the ruling we made about Space Marines who regroup at the start of the turn (they don't get the consolidation move plus their regular move for a total of a 9" move).

Neural Shredders causing instant death? Even when their mechanic is based on leadership? Do I have to say more?

You'd have to use it against a target that has a Ld of 4. What is the issue?

On the wraith units: I forgot the rules while posting. Thus I removed my query, but too late it would seem.

There have been long discussions on the guardian platform rule. To sum up the way I see it: The platform rule states that a model is armed with a weapon. Since a model with a special weapon (I use the analog of a space marine w/ heavy bolter) cannot "swap" that weapon to another model, neither then can a guardian "armed" with the platform gun swap at a later time, unless one of the crew is killed, as detailed by the rule. The long and short of it being that once a gunner fires the weapon, he is the "one" guardian that may use the weapon until such time as a crewman becomes a casualty.

I think your ruling of "keep them within 2" " adds an extraneous qualifier that doesn't need to be there; and fails to address the point that the question can be resolved by looking at the core rules as I detailed above, as well as still allowing possible abuses with some unique terrain scenarios. And while yes, you were consistent in the ruling between platforms and IG weapon teams, both of your rulings are flawed in this basic precept. Saying that one of the weapon team retains his las rifle, and then later saying that he can "switch" to the heavy weapon, without precedent in the rules (as there is with the platform entry), once again flies in the face of the written rule.

Mystics: Okay, I rescind that one. I think there is a possible source of confusion on what exactly a "free shot" subject to the "normal shooting rules" means, but maybe this isn't an issue for most players. I'm trying to poke holes in your boat, to help you ensure that it's watertight.

On psycannons: I don't doubt that most players don't realize that psycannons are only supposed to allow armor saves, since most people don't own a Demonhunters codex. That said, my persistence on this point questions your basis of trying to rule the way "most players play." I just don't think it's a proper way to approach something like this, especially when it treads on the toes of forces that are already underdogs. Or, in other words, catering to players who just "play the way everyone else plays," in a tournament environment, is not something I would choose to encourage. I was trying to impart that, when you do something like this, you have the opportunity to enforce closer adhesion t the rules in general as well as set right some common misconceptions, rather than reinforce the error of the majority. Furthermore, your ruling concerning psycannons was based in part on the fact that the rule detailed in the armory does not match the rule detailed in the summary. The summary being the well-known area of most common typos from GW's development department, I think that the basis for your ruling is seriously flawed.

On the neural shredder: That's my point? Why make a useless ruling founded upon an innaccurate assumption? The neural shredder's mechanic is based upon leadership, and thus has no interaction with the instant death rule, ever.

The frustrating this for me is that you've done a fantastic job overall of ruling the way the wrote of the rules is supposed to work, or for obvious game balance issues and other conflicts (like fleeting jetbikes/skyboards). However, in other areas, with seemingly no indication of why, you rule arbitrarily, sometimes in the direct face of RAW, as in the case of psycannons. That irks me.

I see at least two questions you might want to add to the FAQ. First is whether or not you will be allowing Grey Knight Terminators to use True Grit and second is whether or not the Remnants special rule allows an Imperial Guard Platoon to go over five squads.