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.

Nyhil wrote:I'm just glad that GW released a FAQ for Codex: Chaos Daemons.

Oh wait, they still haven't done that.

An FAQ for Daemons is about a necessary as Codex Daemons itself...

How many units in the entire game have both ca and fc???

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Nyhil wrote:I'm just glad that GW released a FAQ for Codex: Chaos Daemons.

Oh wait, they still haven't done that.

An FAQ for Daemons is about a necessary as Codex Daemons itself...

I think somebody got stomped by bloodcrushers...

/hug

I posted it in 40k General because that forum gets more traffic.

Jaric wrote:How many units in the entire game have both ca and fc???

Gaunts will be able to get both in the upcoming Codex.

Straken give all units within 12" FC and CA. This could mean some really nasty counter assaults from Guard.

airmang wrote:Straken give all units within 12" FC and CA. This could mean some really nasty counter assaults from Guard.

Ew...imagine assaulting a blobbed IG platoon near Straken....

Gotta love those grey knight terminators next to straken counter attacking with Furious charge. Really GW?

So Jaws does have a target now? Or does that only mean for LOS? Hmm....

Increasing the profile stats on TWC HQ blows my mind.

jmurph wrote:Increasing the profile stats on TWC HQ blows my mind.

It costed for it's mind-blowing properties well, however.

bhsman wrote:

jmurph wrote:Increasing the profile stats on TWC HQ blows my mind.

It costed for it's mind-blowing properties well, however.

Definitely. It increases a Lord's cost by almost 50% and a WGBL's by almost 65%. If it didn't increase the profile stats, the cost would not be worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jmurph wrote:So Jaws does have a target now? Or does that only mean for LOS? Hmm....

Increasing the profile stats on TWC HQ blows my mind.

It states that JoTWW must have LOS to the first model in the line to be affected by the power, and that particular model is considered the target of the attack.

And I personally find these two answers to be contradictory:

Q. Can a Wolf Guard Pack that has nine Wolf Guard and Arjac Rockfist take a second heavy weapon?
A. Yes, as it is for ‘every five models’, not ‘every five Wolf Guard’.

&

Q. Can a Grey Hunter unit that consists of nine Grey Hunters and a Wolf Guard Pack Leader take a second special weapon?
A. No, as the unit is not comprised of ten models until just before the battle starts, at which point it is far too late to be tinkering with your army list. This provides players who wish to mount their Grey Hunters in a Rhino or Drop Pod with a difficult tactical choice – extra special weapon or Wolf Guard pack leader?

It makes perfect sense - Wolf Guard are purchased like any other unit, and so therefore you get 1 heavy weapon available for every 5 models purchased, Arjac included. So if I have 10 models in the squad, I have 2 units.

However, as far as a Grey Hunter pack is concerned, you purchase 9 members in the squad, and then later on add a Wolf Guard. The Wolf Guard isn't attached to the squad until right before the deployment phase. He isn't a sergeant, rather it is like the reverse of an IC you permanently attach a retinue to - you add him to the unit after it is purchased, and so therefore isn't included as part of the squad when purchasing the army.

edit - Should have read the rest of the thread before replying the same as 2 other posters. My bad for being late.

All in all I like the FAQ. Props to whomever thought it would be a good idea to get a proper one up!

Im glad GW is making rulings based upon RAI.. This FAQ is a huge step forward

Although I do wish they cleared up fenrisian wolves better for purposes of how they interact with units if they get by blast weapons or any such occurance

Are they part of the unit? Do all units of wolves and all units of non-wolves take hits from a blast? Its very odd

In any case, Wolf Lord Wolfy McWolferson who rides a thunderwolf, carries a wolf amulet and a wolf tooth necklace will be happy to know he is now T5 and a total badass

Jaric wrote:How many units in the entire game have both ca and fc???

Penal Legion squads get access to that combo even without Straken.

Tons of units in apocalypse get that combo due to assets

gah already answered lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:Im glad GW is making rulings based upon RAI.. This FAQ is a huge step forward

No, it's a massive 8 steps back.

Kirasu wrote:Im glad GW is making rulings based upon RAI.. This FAQ is a huge step forward

Yes and no.

Ruling for RAI where RAW would be silly or cause problems is good.
The fact that they need to do this, though, is a sign that their rules writing needs to be sharper. Which is disappointing given the good start that 5th edition had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something I just noticed... they clarified that Jetbikes are affected by JotWW due to being a subcategory of Bike.

Which means that Jetbikes are affected by a chasm opening underneath them... but Jump Infantry are not.

How odd.

Okay, so I still have some questions:

First, why didn't they clarify the LOS stipulations on the the Lord of Tempests abilities. Is it just ONE unit within LOS? All units in LOS? Also, how eff-ed in Njal now that his Tempest doesn't work if he goes second?

And to TWC HQs get the LD reroll for wolves? Or just TWC and Canis?

Liked the Wolf Scout answers though at least.

insaniak wrote:Something I just noticed... they clarified that Jetbikes are affected by JotWW due to being a subcategory of Bike.

Which means that Jetbikes are affected by a chasm opening underneath them... but Jump Infantry are not.

How odd.

And they say "RaI" makes more sense than RAW (which does not let Jetbikes be affected). Go figure.

Scottywan82 wrote:First, why didn't they clarify the LOS stipulations on the the Lord of Tempests abilities. Is it just ONE unit within LOS? All units in LOS?

These all seem fairly clear in the codex already, IMO. It applies to all units within range.

Also, how eff-ed in Njal now that his Tempest doesn't work if he goes second?

Well, it's only 2 out of 6 possible effects that don't work... not great, but not insurmountable. Just makes going first a bit more of a tactical choice for Wolves.

And to TWC HQs get the LD reroll for wolves? Or just TWC and Canis?

Going by the FAQ answer, which applies it to Canis despite him not having the Wolfkin rule, I would say that the intention was for all Thunderwolves to have the ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:And they say "RaI" makes more sense than RAW (which does not let Jetbikes be affected). Go figure.

The fact that they've rule that way in the FAQ doesn't make it RAI, necessarily. Just RAThey'veDecidedToRuleForTheFAQ. What they actually intended, only they know.

airmang wrote:Straken give all units within 12" FC and CA. This could mean some really nasty counter assaults from Guard.

Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.

Counter-Attack: "... To represend this, when a unit with this rule is assaulted by the enemy it must take a Leadership test. If the test i successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, excatly as if[b] they too had assaulted that turn.

Furious Charge: "... In a turn in which they assaulted[b] they add..." blah blah blah you know the rest.


Am I just reading the rules wrong?

leetbeef wrote:

airmang wrote:Straken give all units within 12" FC and CA. This could mean some really nasty counter assaults from Guard.

Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.

Am I just reading the rules wrong?

Nope, you are 100% correct. The GW FAQ is wrong.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Then I have no issue besides the fact that is that's what the rules actually say it does not belong in an FAQ, else the FAQ should be renamed to FASQ - "Frequently Asked Stupid Questions".

Damn you HBMC, I just snorted Pepsi through my nose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Im glad GW is making rulings based upon RAI.. This FAQ is a huge step forward

Yes, Its Awesome Sause on an Awesome Bun.

Fixed your quote for you GWAR!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leetbeef wrote:
Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.

Counter-Attack: "... To represend this, when a unit with this rule is assaulted by the enemy it must take a Leadership test. If the test i successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, excatly as if[b] they too had assaulted that turn.

Furious Charge: "... In a turn in which they assaulted[b] they add..." blah blah blah you know the rest.

Am I just reading the rules wrong?

GW has a hard time with proper English it seams and appently confused the terms "as if" with "equal to" when they wrote the 5th Ed BRB. This FAQ effectively changes the definition of Counter Attack from being being like an assualt (which is implied by their use of "as if") to being an assault. New legal precidense. However, at the same time Defense Grenades don't work against counter charging units even though countercharges have been redefined as an assault. So funny.

leetbeef wrote:
Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.


Am I just reading the rules wrong?

I'm afraid this FAQ just set the precidence for exactly this.

Gwar! wrote:Nope, you are 100% correct. The GW FAQ is wrong.

Disagreeing with the FAQ =/= It is wrong. I was surprised that they'd allow it, but they did and we'll just have to play it out.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Something I just noticed... they clarified that Jetbikes are affected by JotWW due to being a subcategory of Bike.

Which means that Jetbikes are affected by a chasm opening underneath them... but Jump Infantry are not.

How odd.

And they say "RaI" makes more sense than RAW (which does not let Jetbikes be affected). Go figure.

This isn't really an RAI issue as RAI is only a valid arguement when RAW is unclear or unattainable. In this case RAW was clear. This is more of a "GW failed to accurately communicate what they meant when first writing the BRB" issue. Yet another rule change that sets legal precidence.

Edit: I stand corrected, Jet Bikes have been a subset (special box) underneath the unit "Bike" all along

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nope, you are 100% correct. The GW FAQ is wrong.

Disagreeing with the FAQ =/= It is wrong. I was surprised that they'd allow it, but they did and we'll just have to play it out.

Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

wyomingfox wrote: This is more of a "GW failed to accurately communicate what they meant when first writing the BRB" issue.

Edited for clarity:
It's not really a rulebook issue. Jetbikes have always been considered a sub-category of bikes. The Space Wolf Codex muddied the waters by mentioning Beasts and Cavalry separately, but only mentioning Bikes and not Jetbikes.

So the FAQ clarifies that much nicely.

It simply doesn't address why a flying unit is affected by a hole in the ground whilst a unit that moves across the battlefield in short hops is not.

My guess is that they were supposed to be included, but whoever wrote the FAQ either didn't notice that they weren't, or thinks that they're a subcategory of Infantry.

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

The FAQs are NOT the rules.

GW states themselves on their site: "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'."