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.

It's not a special rule, it's a general rule.

It's special for vehicles. How special does it have to be to be special?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It's special for vehicles. How special does it have to be to be special?

Your vehicle having something like-
Junkheap-This vehicle is terrible in every way. Roll a d6 every time you move it. On a 1, the vehicle is immobilised.

That's a special rule that could stop it from moving on- Instinctive Behaviour can similarly stop a unit coming on to the board.

A dangerous/difficult terrain test isn't, and you don't get to ignore it.

Hrm...I don't remember seeing this one in the FAQ before (and it's pink, so I assume it's new). I remember seeing some discussions online that interpreted the rule the opposite way to this GW Q&A:

Q: If a vehicle has a weapon with a limited amount of
shots, and it has none left, for example a hunter-killer
missile that has already been fired, does it count as a
weapon that can be destroyed by a Damaged - Weapon
Destroyed roll on the Vehicle Damage table? (p61)
A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again during
the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged -
Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle Damage table
are concerned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here's a (not so) surprising one from GW:

Q: If a model fires a template weapon out of a vehicle, will
the vehicle be hit if it is underneath the template? (p66)
A: No it will not be hit.

SlaveToDarkness: Each unit has a list of special rules. These can either be universal special rules or special rules as listed in that particular codex. A Wave Serpent's Energy Field is a special rule, but that it takes damage by landing in difficult terrain is not a very special rule. (Also the situation at hand is covered by the FAQ)

Saldiven: That's GW being somewhat through for once, and it does combat some of the awkwardness in their original rules you'll find under "Fun list of RAW". It's pretty damned welcome, actually, and it'd be nice if they'd keep it up.

A rule that applies to EVERY vehicle in the game really isnt a special rule....

@Mahtamori:

If you look through the updated FAQ, there were actually several more of these interesting gray areas that they answered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:A rule that applies to EVERY vehicle in the game really isnt a special rule....

Agreed. For me, I would categorize a "special rule" to one that appears in a unit's description.

That's what I did, Saldiven, but there's still a few that aren't answered in full, although for some of them there's hints of how to handle things (such as they hint that the area of difficult terrain should be roughly the size of the vehicle exploded).

Mahtamori wrote:That's what I did, Saldiven, but there's still a few that aren't answered in full, although for some of them there's hints of how to handle things (such as they hint that the area of difficult terrain should be roughly the size of the vehicle exploded).

Yeah, there are still some areas that aren't perfectly fixed, but it's an improvement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or if you immobilise yourself driving on.

Or if you make a ram and don't explode the vehicle you were hitting.

Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?

There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.

Under half strength for a unit of 6 is 2 or less, as 3 is AT half strength.

Not a mathS fail there

Except the question originally said the HQ did count, so 6+1 = 7, 7/2 = 3.5 so 3 would have been the answer.

edit: Then again I read it late at night, so maybe I just read it wrong. But if that's the case, why was it changed?

Ah I read it as a group of 6 that had been joined - i.e. the group was 5 and then was joined to make 6.

DakkaDakka wrote:

MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm

They don't.

Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.

Dracos wrote:Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?

There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.

Yeah, I had the same issue as you. The old question didn't make any sense. The only way their math worked was if they were saying "ID characters count for the number of currently alive models, but not the original starting total" So, a 6 model squad with an attached IC is at 117% strength. It made no sense.

But, they have fixed that. By completely reversing their decision

So, what other questions will be totally changed by this time tomorrow?

Grakmar wrote:

Dracos wrote:Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?

There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.

Yeah, I had the same issue as you. The old question didn't make any sense. The only way their math worked was if they were saying "ID characters count for the number of currently alive models, but not the original starting total" So, a 6 model squad with an attached IC is at 117% strength. It made no sense.

But, they have fixed that. By completely reversing their decision

So, what other questions will be totally changed by this time tomorrow?

Well a group of 6 that WAS joined by an IC would come to 6 models total since the IC has already joined and the total count is 6
not entirely clear but it is GW

BuFFo wrote:

MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm

They don't.

Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.

And while this is a broad statement...I agree. This game breaks down into roughly two camps: The players that just want to have some fun and the players that want to be competitive. Honestly, you really can't be in both camps, at least simultaneously. However, since I have no real gaming club of my own, I very much like that GW has updated and officially recognize their errata and faq's. So yeah, I tend to have a lot of disgust for those competitive, tournament, rules-lawyering types as they suck the fun right out of the game for me but I respect that they themselves are having fun in that fashion. Really, make of the official FAQ what you want of it.

Rymafyr wrote:

BuFFo wrote:They don't.

Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.

And while this is a broad statement...I agree. This game breaks down into roughly two camps: The players that just want to have some fun and the players that want to be competitive. Honestly, you really can't be in both camps, at least simultaneously. However, since I have no real gaming club of my own, I very much like that GW has updated and officially recognize their errata and faq's. So yeah, I tend to have a lot of disgust for those competitive, tournament, rules-lawyering types as they suck the fun right out of the game for me but I respect that they themselves are having fun in that fashion. Really, make of the official FAQ what you want of it.

Precisely. If a person's idea of fun is playing strictly by the written rules, more power to him! The issue arises between two strangers, one of which is attempting to force FAQs down the throat of his opponent. This is the situation I have issue with. not the FAQs themselves, but people who forget what the game is about and attempt to treat the game, the FAQs and all it's 'rulings' as a Bible that must be followed to a fault.

Grakmar wrote:

Dracos wrote:Anyone notice the question that was changed that was not internally consistent?

There was a question about ICs in units and if they counted for being under half strength. When I read the FAQ last night it said something to the effect that 'the IC did count so a group of 6 that was joined by an IC would be under half strength if when it had 2 or less models' (which is some hard math fail). Now the question is changed to read that the IC does not count for determining if under 50% and the math fail is gone.

Yeah, I had the same issue as you. The old question didn't make any sense. The only way their math worked was if they were saying "ID characters count for the number of currently alive models, but not the original starting total" So, a 6 model squad with an attached IC is at 117% strength. It made no sense.

But, they have fixed that. By completely reversing their decision

So, what other questions will be totally changed by this time tomorrow?

Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!

Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.

yakface wrote:Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!

Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.

Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.

And, I agree. The old ruling, with better wording, makes more sense. Now, if I have a squad that was 5+IC (6 total) that is down to 2+IC (3 total), I'm below 50%!!!

Does the same logic apply to 25% casualties from shooting?

Unit size with or without IC's is going to cause problems, though.

Let's say that you have a 5 man squad and you join 3 IC's to it. If the 3 IC's and 2 guys from the squad die, do you want to call that below half?

Che-Vito wrote:

I was simply pointing out that Yakface seemed to react strongly to something that can only help a lot of rules arguments.

I'm wondering what exactly you think I was reacting strongly to? Because if you're referring to the concept of GW potentially labeling their FAQs as fully official I am completely and totally onboard with that.

Grakmar wrote:

yakface wrote:Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!

Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.

Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.

And, I agree. The old ruling, with better wording, makes more sense. Now, if I have a squad that was 5+IC (6 total) that is down to 2+IC (3 total), I'm below 50%!!!

Does the same logic apply to 25% casualties from shooting?

Yeah, actually it occurred to me that the new GW ruling is actually correct, since the concept of being below 'half strength' is typically determined by the 'starting strength' of the unit, which an IC wouldn't (or shouldn't) contribute to.

But as for the 25% casualties rule, that's pretty clear in the rulebook...it pertains to number of models lost in any phase, so you'd count how many models the unit had that phase and if 25% were lost then you'd qualify. That means ICs who are part of that unit for that phase would by definition be included.

Grakmar wrote:

yakface wrote:Y'know what else is interesting about that? The URL for the old FAQ is still working and both FAQs are labeled as v1.1, so two players could each have a print out of a v1.1 FAQ both with different rulings on that one question!

Crazy. That and the reversed ruling seems terrible to me personally, but I digress.

Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.

What the feth ? And here I was thinking GW had gotten things mostly right this time. Hint: do not make ninja edits. Do it right the first time or change the version number to avoid confusion.

I'm all about this FAQ update. Anything to make the game run smoother with less checking for minutia in the rule book is awesome by me.

A-P wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Well, at least they each have the proper "last updated" date. So, if you do end up with both players have a different printout, one will at least be more current.

What the feth ? And here I was thinking GW had gotten things mostly right this time. Hint: do not make ninja edits. Do it right the first time or change the version number to avoid confusion.

Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Heya. As we all know, the 40k Rulebook FAQ was updated to version 1.1 today. At the beginning of it is a new blurb:

Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your army book, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your army book.

There is no mention of FAQ sections being merely "official house rules" - the FAQ answers are real answers. Can we rejoice and no longer have to worry about players springing the "FAQs aren't rules" answer, and all finally play the same game?

We have always used FAQa errata etc as hard rules. The "official house rules" non-sense was always ignored. People who didn't want to accept the FAQ as official were generally WAAC players who wanted to take advantage of rules loop holes to win. They either choose to play elsewhere or conform to the norm. It works out much better that way for everyone involved by providing a fun game rather than a tense argument that happens to involve dice and miniatures.

Grakmar wrote:

Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to the Necron update as a "stealth" update. At the time they printed the changes as cut-and-paste corrections in the chapter approved annual, and the revised rulings were also referenced in the FAQ of the day.

Could GW have done more (such as offering the corrections as a PDF)? Of course, but it most certainly wasn't a "stealth" update unlike some of the other 3rd edition codexes they legitimately changed without any notice.

yakface wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to the Necron update as a "stealth" update. At the time they printed the changes as cut-and-paste corrections in the chapter approved annual, and the revised rulings were also referenced in the FAQ of the day.

Could GW have done more (such as offering the corrections as a PDF)? Of course, but it most certainly wasn't a "stealth" update unlike some of the other 3rd edition codexes they legitimately changed without any notice.

They should have done something with the cover to make it different. People identify which edition codex it is by what the cover is. By not changing the cover at all and just adding some small print on a page everyone skips over anyway saying "Second Printing" they left themselves open to players not realizing they have the outdated codex.

Even if they didn't want to take the time to come up with a whole new cover, the words "Second Printing" or "Updated" or "2.0" or something like that should have appeared right below the word "Necrons" on the front of the codex.

They did make people aware that the changes happened, but now that it's 8 years old, people have forgotten. It may not have been stealth at the time, but now, it isn't nearly as obvious.

Alternatively, they shouldn't have redone the codex at all and just left it as errata and FAQs.