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.

I agree.

If my opponent wants me to use my Implosion missile according to the FAQ, I will tell him to use Jaws in the same fashion.

Its either everyone plays by the same wording, or not.

there is a huge difference in both wording and effect between Jaws and Implosion missiles.

Implosion missiles "hit" the models under the marker, and Cause wounds, wounds are then assigned by the controlling player.

Jaws "hits" the models along the line, and removes them from play; this is non-assignable. Plus-side for you it that Jaws cannot be aimed at CCs, and must be aimed at a model in the same unit as the rest of the squad the RP is with.

Kommissar Kel wrote:there is a huge difference in both wording and effect between Jaws and Implosion missiles.

Implosion missiles "hit" the models under the marker, and Cause wounds, wounds are then assigned by the controlling player.

Jaws "hits" the models along the line, and removes them from play; this is non-assignable. Plus-side for you it that Jaws cannot be aimed at CCs, and must be aimed at a model in the same unit as the rest of the squad the RP is with.

You need to read the rule for Implosion missile. The Implosion Missile does NOT wound in any way. The model HIT is the one taking the Wound Characteristic Test.

I'm with BuFFo here - Characteristic tests are either taken by units (morale) or models (dangerous terrain, Jaws). If a unit is testing then the whole thing is affected, i would say owning player decides what to pluck. As far as models go, the actual model taking the test needs to go if it fails.

BuFFo wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:there is a huge difference in both wording and effect between Jaws and Implosion missiles.

Implosion missiles "hit" the models under the marker, and Cause wounds, wounds are then assigned by the controlling player.

Jaws "hits" the models along the line, and removes them from play; this is non-assignable. Plus-side for you it that Jaws cannot be aimed at CCs, and must be aimed at a model in the same unit as the rest of the squad the RP is with.

You need to read the rule for Implosion missile. The Implosion Missile does NOT wound in any way. The model HIT is the one taking the Wound Characteristic Test.

GW disagrees with you.

GW's rulings are not always consistent with one another, and this is a frustrating thing. But in this case the FAQs are clear. JotWW can snipe individual models. The Implosion Missile cannot. Sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:I'm with BuFFo here - Characteristic tests are either taken by units (morale) or models (dangerous terrain, Jaws).

Dangerous Terrain is not a characteristic test.

ThatMG wrote:

Mandor wrote:

ThatMG wrote:There is a problem with the shattershard becuase say you hit 4 of 10 guys in a squad because its a template weapon your enemy can pick what models are Hit then roll for toughtness tests.

Your enemy doesn't pick which targets are hit. Wounds are assigned to (groups of) models, not hits.

Thats what I ment by hit i mean the rule that models that are under a part of the tamplate do not have to take the wound the owning player may allocate the wound to any other model in that unit.

Thus meaning Template/Blast weapons that follow JAWS design rules NEVER snipe models. Unless it states you can snipe models as normal.

You seem to be confusing hits and wounds. A wound can be allocated to a model or a group of similar models (to be saved afterwards, if possible). A hit can't be allocated. A Shattershard doesn't have any wounds to be allocated, because it never causes any wounds, similar to JotWW. Therefore, you never reach the wound allocation part of shooting. That's the reason why a Shattershard (and JotWW) can be used to snipe. And incidentally, because GW FAQed it, why Implosion Missiles can't snipe.

Mannahnin wrote:

BuFFo wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:there is a huge difference in both wording and effect between Jaws and Implosion missiles.

Implosion missiles "hit" the models under the marker, and Cause wounds, wounds are then assigned by the controlling player.

Jaws "hits" the models along the line, and removes them from play; this is non-assignable. Plus-side for you it that Jaws cannot be aimed at CCs, and must be aimed at a model in the same unit as the rest of the squad the RP is with.

You need to read the rule for Implosion missile. The Implosion Missile does NOT wound in any way. The model HIT is the one taking the Wound Characteristic Test.

GW disagrees with you.

GW's rulings are not always consistent with one another, and this is a frustrating thing. But in this case the FAQs are clear. JotWW can snipe individual models. The Implosion Missile cannot. Sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:I'm with BuFFo here - Characteristic tests are either taken by units (morale) or models (dangerous terrain, Jaws).

Dangerous Terrain is not a characteristic test.

Sorry bra, the 'ruling' is in a FAQ, which is NOT official. If GW intended the Missile to work a different way, they would have Errata'd it.

Cutting you off at the pass, of course if an event has me use the FAQ, that's fine by me, but in every day, 99% of my games gaming, the Implosion missile will work as RAW has it.

I think one of the other things that will change loadouts is that all instances of special in the wargear section have been changed to type. So this means alot of the CCWs can be fielded with power weapons and things and get both benefits, correct? Or am I missing something changing that?

Galador wrote:I think one of the other things that will change loadouts is that all instances of special in the wargear section have been changed to type. So this means alot of the CCWs can be fielded with power weapons and things and get both benefits, correct? Or am I missing something changing that?

You appear to be misunderstanding what the errata means when it says "Weapon Profiles".

Do you see all of those weapon profile headings which say "Range Strength AP Special"? The errata is in reference to that last Special and is stating that it should instead be Type.

It has nothing to do with the weapon description paragraphs beyond wishful thinking.

BuFFo wrote:

Sorry bra, the 'ruling' is in a FAQ, which is NOT official. If GW intended the Missile to work a different way, they would have Errata'd it.

Cutting you off at the pass, of course if an event has me use the FAQ, that's fine by me, but in every day, 99% of my games gaming, the Implosion missile will work as RAW has it.

Well then mister, it might interest you that "FAQs" you speak of are now "Official Updates" and "Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ʻFrequently Asked Questionsʼ. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ʻFAQʼ) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your codex, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your codex."

So that is how the missile works, you an stillsnipe with shatttershard however, if you want it that badly.

solkan wrote:

Galador wrote:I think one of the other things that will change loadouts is that all instances of special in the wargear section have been changed to type. So this means alot of the CCWs can be fielded with power weapons and things and get both benefits, correct? Or am I missing something changing that?

You appear to be misunderstanding what the errata means when it says "Weapon Profiles".

Do you see all of those weapon profile headings which say "Range Strength AP Special"? The errata is in reference to that last Special and is stating that it should instead be Type.

It has nothing to do with the weapon description paragraphs beyond wishful thinking.

Ahh, knew I was misunderstanding something! Thanks for that and now that you say it, that makes alot more sense!

ChrisCP wrote:

BuFFo wrote:

Sorry bra, the 'ruling' is in a FAQ, which is NOT official. If GW intended the Missile to work a different way, they would have Errata'd it.

Cutting you off at the pass, of course if an event has me use the FAQ, that's fine by me, but in every day, 99% of my games gaming, the Implosion missile will work as RAW has it.

Well then mister, it might interest you that "FAQs" you speak of are now "Official Updates" and "Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ʻFrequently Asked Questionsʼ. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ʻFAQʼ) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your codex, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your codex."

So that is how the missile works, you an stillsnipe with shatttershard however, if you want it that badly.

Not quite right, sorry bra....

FAQs were never and still aren't official rules changes.

As always I have to link this because people never seem to read it http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

And the FAQ itself does not mention anywhere that the FAQ section is official changes to the rules. Only Erratas and Amendments are.

BuFFo wrote:
Not quite right, sorry bra....

FAQs were never and still aren't official rules changes.

As always I have to link this because people never seem to read it http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

And the FAQ itself does not mention anywhere that the FAQ section is official changes to the rules. Only Erratas and Amendments are.

*sigh*

Do we really have to get into another argument about the validity of GW's FAQs?

Yes, they're "unofficial", but almost everyone treats them as authoritative and one of YMDC's tenets is that they are valid sources of rules.

buffo: Implosion missiles cause "Instant Death"; Instant death is a subset of wounding, therefore Implosion Missiles cause wounds. this is further supported by the fact that Implosion Missile ID "wounds" are saveable via Cover or invulnerable saves. EW models get to completely ignore Implosion missiles.

This is all vastly different from what Jaws does.

Also i would suggest following this link: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page and reading #2.

BuFFo wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

BuFFo wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:there is a huge difference in both wording and effect between Jaws and Implosion missiles.

Implosion missiles "hit" the models under the marker, and Cause wounds, wounds are then assigned by the controlling player.

Jaws "hits" the models along the line, and removes them from play; this is non-assignable. Plus-side for you it that Jaws cannot be aimed at CCs, and must be aimed at a model in the same unit as the rest of the squad the RP is with.

You need to read the rule for Implosion missile. The Implosion Missile does NOT wound in any way. The model HIT is the one taking the Wound Characteristic Test.

GW disagrees with you.

GW's rulings are not always consistent with one another, and this is a frustrating thing. But in this case the FAQs are clear. JotWW can snipe individual models. The Implosion Missile cannot. Sorry.

Sorry bra, the 'ruling' is in a FAQ, which is NOT official.

You have the absolute right to play however you want with any opponent who agrees to do so.

However, for the vast majority of us, the FAQs are treated as rules, given that they are clarifications issued by GW. This holds both for friendly games and for every tournament I've ever been to or heard of.

And as Kel alluded to, for the purposes of discussions in the You Make Da Call forum, the FAQs are official rules.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

BuFFo wrote:If GW intended the Missile to work a different way, they would have Errata'd it.

GW has a long track record of changing how rules work in the FAQ part of their FAQs rather than the Errata. The only time they make it an Errata is when they're changing the actual text.

BuFFo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

BuFFo wrote:

Sorry bra, the 'ruling' is in a FAQ, which is NOT official. If GW intended the Missile to work a different way, they would have Errata'd it.

Cutting you off at the pass, of course if an event has me use the FAQ, that's fine by me, but in every day, 99% of my games gaming, the Implosion missile will work as RAW has it.

Well then mister, it might interest you that "FAQs" you speak of are now "Official Updates" and "Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and ʻFrequently Asked Questionsʼ. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ʻFAQʼ) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your codex, this is by no means necessary – just keep a copy of the update with your codex."

So that is how the missile works, you an stillsnipe with shatttershard however, if you want it that badly.

Not quite right, sorry bra....

FAQs were never and still aren't official rules changes.

As always I have to link this because people never seem to read it http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

And the FAQ itself does not mention anywhere that the FAQ section is official changes to the rules. Only Erratas and Amendments are.

Have you read the new Updates? Or at least the quote I provided? They are lablled as offical updates now and are quite clear that, errata is for typos, amendments ae to fix old rules and faqs are for saing how it works.
The Update itself says to keep a copy with your codex... The link you provided is from 2008 and talks about the FAQs and Erratas, that's not what the new documents are and the difference between the two styles is noteable.

Did you read his links (GWs web pages that state otherwise?)

Not to really be a weird one, but they are no more official than they were before. . . .

Which is to say YMDC worthy, but not because of anything posted.

Both are correct, in their own way.

Yeah, read many times back in good old gwar days, that's where the 2008 date come from =)
On the next page the heading is pretty interesting too "Below you will find all the latest FAQs and Errata pages for Warhammer 40,000 and your favourite Warhammer 40,000 armies. Next to the name, you'll see a date and a version number that will tell you when the FAQ was put on the web site. This way you'll be able to tell which FAQs have been added or changed since your last visit."

Which in m opinion again shows that the pages for The Shrine of Knowledge have not been updated since 2008 while the contents have change making the text redundant.

And yet is still the intro to the same documents. . . .

The intro is as valid as anything else presented.


Here is to hoping they update all of their info, but otherwise, what they have posted is "up to date".

editing to add:
Unless it is on par with the Tyranid FAQ, in which case, you all should be happy it hasn't been updated.
ptttb

not all of the FAQ are yet FAQ updates; several are still the old FAQs that fell under the old intro page the New FAQ Updates all have different intro verbiage explaining that they are no longer "house rules".

this would be the text that we are referring to:

Although we strive to ensure that our codexes are perfect,
sometimes mistakes do creep in. In addition, we
occasionally print new versions of our rules, which require
amendments to be made in older versions of our army
books. When such issues arise, we feel that it is important
to deal with them as promptly as we can, and we therefore
produce regular updates for all of our army books. When
changes are made, the version number will be updated,
and any changes from the previous version will be
highlighted in magenta. Where a version number has a
letter, E.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only
in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other
minor correction.
Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ʻFrequently Asked Questionsʼ. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the
Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or
ʻFAQʼ) section answers commonly asked questions about
the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in
your codex, this is by no means necessary – just keep a
copy of the update with your codex.

The above was taken from the dark eldar FAQ entry, just to prove that it, itself, is no longer under the FAQ-intro page's jurisdiction. The FAQs that are under the intro page is all FAQs that have a date next to them, if they have a version and #; they will have their own defining intros.

Mandor wrote:

ThatMG wrote:

Mandor wrote:

ThatMG wrote:There is a problem with the shattershard becuase say you hit 4 of 10 guys in a squad because its a template weapon your enemy can pick what models are Hit then roll for toughtness tests.

Your enemy doesn't pick which targets are hit. Wounds are assigned to (groups of) models, not hits.

Thats what I ment by hit i mean the rule that models that are under a part of the tamplate do not have to take the wound the owning player may allocate the wound to any other model in that unit.

Thus meaning Template/Blast weapons that follow JAWS design rules NEVER snipe models. Unless it states you can snipe models as normal.

You seem to be confusing hits and wounds. A wound can be allocated to a model or a group of similar models (to be saved afterwards, if possible). A hit can't be allocated. A Shattershard doesn't have any wounds to be allocated, because it never causes any wounds, similar to JotWW. Therefore, you never reach the wound allocation part of shooting. That's the reason why a Shattershard (and JotWW) can be used to snipe. And incidentally, because GW FAQed it, why Implosion Missiles can't snipe.

your not understanding what Im saying because it hard for me to explain.

JAWS state its a line where any model (non-vehicle) that is touched by it must make a ch test.

BECAUSE shattershard and the missile are TEMPLATE and BLAST the rules changes in a coplex way

Page 30 BRB
All models who bases are ...covered are hit... The Controlling player may allocate...

The point im trying to make is that the owner of the models may pick what model must take the test from this unit because units are taken as a whole in regard to blast and template weapons.

I understand it state wounds wound but GW rulings on Blast and template makes it so that a JAWS like effect does not snipe models becuase of template/blast rules. Also it does not state that that model has to take the test like JAWS does. Thus from GW view i would say they dont snipe and the player gets to allocate wounds/ch test as normal.

ThatMG wrote:your not understanding what Im saying because it hard for me to explain.

JAWS state its a line where any model (non-vehicle) that is touched by it must make a ch test.

BECAUSE shattershard and the missile are TEMPLATE and BLAST the rules changes in a coplex way

Page 30 BRB
All models who bases are ...covered are hit... The Controlling player may allocate...

The point im trying to make is that the owner of the models may pick what model must take the test from this unit because units are taken as a whole in regard to blast and template weapons.

I understand it state wounds wound but GW rulings on Blast and template makes it so that a JAWS like effect does not snipe models becuase of template/blast rules. Also it does not state that that model has to take the test like JAWS does. Thus from GW view i would say they dont snipe and the player gets to allocate wounds/ch test as normal.

So, you're saying that if JotWW draws a line through say, three models in my unit, I may not allocate the "hits" to other models. But if I cover three of the same models with a Shattershard, my opponent can allocate these "hits"? And you justify this by saying that the normal procedure for assigning "hits" to models works fine for a Shattershard, but is conveniently disregarded for JotWW? Even though we can not assign hits at all?

You're right, I don't get it.

Because a line does not designate a predetermined form of wounding via it's own defined rules via the BRB.

BuFFo wrote:
Not quite right, sorry bra....

FAQs were never and still aren't official rules changes.

As always I have to link this because people never seem to read it http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

And the FAQ itself does not mention anywhere that the FAQ section is official changes to the rules. Only Erratas and Amendments are.

So do you pick and choose what you like from the FAQ's? That seems very Win at all costs to me. . .

Oh does that mean my nids get to soul suck your troops inside transports when I play you with doom?

Edit.

Why do you keep apologizing to womans support garments?

Rymafyr wrote:Because a line does not designate a predetermined form of wounding via it's own defined rules via the BRB.

And neither does the Shattershard, as it doesn't wound...

Melchiour wrote:

BuFFo wrote:
Not quite right, sorry bra....

FAQs were never and still aren't official rules changes.

As always I have to link this because people never seem to read it http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

And the FAQ itself does not mention anywhere that the FAQ section is official changes to the rules. Only Erratas and Amendments are.

So do you pick and choose what you like from the FAQ's? That seems very Win at all costs to me. . .

Oh does that mean my nids get to soul suck your troops inside transports when I play you with doom?

Edit.

Why do you keep apologizing to womans support garments?

A FAQ is a house rule. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course you can pick which ones you wish to use just like you are able to play a game with your lascannons being strength 11 if your opponent doesn't mind. If I like a particular FAQ, and my opponent agrees, then we can use it. If I don't like a FAQ, then I'll play it according to the only official places you can play by RAW which are;

Basic Rule Book with Erratas and Amendments added
Printed Codex with Erratas and Amendments added

When I play as DE, I chose not to use the Implosion Missile House Rule because the Shattershard is worded the SAME WAY as the Implosion Missile, yet whoever put the FAQ up on the GW site failed to realize this. I'll stick with RAW thank you.

So if you played a tyranid player you said, for example, that the FAQ rulings for primes in pods and doom are wrong. You would let them play it the way RAW stands. That doom effects characters inside vehicles and that primes can POD in?

If that is your stance then I see your side. I just see it causing confusion as everyone only picks the rulings from FAQ's that improve their armies and ignore what balances it or nerfs it.

Edit.

Also be prepared for most tournaments and events to use the FAQ. So your casual experience and tourny experience may vary.

BuFFo wrote:A FAQ is a house rule. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course you can pick which ones you wish to use just like you are able to play a game with your lascannons being strength 11 if your opponent doesn't mind. If I like a particular FAQ, and my opponent agrees, then we can use it. If I don't like a FAQ, then I'll play it according to the only official places you can play by RAW which are;

Basic Rule Book with Erratas and Amendments added
Printed Codex with Erratas and Amendments added

When I play as DE, I chose not to use the Implosion Missile House Rule because the Shattershard is worded the SAME WAY as the Implosion Missile, yet whoever put the FAQ up on the GW site failed to realize this. I'll stick with RAW thank you.

Buffo, as you have been informed twice before in this topic, for the purposes of the You Make Da Call Forum, the GW FAQs are official rules.

Please observe this whenever you post here.

Melchiour wrote:So if you played a tyranid player you said, for example, that the FAQ rulings for primes in pods and doom are wrong. You would let them play it the way RAW stands. That doom effects characters inside vehicles and that primes can POD in?

Yes, I would and I do. I don't see what it shouldn't. I also told my friend he could stick Primes in his Pods, but he refuses to do so for whatever reason. Go figure!

If that is your stance then I see your side. I just see it causing confusion as everyone only picks the rulings from FAQ's that improve their armies and ignore what balances it or nerfs it.

As I have had a friendly reminder by a Mod, I went to read the forums rules here (because of my ADHD I forget everything. I am 31 and I still forget family member's birthdays) that the GW FAQS are official ONLY on this forum.

So I have to word my responses here differently.

Also be prepared for most tournaments and events to use the FAQ. So your casual experience and tourny experience may vary.

Yeah, I have been playing in tournies and events since the late 90's

BuFFo wrote:
As I have had a friendly reminder by a Mod, I went to read the forums rules here (because of my ADHD I forget everything. I am 31 and I still forget family member's birthdays) that the GW FAQS are official ONLY on this forum.

So I have to word my responses here differently.

The reason this is the case is because there simply is no point in bringing up the fact that GW FAQs are 'soft' rules. You always have the option to ignore them when playing someone that agrees with you, however if you actually read the blurb from GW you see (emphasis mine):

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.

The colored part is often ignored in online forum discussions. GW FAQs are used when players who don't know each other play. If you know your opponent and you both agree to ignore the FAQ answer that's certainly your choice. But coming into a forum and saying 'GW FAQs aren't official' does nothing for the discussion.

If you want to simply express your opinion about the FAQ and say that you're going to choose not to follow the FAQ because you don't like it (as you have in this thread), then that's obviously fine when it is put in that context. But if we're discussing how a rule should be played then GW FAQs have to be taken into consideration because that ruling will be followed in nearly every tournament and any pick-up games where the players do not know each other.

So just to be clear in general (and not just to you): There is no need to bring up the fact that GW FAQs are 'soft' material when discussing the rules...it goes without saying and does not need to be brought up everytime we have a rules discussion where someone disagrees with one of GW's FAQ rulings.