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.

Let's hope so, I'm sick and tired of having to argue RaI for BT LRC assault vehicle rules (and yes, I know, don't play with dorks, but playing with dorks beats playing with no one, yes?)...

Amen to that my man!

Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover
save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.

This is a boost to Necrons! OMG! The destroyer lord teamed with scarabs now has a 2+ turbo boosting cover save of his very own! I'm amazed......

liam0404 wrote:I must say im impressed that GW has come up with the goods here.

The next question is - are some revised Army FAQ's now on the way?

Oh...oh god I think this is hope. Is that what this feeling is? I think it is. I don't know how to react to this.

Yea, GW, hope, same sentence boggles the mind.

Nice FAQ and very impressed from GW.

Army Specific Questions
Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

hi guys, please help me on this one.

I can now say that force weapons of grand master greyknights no longer do Outrightkill, because that praticular rulle or word, just dont exist in the new Rullebook, is that right?

Outrightkill no more, is that it?

hellboytuga wrote:Army Specific Questions
Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

hi guys, please help me on this one.

I can now say that force weapons of grand master greyknights no longer do Outrightkill, because that praticular rulle or word, just dont exist in the new Rullebook, is that right?

Outrightkill no more, is that it?

I think it's not that.

The better example that I can say its the Eldar Warp Spiders. The can pay for a skill to do deepstrike, but in the 5th edition rules the can do it anyway because they are Jump infantry and pay that have no sense now.

Althuran wrote:

hellboytuga wrote:Army Specific Questions
Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

hi guys, please help me on this one.

I can now say that force weapons of grand master greyknights no longer do Outrightkill, because that praticular rulle or word, just dont exist in the new Rullebook, is that right?

Outrightkill no more, is that it?

I think it's not that.

The better example that I can say its the Eldar Warp Spiders. The can pay for a skill to do deepstrike, but in the 5th edition rules the can do it anyway because they are Jump infantry and pay that have no sense now.

hey great point!

hellboy - it didnt exist as a defined term in 4th ed either.

"Slain outright" means, barring a specific 40k term, exactly how it would be in standard English. In standard English slain outright = dead. AS this is not "Instant Death" it handily bypasses Eternal Warrior, same as it always has

Melissia wrote:I tend to ignore people who cry that the FAQs are unofficial, myself.

Yea, it makes discussion go a lot faster when you ignore folks that disagree.

If they are used where you play, use them. If not, don't.
Both things happen, and thus discussion about both sides is needed.
More politely, perhaps--but that goes for both.

nosferatu1001 wrote:AW - no, as both tables tell you to disembark. (well, explodes you DONT disembark, but we'lll leave that for now...) Meaning you still die.

GW did not leave that one out either.

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it
moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Regardless, keep it up!

I know they didnt leave it out, just making it clear that explodes! isnt a disembark - I agree with Yak that this ruling seems to be entirely about stopping the silly ork rams where they hope to explode the vehicle to then assault.

I like! Now c'mon new Army-specific FAQs!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Remember same turn = same PLAYER turn.

So if you wreck your OWN vehicle in YOUR OWN turn you die. This basically means that ramming with embarked troops couldbe a bad idea...

Are you sure? I do hope so, because if they mean same game turn then that's a horrible blow to Eldar.

liam0404 wrote:I must say im impressed that GW has come up with the goods here.

The next question is - are some revised Army FAQ's now on the way?

Nope, they pretty much answer than in the FAQ:

Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

So yeah, you got duff rules? Sucks to be you it seems. You'll just have to wait and pay us more money when we get round to updating your codex for the next edition.

Also fyi, we'll be doing it 6th months before 6th Ed comes out, which will make more of your list obsolete.

I'm sure glad GW cares about their game and their players huh guys?

themrsleepy wrote:Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover
save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.

This is a boost to Necrons! OMG! The destroyer lord teamed with scarabs now has a 2+ turbo boosting cover save of his very own! I'm amazed......

How does this help Necrons? Neither the Lord nor the Scarabs have Stealth.



For those bringing up the 'Outdated Rules' ruling, it's worth pointing out that's not a new ruling... It was a catch-all that was included when the 5th ed FAQ was first released, to cover anything that no longer fits into the current rules.

insaniak wrote:

themrsleepy wrote:Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover
save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.

This is a boost to Necrons! OMG! The destroyer lord teamed with scarabs now has a 2+ turbo boosting cover save of his very own! I'm amazed......

How does this help Necrons? Neither the Lord nor the Scarabs have Stealth.



For those bringing up the 'Outdated Rules' ruling, it's worth pointing out that's not a new ruling... It was a catch-all that was included when the 5th ed FAQ was first released, to cover anything that no longer fits into the current rules.

I thought Scarabs have swarm. Having swarm grants you stealth.

Is that not true?

Grakmar wrote:I thought Scarabs have swarm. Having swarm grants you stealth.

Is that not true?

According to page 76 of the main rules it is.

((Unless he was commenting on the questionable Necron Swarm rules. I should stop even looking at things referencing that codex. /shrug))

Ah... I had overlooked that the FAQ gave them the Swarm USR, as they already have their own Swarm rule.

Other than clearing up the goofy enmeshed squads in cover rule, the only one the really stuck out is that vehicles can not ram buildings.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Ailaros wrote:Other than clearing up the goofy enmeshed squads in cover rule, the only one the really stuck out is that vehicles can not ram buildings.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I think it interesting that they did not include "empty" in that ruling as well.

kirsanth wrote:Both things happen, and thus discussion about both sides is needed.

No, it is not. The "discussion" ends up being, almost inevitably, "I don't like this FAQ ruling so I'm going to argue the fAQ isn't official so I don't have to use it".

kirsanth wrote:I think it interesting that they did not include "empty" in that ruling as well.

Exactly.

I can think of nothing cooler in the entire game of 40k then a leman russ smashing through a building so it can heavy flamer the fleeing, panicked survivors of the building collapsing around them.

It seemed needless. I mean, what was so wrong with the rules that they felt they needed to ban this?

Ailaros wrote:
I can think of nothing cooler in the entire game of 40k then a leman russ smashing through a building so it can heavy flamer the fleeing, panicked survivors of the building collapsing around them.

Okay. That thought alone convinced me that ramming buildings is a mandatory house rule for any game I play.

Grakmar wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
I can think of nothing cooler in the entire game of 40k then a leman russ smashing through a building so it can heavy flamer the fleeing, panicked survivors of the building collapsing around them.

Okay. That thought alone convinced me that ramming buildings is a mandatory house rule for any game I play.

Great idea ! Have to remember this for our next club fight .

Plus, what was so wrong with ramming empty buildings? Ramming is at least as dangerous as vehicles taking a dangerous terrain check. Why shouldn't "Magnar the Destructinator" be able to just run through buildings at his own peril if driving in a straight line is so necessary?

Some interesting changes in this one. I find it interesting that you can't shoot at an unoccupied building - there's at least one person at my FLGS who's going to be much happier now, since his terrain includes two huge buildings which he hides his Basilisks behind. Although I do wonder...

Q: If a vehicle receives multiple Destroyed – Explodes!
results simultaneously how many D6 do you roll to
determine the blast radius? (p61)
A: One.

Was that really a point of confusion before?

themrsleepy wrote:Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover
save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.

This is a boost to Necrons! OMG! The destroyer lord teamed with scarabs now has a 2+ turbo boosting cover save of his very own! I'm amazed......

I didn't even realize that this could help Necrons. I assumed it was meant to clear up the debate about Telion/camo cloaks in scout squads. The combo you presented seems like an accidental allowance, honestly. It makes no damn sense, even if you acknowledge GW's propensity for allowing minor logical inconsistencies in the pursuit of rules-streamlining.

Locclo wrote:I find it interesting that you can't shoot at an unoccupied building

That was (/is) never really legal, you can only target enemies. Building rules only exception is that they can be target after enemies embark.

I regularly see people play otherwise, but. . . .

zonino wrote:
Nope, they pretty much answer than in the FAQ:

Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that
seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something else that
does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

Errata != FAQ

I don't particularly care.