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.

Janthkin wrote:

RiTides wrote:I thought you could place the template anywhere on the table (unless you roll a "misfire" on the artillery dice to see how far it moves, in which case you place it on top of the caster)?

Reread the rules on "Magic Vortex" spells - you start by placing the template touching the caster.

"Re-read" would imply that I've already read it once . A lot to keep track of here, so I don't even know if I've looked at that part (given that I don't have access to the rulebook lores with my army!). That makes it a little bit more of a manageable spell, imho... thanks!

I think the only thing that didn't make it in this is the current debate of if a 1 to wound is always a fail or not.

So how do you destroy the watchtower in the scenario (since the FAQ clarifies this)? I thought buildings were still indestructable.

Quickly scanning the title I thought it said Fantasy BBQ is up and was excited, and hungry. Then I reread it and felt sad, and empty.

12thRonin wrote:So how do you destroy the watchtower in the scenario (since the FAQ clarifies this)? I thought buildings were still indestructable.

For one, there's some of the Skaven shennaningans- Screaming Bell and such.

Ahtman wrote:Quickly scanning the title I thought it said Fantasy BBQ is up and was excited, and hungry. Then I reread it and felt sad, and empty.

I thought the same thing at first!

And...

Blocked at work!

Did ALL of the army FAQs also get updated too?

no the didnt alph...

Most of the FaQ is putting to rest all these stupid RaW vs RaI things people have been posting in YMDC.

Like trying to stack frenzy for more attacks and taking 20 AHW... Or using shields with AHW...

Gotta have the pdf for common sense gak to stop TFG.

Janthkin wrote:

RiTides wrote:I thought you could place the template anywhere on the table (unless you roll a "misfire" on the artillery dice to see how far it moves, in which case you place it on top of the caster)?

Reread the rules on "Magic Vortex" spells - you start by placing the template touching the caster.

What page is this on?

Eldar Own wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

RiTides wrote:I thought you could place the template anywhere on the table (unless you roll a "misfire" on the artillery dice to see how far it moves, in which case you place it on top of the caster)?

Reread the rules on "Magic Vortex" spells - you start by placing the template touching the caster.

What page is this on?

31

ShivanAngel wrote:no the didnt alph...

Most of the FaQ is putting to rest all these stupid RaW vs RaI things people have been posting in YMDC.

Like trying to stack frenzy for more attacks and taking 20 AHW... Or using shields with AHW...

Gotta have the pdf for common sense gak to stop TFG.

Its extremely easy to ignore YMDC since its been absurd for years .. Im just surprised RAW fanatics are still at it considering GW has been ruling on the side of RAI or as I call it "something you could convince a judge of in 30 seconds" ever since 5th ed 40k

Kirasu wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:no the didnt alph...

Most of the FaQ is putting to rest all these stupid RaW vs RaI things people have been posting in YMDC.

Like trying to stack frenzy for more attacks and taking 20 AHW... Or using shields with AHW...

Gotta have the pdf for common sense gak to stop TFG.

Its extremely easy to ignore YMDC since its been absurd for years .. Im just surprised RAW fanatics are still at it considering GW has been ruling on the side of RAI or as I call it "something you could convince a judge of in 30 seconds" ever since 5th ed 40k

I...

...can't disagree with any of that!

if it takes you 30 seconds to convince a judge of some of that stuff....

It's not like the 20 page "Yes, it is" vs "No, it isn't" threads over at WarSeer are any better.

Personally, I blame it on the corrupting influence of acronyms on today's youth.

The BBQ comments win the thread . I, too, thought that at first...

Solkan! The avatar...! My eyes...

Edit: They made the changes to each army's FAQ show up in magenta! That's nice... also, moonstone of the hidden ways (for wood elves) can't be used in the opponent's movement phase. Good! That would've been too much...

I'm still seeing v1.1 of the FAQs.

The magenta changes were from like 1.5 weeks ago. I haven't seen anything new.

Jin wrote:@Skyth - ah, I get what you're saying, now. I'm leaning toward Zad Fnark's interpretation of the ruling in question, in that they meant that you can't roll better than a 1+, practically speaking. Heh. I think they're going to need another FAQ on this .

“Note that a save of any kind
can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model
having items or special rules that would take the save even
lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+. Also, remember
that a roll of 1 is always a failure.”

According to reading this, it says that the max save you can get is a 1+. If they were just restating that a roll of 1 always fails, they would have capped it at a 2+. Then it might be some question.

the intent seems pretty clear to me. A saurus oldblood can now stack items to the point where he has a -2+ save, but he can't have better than a 1+. he is still allowed to take all those items, but he will still only have a 3+ save against a strength 5 hit

Malleus wrote:the intent seems pretty clear to me. A saurus oldblood can now stack items to the point where he has a -2+ save, but he can't have better than a 1+. he is still allowed to take all those items, but he will still only have a 3+ save against a strength 5 hit

I'm in agreement with this interpretation.

wow, a brb faq, all of the regular army books faq'd TWICE in two weeks???

i feel that gw is setting a push to make fantasy the next game for tournaments with actual answers to questions that are relavent in a timely fashion???

I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping that they change a few of the codex lores to be as powerful as the BRB lores now. (Lore Attributes and Signature Spells, for example.)

All magic is getting changed to the new style look at the recent beast men magic deck all races will get them if they are different from the ones in the brb.

What's shown of the Beastmen spells matches up exactly with what's printed in the Beastmen army book. I think think it's unrealistic to expect that GW's planning on revising anyone's spell lores before the next version of the particular army books.

Yeah, they're getting reformatted to look nice on the cards, but nothing appears to be actually changing in the lores.