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.

My point exactly.

Centurian99 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.

Where does it say that?

don_mondo wrote:
IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes the may always deploy bit, right?

Flagged for review.

don_mondo wrote:
IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does.

Actually, that's a trickier one. The rules for command platoons are actually different than the rules for regular platoons.

don_mondo wrote:
SM.73A.01 Techmarine is an IC with a unit, why doesn't he give up a separate kill point from the unit?

He's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed.

FYI, we've tried to be as consistent as possible, but the review process took up three 2-3 hour conference calls over four evenings, so its possible we've missed something. If you find something that appears self-contradictory, please help us by letting us know.

OK, home now, access to rulebook and codex, so to hit on the ones I didn't delete.

RB.69B.01 Barthonis already covered where it says only Tanks can Ram (For Ghaz: Cause if it doesn't say you can, then you can't and it doesn't say anything else can Ram). Tank Shock and Ram are separate game mechanics. Ability to do perform set A does not necessarily confer the abilty to perform subset B. But I'm gonna leave it at that, as was pointed out, covered plenty in YMDC.

IG.47.01 pg 74, Main rules, if a codex has it's own version of the USR, use that army uses it's own version. So IG Sentinels have their own version of Scouts, to include the may always deploy bit. Which leads to......

IG.38.01 Command Platoon deployment. FAQ covers the fact that squads in a platoon may infiltrate while the other squads may deploy normally. Worth noting the FAQ just says Platoon, not Infantry Platoon, so it would be assumed that it applies to all types of platoons (Command, Infantry, and Heavy Weapons), right? You've already pointed out the exception for Deep Striking, this is the same thing. As for the Sentinel may always deploy bit, how about we say it's a unit specific rule from the codex that supercedes a different unit specific rule from the same codex.

SM.73A.01 Techmarine. OK, he's not an IC until the cannon is destroyed. So? Neither are my IG Officers, yet they give up a KP regardless of when or how they die. I think I see where you're getting it, the TF cannon isn't a retinue as per the Annihilation rules. So does the sequence in which they die change the situation? This applies (IMO) to gun drones etc as well. Sequence of death should not matter, all that matters is that the model(s) can become an IC or separate unit. Or does a unit that is wiped on while attempting to disembark from a destroyed vehicle not give up a kill point (as per the gun drones answer)?

Thank you! The target lock clarification was much appreciated. Finally my sniper drone teams are back to full power.

If the rule of thumb is that Codex trumps Rulebook, then it seems like Blood Claws should get +2 attacks for Countercharge (if they pass their leadership test).

Centurian99 wrote:
Because the full rule for counterattack states: "If the test is successful, all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly if they had assaulted that turn." In other words, they get the normal assault bonus in a counter-attack, not the Berserk Charge bonus.

Centurian99, I would love to hear your response to this opposing argument:

ubermosher wrote:
The latter part of the rule, "exactly as if they too had assaulted" combines with the Berserk Charge wording that states, "They receive a bonus of +2 attacks when they charge, rather than only +1 attack as is normally the case," (emphasis mine). The Counter-Attack USR sets the condition (count as assaulting), and then the Berserk Charge rule clearly defines a bonus received when said condition is met. This bonus even explicitly overrides the normal rule (+1A).

Again, Berserk Charge explicitly overrides the normal rule of +1A

Thanks for this I like the ruling on intermingling units.

Just another question though:
On RB.22A.02: I was under the impression that waving arms don't count as part of the model for being shot at, so why would it be counted when checking to see if you could shoot over said model?

And a question: Is a Relic Blade a two-handed weapon and can it be combined with a Shield.

Ta.

Also want a calrification - is power lance treated as ccw in a round model doesnot provoke an assault? It is Important for Autarch.

Yup, if the Autarch gets charged, or remains in combat after the turn he initiates combat, it's just a close combat weapon. It only works as a fancy S6 Power Weapon on the turn that he charges.

Centurian99 wrote:Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to let people have a glimpse of what the discussions were on various issues, and we'll flag these issues for our next review (sometime in January after the holidays).

On Deff Rollas and Ramming:
Essentially, after reading the rules, we determined that a ramming attack is a subset of the Tank Shocking rules. In particular, the rulebook says "Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed in the same way..."

shabbadoo wrote:Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).

Not that we're binding ourselves to answers that aren't in the GW FAQ, but do you have a source for this?

The source was a Games Day retailer seminar given by Phil Kelly(and Jes Goodwin I think?). Somebody was video taping the seminar, but they had to shut down the video due to sneak previews of various miniatures. However, they were allowed to keep the audio running and this question came up, and was answered, during the the Q&A session. The initial vido plus all of the audio was posted on-line, but I don't know the link to it offhand. Somebody in the community might be able to track it down. I'll hunt for it myself too.

As to other folks, the reason Ramming is a "special kind of Tank Shock" is because it can only be used against VEHICLES, so it is not a sub-set of the Tank Shock rule but a whole other rule in and of itself. That is kind why they have it in Bold Print in the rulebook just after the Tank Shock rules and not delineated as a sub-set rule in smaller print. It is a wholely separate rule, and the only thing it has in common with Tank Shock is that you have to run something over to do it. That is the distinction. All vehicles that can Tank Shock cannot Ram. Only Tanks can ram. Ram bars don't allow for Ramming(despite the name), and the deff rolla rules only apply to Tank Shock(RAW), not Ramming. When they say Tank Shock they do actually mean Tank Shock, not Ramming. Do not confuse the two, Tank Shock and Ramming are two very distinct terms and rules, and the reinforced ram rules and the deff rolla rules are very clear on which *one* of these rules they each use(RAW).

A steamroller(deff rolla) can squash a person flat nice and easy, but it can't flatten a battle tank. There's your "Um...duh?" explanation.

Nurglitch wrote:Yup, if the Autarch gets charged, or remains in combat after the turn he initiates combat, it's just a close combat weapon. It only works as a fancy S6 Power Weapon on the turn that he charges.

no-no-no what you speak about is obvious =)

i mean nowhere is said that lance IS a ccw

it is a ranged weapon that counts as a pw on a turn blah-blah-blah

That's because it is a special close combat weapon.

where do you get this from?

(i'm not that badass but some of my opponents are)

This is an impressive document; thanks for the time and effort. I am surprised that you are allowing Deff Rollas to put D6 S10 hits on vehicles. If nothing else this may prompt GW to get off their lazy asses and FAQ it sometime before 2011 if this is not what they intended for the Deff Rolla.

I would rather have a comprehensive FAQ with some controversial decisions, than rules full of holes and no FAQ at all.

p25, BA25A.01
Q: How is the Whirlwind Launcher
mounted and can it fire both ‘Vengeance’ and
‘Incendiary Castellan’ missiles in the same game?
A: Yes [clarification].

I take it 'YES' is to whether it can fire both types during a game. The type of mounting, however (first part of question) is not covered. Is it a turret or (fixed) Hull-mount.

SM142: Land Raider Multi-Melta is hull mounted? Every kit I've seen has it mounted on the exact same cupola as the pintle storm-bolter. I would think it would be pintle mounted as well.

CD.52D.01 - I'm curious as to how you got from RAW (All attacks from followers of Nurgle ignore armour saves!) to not include all attacks? I'm pretty sure that someone shooting at you is an attack, and not a display of affection or a marraige proposal...

IG.GEN.02 – Q: When models are part of a Heavy
Weapon team do either of them have a Lasgun?
A: Both models have a lasgun and either may fire the
heavy weapon (but not both at the same time) while the
other model fires his lasgun [RAW].

So am I correct in reading this in that if the HW team moves, both can fire their lasguns?

IG.44.01 – Q: Can individual units of an Infantry
Platoon be held in Reserve?
A: Individual units of an Infantry Platoon may be held in
Reserve while others are deployed normally. When rolling for
Reserves, only a single roll is made for all elements of the
Infantry Platoon that are in Reserve. In ‘Dawn of War’
missions, each unit in the Platoon counts as a separate unit
for how many units may be deployed [clarification].

You say that each squad in an infantry platoon counts as a separate unit durring DoW. Does not this go against the RAW in the IG codex?

Nice FAQ. At a glance, I take issue with one response that has not yet been addressed:

WH.18.01B (pg 73)

Your "clarification" is a rules change because your definition of "affected" is overly restrictive. For example, shield of faith can be used to nullify the Eldar power doom, but your rules don't allow for this.

Okay folks:

Here's the deal. Although I still don't have time to address all the concerns that have been brought up yet (damn family time once a year, right? ) I am jumping in to say this (and thanks to Centurian99 for heading off some of the feedback):


This thread is for feedback for the FAQ, not particularly to argue about the semantics of the rules (although some of that is certainly warranted). Instead, if you'd like to argue about the rules you can always start another thread on the topic in the YMTC forum.

If you've got a concern regarding the FAQ post your concern in a concise and clear way and then move on, posts simply arguing over the rules will be deleted to keep the thread manageable (you've been warned).


Unfortunately I don't have the time to delete many of these posts and to stop people from arguing, so before the thread turns completely unwieldy, I'm going to lock it down for a day or so.

If you've got more feedback for the FAQ, take the day to plan out your thoughts, after the thread opens back up please post it in this thread.



Thanks again.


Edit: Okay, this thread is now being reopened so we can continue to get quality feedback on issues that need to be addressed/changed. I have deleted many threads arguing about the 'ramming' issue as whether or not the rules support this concept is something that has already been argued and decided upon by the members of the council. In all cases, our rulings do not make something 'right' or 'correct' but rather represent the consensus of the group (as we *do* have to make rulings to put in the FAQ ultimately).

So if you disagree with our ruling that's perfectly fine and please feel free to make a post explaining why you do (in fact, that's what we want!), but do not turn the thread into an argument about what you personally think the rules actually say. . .in other words, don't respond to other people's comments.

Thanks again, and I hope everyone is having a lovely holiday season.

Okay guys. Here's the first batch of responses to your feedback. I will add more when I am able to:

shabbadoo wrote:

ORK.55D.01 – Q: Does a Deff Rolla affect enemy
vehicles that are rammed? If so, what about
Skimmers that manage to dodge the ram?

A: Enemy vehicles that are rammed do take an additional D6
S10 hits from the Deff Rolla. A skimmer that successfully
dodges the ram does not [clarification].

Tank Shocking only works vs. non-vehicles. Ramming only works against vehicles. The effects of the deff rolla only work when Tank Shocking things(RAW). They crush people, not vehicles. If it can't be Tank Shocked then it can't be affected by a deff rolla whatsoever; ergo vehicles are not affected by a deff rolla at all. Basically, if something can be run over by the deff rolla(i.e. Tank Shocked), then it suffers all of the effects of the deff rolla. It's simply best to disabuse anybody of the notion that they can Ram Titans with deff rollas and do 2d6 Str 10 hits to them(as that would be going full slow, and some tournament players just don't need any help in this area.). The problem here is obvious.

Also, the author of the Ork codex stated in an interview/Q&A session that Trukks cannot Ram as they are not substantial enough to Ram anything, and will in effect explode into bits upon contact(ref. "The Road Warrior"- Humongous vs. semi ), even if they have a ram bar. Trukks can run over people(i.e. Tank Shock) but not Ram. That leaves only Tanks able to ram, as per the rules. Non-Tanks cannot Ram(RAW).

On Ramming vs. Tank Shocking (and the Ork death-rolla implications):

We fully understand that there are essentially two different ways to interpret this rules issue, one being that ramming is a 'sub-sect' of tank-shock (an idea which allows a death-rolla to be used when ramming), while the other concept is that ramming is a specialized version of tank-shock that is still ultimately a different enough thing that it has to be specifically mentioned in a rule to be allowed.

The ruling council of 9 members came to the near-unanimous conclusion that we felt the rules supported the first concept more. As with all of our rulings, we are not saying this is 'correct' or 'right' but is just the collective opinion of the group trying to come to some sort of consensus for the FAQ.

GW may indeed rule the opposite way if they ever address it in a FQ (and in many ways I would welcome this ruling), but based on the rules we currently have that is the opinion that we have come to.

Of course, as with any feedback we receive on a ruling, we will revisit it again when we revise the FAQ in a few weeks and argue it out again and see if any council members have changed their minds on the topic.

Zubb wrote:Overall - a nice FAQ.

But, where did you find the [RAW] for considering Staff of Ulthramar a double-handed weapon?

The Staff of Ultramar is not defined as being a single-handed weapon so it isn't one. See 'RB.37A.01' (pg 8 of the FAQ) for more details. I'll make sure to add that reference number in the next release.

LPetersson wrote:

Impressive work

I have a couple of comments on the Space wolf section:

SW.06A.02 – Q: Does ‘Storm Caller’ really allow the unit to ‘strike first’ in close combat?
A: No, when assaulted the unit simply counts as being in cover. This means any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards models protected by Storm Caller counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the protected models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged. A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative [clarification].

It's worth clarifying this so it says that it's only when attacking through cover that combat is resolved in order of initiative.
When assaulting a unit that's not in cover a unit protected by Storm Caller would strike first (Except for attacks with I1 of course).

Isn't that exactly what our ruling says? "A unit protected by Storm Caller that assaults an enemy through cover still strikes at their regular Initiative".

SW.10A.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?
A: No, just the normal +1 Attack bonus [clarification].

The Big Rulebook clearly states on page 74 'exactly as if they too had assaulted' so yes, BCs do get +2 attacks - RAW
Same again for BCs on bikes and for Ragnar Blackmane.
How did you come to the conclusion that they only get +1A?

On the Blood Claws headstrong issue, I think that you guys are pretty much correct on this and we will most likely reverse this ruling in the next iteration of the FAQ.

SW.15N.01 – Q: Can a model with a Wolf Tooth Necklace ignore persistent psychic abilities like Veil of Tears, Conceal, The Horror, etc?
A: Yes, the psychic ability still functions, however the model with the Necklace is able to ignore any an all effects of the ability [RAW].

You're getting Wolf Tooth Necklace and Wolf Tail Talisman mixed up here and in the next couple of questions.

Thanks for that. I'll get that wording cleaned up in the next iteration.

Grey Mage wrote:I have a few questions and comments:

Pg. 43- Your comments on Howling banshees is vague, and doesnt mention anything as per their possible use of the acrobatic exarch power. This should probly be addressed.

What exactly is the issue with Acrobatic that you're concerned about?

Pg. 8- Your comments on weapons that are no classified as single handed weapons or close combat weapons, would this be the basis for your decision on the staff of ultramar? Also, what is your basis for this assesment?

Yes, that is the basis for the ruling. And that idea is: If a weapon is not classified as being a single-handed weapon then it does not give a bonus in combat for being single-handed. This seems to be the way that GW is handling things in the game now. Weapon are just weapons, but some of them are defined as being single-handed and those particular weapons give a bonus in CC.

Pg. 9- What is the interpretation of this in conjunction with the Space Wolf Chooser of the Slain. Id infer that it doesnt give you an additional power fist attack as it doesnt specificy however at the time the codex was written this rule hadnt even been dreampt of.

I think you're referring to RB.42O.01? If so, Chooser of the Slain does not just provide +1 Attack, but rather it provides +1 Attack for having a 2nd close combat weapon. As such it would not function along with a powerfist. In other words, it is slightly different from the rules referenced in that question, but it may indeed be worth including a separate FAQ question for it.

Pg. 64- Why is "Old and Wise" not usuable on a roll to seize the iniative? This roll directly pertains as to who goes first.

Because in our opinion, rolling to go first is something different than rolling to seize the initiative, even though that 2nd roll does result in the player going first.

Saldiven wrote:A couple of things I noticed about the DE section of the FAQ.

For the DE poisoned blades and scissor hands, you reference the poisoned weapons rule from the main rule book. Does this mean that the DE poisoned weapons are no longer more potent than other races', or do they still wound on 2+ as per the codex?

The rules for poisoned weapons in the rulebook clearly states that they can wound a variety of different ways (4+ or 2+). So the DE weapons that say they wound on a 2+ do exactly that.

Also, I believe that the clarification in the DE FAQ for the Xenospasm refers to the fact that a single unit could have an IC armed with a Xenospasm and an upgrade character armed with a Terrorfex; if both were fired at the same unit, the negative modifiers to the Pinning test should be cumulative for both.

The FAQ specifically references having more than one Xenospasm, which is categorically impossible. We'll check on the Terrorfex plus Xenospasm combo idea and add it into that ruling in the next iteration if appropriate.

Redbeard wrote:

RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed “where the vehicle used to be”. What exactly does this mean?

A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].

This is fairly harsh for a self-described Rules Change. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that models get auto-removed if they don't fit. Can you fit 20 bases within the footprint of the new official ork battlewagon model? If not, I think this is a very poor decision. Can you fit 10 bases within the footprint of a rhino? Or 12 within a chimera? And, if you can fit all the transportable models within the footprint of every relevant transport model, what's the point of making a case for models that don't fit?

The rules are absolutely unclear here. What exactly is meant by having to place the models "where the vehicle used to be"? Nobody knows for certain so we've had to come up with a definition based on what we think the rule is trying to say.

As for models dying if they can't be placed in the prescribed area, if not ruled this way all of a sudden you have several bizarre situations, such as disembarking models being placed within 1" of enemy models, for example. And if you say that models can be placed outside of the area where the "vehicle used to be", if and only if the unit is too big to fit there, then we have to come up with all sorts of guidelines of exactly when and how this is allowed to be done.

The ruling we have made in our opinions does the best job of following what the rules say (placing the models where the vehicle used to be) and sticking to the normal conventions of disembarking: If you don't have the space to place the models then those models count as being destroyed.

Obviously in a few situations (20 Orks in a battlewagon) that can lead to some situations where a few Orks are lost, but the reality is, once the Orks have finished suffering their casualties from the exploded Battlewagon in most cases you should be able to fit all the survivors within the Battlewagon's 'footprint'.

the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by ramming another vehicle, for example) are the models onboard destroyed?

A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being destroyed [clarification].

That doesn't make sense. The question asks are the models destroyed. The answer says No, they count as being destroyed. If you say 'No', doesn't that mean they're not destroyed?

Yep, that's an error that occurred when the ruling was changed mid-stream. Thanks, we'll get that corrected.

[For drop pods that are unable to open] both players can agree before the game to either pretend, to the best of their abilities, that the doors are open and both players can see ‘through’ the core for line of sight purposes, or they can agree to play that the model blocks line of sight ‘as is’

What if the two players cannot agree? Is there a default behaviour?

As with all rules, if two players can't come to an agreement they will have to randomly come to a conclusion (i.e. D6 it).

BT.29A.01 – Q: Do Black Templar models in Terminator Armor always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon? Can they assault the same turn they shoot a rapid fire or heavy weapon?

A: They may assault the same turn they shoot with rapid fire or heavy weapons [rules change]. They do not, however always count as stationary when shooting a rapid fire weapon (just with heavy weapons) [RAW].

This is just weird. Why have a rules change for half of this, but not the other half? It seems counter-intuitive. Couldn't you just [rules change] both aspects of the question to simplify this?

Because we're following the RAW here. If we started to make all marine codices behave the same, this quickly starts a slippery slope that has no definable edge (and goes against what GW has ruled in their FAQs already).

As bizarre as it may be to some, different Chapters have slightly different rules regarding how their Terminator armor (among other things) behaves.

Salvation122 wrote:I don't have my books to hand, as I'm out of town, but aren't Spore Mines mindless, specifically barring them from holding objectives?

I'd also disagree with spore mines granting kill points - they're effectively the same thing as the Scout Biker booby traps, except they float around. They're bullets, not infantry.

Yes, many things in the game are not allowed to hold objectives, but this is an entirely different concept from simply preventing an enemy scoring unit from claiming an objective by being within 3".

Spore Mine clusters are most definitely a unit. While we could have ruled that they don't give up a Kill Point, the reality is that up until now GW has yet to rule that ANY unit is immune from giving up Kill Points. So if we start ruling that some units don't do so we would essentially be making a major change in the game that doesn't exist up until this point. And once you start making that ruling, where exactly does it stop? Do Tau vehicle drones not count as a Kill Point? How about Chronus popping out of a destroyed vehicle? Etc, etc, etc.

In the end (after much, much, much discussion) we decided that if a unit is on the table at any point (i.e. it can contest an objective in an objective-based game) then it also needs to be worth a Kill Point when destroyed.


. . .


More responses to come in the next few days (hopefully!).

SW.10A.03 space wolves and berserk charge

I disagree fully with the space wolves counterattack issue that people are saying. (by this i mean in Yakface's most recent post of reversing the ruling) I believe that they had it right in the first place. and you get +1 attack only

It states "...all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

now I understand that it says exactly as if they too had assaulted, and I understand that berserk charge says they get +2 attacks when they charge but there are 3 problems I see with this.

1. If you allow 2 attacks from blood claws, then logically you have to allow furious charge and a chaplain rerolling hits and everything else that gets a benefit from charging. (which I believe is thoroughly wrong)

2.The unit is not charging. It is counterattacking, so any bonus applied to when you charge is not granted. It spells out in the rule what you get when you counter charge

3. I believe that the reference the rule makes is to p37 of the main rule book where it discusses the various bonus to attacks.

It states on p37 that " +1 Assault bonus: Engaged models who assaulted this turn get the +1 attack." now under counter attack it says that the unit gets the +1 assault bonus, exactly as if they had charged this turn. so I believe that it is directly referencing this rule governing how you get more attacks in combat.

It is my belief that counterattack does not bestow any "charging bonus" to the unit making the attack, since the rule directly refers to the +1 assault bonus on p37.

I also believe that counterattack is worded like that because if you take out the part about exactly as if they had charged, then you could make the argument that they don't get +1 attack since they didn't charge. Which explains why they worded it like they did. If they meant for you to get the charging bonus don't you think they would have said "and this unit counts as charging?" (but that's just supposition not actually fact)

On a final note, I do not believe that blood claws get +2 attacks since it states under beserk charge that they get +2 attacks when they charge, and the unit is definately not charging, it is Counter Attacking.

if this is not an appropriate response in this thread could a mod please move it thank you

An excellent piece of work as ever guys, however I have just one minor quibble. The document makes several mentions of "Games Workshop official FAQs", Games workshop no longer produces official FAQ's.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

- Games Development, November 2008

By my reckoning that makes both documents of equal standing.

Im a bit confused, in some cases you preach that the RAW sais this but you would prefer GW made a FAQ that rules it othervise(The ramming issue) but on the other hand you bring up rules that you change cause it makes the game more fun or better, sounds like double standards to me.

It also sounds like your pushing for orks.. either by saing its RAW or that its for the good of the game.

Lastyly, does this game really take a FAQ thats larger then the rulebook with changes (clarifications are good, pure rule changes are bad imo)? Doesnt this make it a whole diffrent game.

Yakface wrote:Of course, as with any feedback we receive on a ruling, we will revisit it again when we revise the FAQ in a few weeks and argue it out again and see if any council members have changed their minds on the topic.

I get ya. Just gonna throw in one last bit for your discussion team then. Ask everyone to consider whether or not they think that a 20 point deff rolla should be doing what is in effect d6 auto-hitting Rail Gun shots to any vehicle(Baneblades and Titans included; skimmers dodge on a 4+) it so happens to perform a Ramming attack upon, and it can potentially do this to more than one target in a single turn. To me that is really the big indicator of rule intention, which is solved if one treats Tank Shock and Ramming as the separate rules that they are, as they affect two very diferent target types(and the deff rolla rules only apply to Tank Shock). Don't get me wrong. I play Orks, but this is just foul.

And for doing this whole FAQ, somebody better be buying you guys a round of drinks or three at Adepticon!!!

Tortuga932 wrote:
I do not believe that blood claws get +2 attacks since it states under beserk charge that they get +2 attacks when they charge, and the unit is definately not charging, it is Counter Attacking.

I think you're going to find that no amount of tap-dancing is going to get around the word "exactly."

Sorry, I'll argue this elsewhere.

Here's some more responses to feedback. Thanks again for it all, it continues to be very useful and will result in a better FAQ in the end.

don_mondo wrote:Alrighty then, here we go.

RB.45C.01 I'll just disagree and say that one step away from your table edge is doubling back. So your call is (IMO) a Rules Change, not a clarification.

The term 'doubling back' means different things to different people. Some view it, like you, as going in the same direction that you traveled from, while others view it as moving over the same path they traveled from, the latter of which is how we have ruled. As such, I do believe it is a solid [clarification] because there is no clear-cut rule in this case.

don_mondo wrote:RB.63F.01 and 02 I agree with no pile-in/consolidate towards the non-WS vehicle, but why would they have to move 1" away from the non-WS vehicle? Rules do not require that, and as long as they meet all other requirements on the pile-in, why do they have to move away from the non-WS vehicle? I'd say that no additional models my contact the vehicle, but 5th ed rules do allow you to stay in contact with the vehicle.

The rules do not require a model that is in base contact with an enemy unit after the assault is over to move away from it, so if you choose to leave the model standing where he is, he can remain in base contact with the vehicle. However, if you choose to move a model with a consolidation move, then following the rules for a consolidation moves, the model must then be kept 1" away from all enemy models.

don_mondo wrote:RB.67A.02 Hmmm, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

RB.70H.01 Again, what about Emergency Disembarkation?

Emergency Disembarkation only applies (as written in the rules) when models cannot disembark because of the proximity of enemy models or impassable terrain, not for any other reason.

don_mondo wrote:RB.69B.01 Disagree. Only tanks can Ram, the ability to Tank Shock has no bearing.

ORK.55D.01 I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that

Ork.93H.01 As already stated, only Tanks can Ram, ability to Tank Shock does not confer the ability to Ram

As I've mentioned before in regards to feedback regarding this issue, I definitely see your point of view and we'll discuss it again for the final version of the FAQ and see if the consensus has changed.

don_mondo wrote:DH.31A.01 Spelling error, threat should be treat...........

Thank you much.

don_mondo wrote:Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?

Per the GW FAQ, Inquisitors count as psykers even if they don't take any powers, so the answer is (clearly, I think) no.

don_mondo wrote:Possible question, Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from a Ravenwing Attack squadron a scoring unit, ie able to control an objective?

DA.27C.01 - We've ruled that they do not count as a scoring unit.

don_mondo wrote:ELD.35G.01 No, Intercept cannot be used on Walkers. Intercept ability may only be used on vehicles that do not have a WS, per the Eldar FAQ.

Thanks for the catch. We'll get it changed.

Possible question. Does or can Eldrad receive +1 attack if he chooses to use sword and pistol, or does the two special weapons rule take precedence? Same thing for Calgar and his fists/power sword?

This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. Probably it will be added to the rulebook section for special close combat weapons.

don_mondo wrote:IG.47.01 Hmmmmm, aren't codex versions of a USR supposed to supercede main rulbook versions? So the IG Sentinel should use the codex version which includes the may always deploy bit, right?

IG.38.01 Might clarify that some units can deploy normally while others can infitrate, and that a senitnel squadron can always be deployed (see IG.47.01 comment) regardless of what the rest of the platoon does.

RB.37C.01 – Q: If a unit being attacked in close
combat has one engaged model with WS5, two
engaged models with WS4 and three engaged models
with WS3 what Weapon Skill value is used for attacks
against them?
A: As there is no majority WS (more than half of the
engaged models in the unit), the unit uses the WS of 5 when
attacked [RAW].


I feel that this is very wrong as there is a clear majority in ws. 3 is more than 2 and 3 is also more than 1 which is a majority.

the majority of models engaged in this fight have ws 3 so the unit would use their ws of 3 when attacked

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Possible question, can Inquisitors (psykers) be allied with Black Templars, as long as they take no psychic powers?

Per the GW FAQ, Inquisitors count as psykers even if they don't take any powers, so the answer is (clearly, I think) no.

Black Templars aren't prohibited from allying with Psykers... just models with Psychic powers.

An Inquisitor with no Psychic powers has no Psychic powers. Whether or not he is a Psyker is irrelevant.