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.

JBW wrote:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

So, when that reserve modifying Eldar guy and the reserve modifying Tyranid bug are being played, do you just roll it off and the highest gets their effect?

Those rules don't contradict - the net effect is that they may negate each other, but you can follow both rules without contradiction.

I thought one (maybe not the Eldar guy) gave a Neg Modifier, while the Nid (maybe another army altogether) gave a +1 modifier. Wouldn't that situation require that FAQ solution?

Not at all since 3-1+1 =3

insaniak wrote:

Ouze wrote:It's too bad this thread got locked before the righteous 4+ brothers could take a victory lap around the vanquished 5+ infidels.

I think I explained quite enough in previous threads why I think the 4+ is silly, but at least it's a solid ruling one way or the other finally.

You did, and I think I repeatedly made it clear (at least I tried to) previously that although I disagreed with you, I thought your reasoning was sound. It was am ambiguous, poorly worded rule in my opinion ( or at least it was now, perhaps it made sense in 4e?). Glad to see it was definitively resolved, and I'm just joshin you with the vanquished thing.

Wow, color me surprised! I didn't expect to see them rule on the fliers any time soon, but I'm glad they did it the way they did.

I love this one:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

Clear wording in the scouts rules be Damned!

Th frickin Scouts rule itself states in no uncertain terms that units with scouts confer the rule to their DTs; this answer says otherwise.


I like the KFF ruling, it is now "all or nothing" instead of 4+ for the individual vehicles, and a 5+ for the unit if less than 2 of 3 are within range(I advocated the RAW, but hated the outcome).

Actually, the rules do not contradict. This FAQ simply states that units with the Scout rule do not pass it on to any vehicle they embark upon, meaning vehicles other than Dedicated Transports. Because the rule itself specifically says a unit passes it on to Dedicated Transports, the only logical explination is that the word "any" in the FAQ is being used to describe vehicles other than Dedicated Transports.

To write it more clearly, the FAQ should say this:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No, only their Dedicated Transport.

It doesn't say that because the qualifying line at the end is implied by the wording of the Scouts rule itself.

AGreed with Aldarionn - it states "any" vehicloe, and it does not confer Scout to "any" vehicle - just specific ones. It is a perfectly worded sentence, if perhaps not as well explained as we may prefer.

Additionally nothing stops the KFF one-model-in-6" from giving a 5+; it is stilla unit within 6". And given GW seem to think that SoS and SC work on vehicles, it seems unfair to not let it work on Ork vehicles.

I am not going to continue arguing the Scouts ruling nonsense, because I think of a few dozen examples using the same context of the word "any" that supports both my problem with how they worded the Q+A, and supports the proper way it works(as in the Scouts rule works with having the DT conferred the rule). My problem is that the answer should have included the bit Aldarionn posted to avoid any confusion.

I was going to argue the KFF thing, but realized while posting my argument that you are correct Nos; making a further distinction between the individual models being 4+ and the unit being 5+ doesn't make a lot of sense. it does have the interesting interaction between that FAQ and the BRB FAQ about multiple cover saves though(and goes back to the 5+ cover save unless all models are within range of the KFF).

puma713 wrote:

JBW wrote: So what makes me think that it counts if it is over the end of the world?

Well, the wings part of the hull. We know that because of the FAQ. If any part of the hull isn't on the board, then the vehicle didn't completely get onto the board. If the wings are off the board, the Valkyrie or Stormraven is not completely on the board. To say otherwise is blatantly false. And the answer from the FAQ:

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but
is unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

The FAQ says the base is used to determine if a flyer is on terrain. Surely that includes the open terrain of the game board.

Homer

Soooo happy that vendettas can finally be hit on the wings with ordnance.

Aargh. I'm getting my ruler!

New GK FAQ released also. My faves:

-You can use the Ward Staff vs. Perils in close combat confirmed.
-Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack (go go wyches).
-Multiple Rad or Psychos don't work.

I personally love the reminder about "The Most Important Rule" it's anti-rules lawyering in FAQ form.

The CoD FAQ is useless, White Dwarf seemed to indicate more rules and content for CoD was on the way... not a FAQ of obvious answers.

Kitzz wrote:Soooo happy that vendettas can finally be hit on the wings with ordnance.

I've always told my opponents to include the wings. Now I'll have to start arguing against it......................

What if there is a unit under the wings now? Does it get hit too or do you treat the wings like ordnance stopping ruins?

-cgmckenzie

Same as you did before - all models under the blast are hit. Treating it like a ruin is illogical and has no rules basis

That's how I played it before, but some of the guys I played against said that was wrong.

-cgmckenzie

Kommissar Kel wrote:I love this one:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

Clear wording in the scouts rules be Damned!

Th frickin Scouts rule itself states in no uncertain terms that units with scouts confer the rule to their DTs; this answer says otherwise.


I like the KFF ruling, it is now "all or nothing" instead of 4+ for the individual vehicles, and a 5+ for the unit if less than 2 of 3 are within range(I advocated the RAW, but hated the outcome).

wrong

That question is refering does scout or any unit with scout make land raiders e.g. NON-DTS Scout

e.g. some gk player making unit inside a LR scout, then saying the LR can scout/outflank.

I'd lol in your face if you tryed that.

models with scout still make DT scout

schadenfreude wrote:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’

Well that takes half the fun out of the you make the call threads. Vindicare rifle versus living metal has finally been FAQ'd.....

Did I miss this in the FAQ? Or was that a jokey joke?

Yeah, you missed it. It is the first pink thing in the FAQ section. Pretty much there way of saying 'we don't want to make any more FAQs'.

-cgmckenzie

Oh, sorry I meant the Vindicaire thing.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I love this one:

Q: Does a unit with the Scout special rule pass it on to
any vehicle it is embarked in? (p76)
A: No.

Clear wording in the scouts rules be Damned!

Th frickin Scouts rule itself states in no uncertain terms that units with scouts confer the rule to their DTs; this answer says otherwise.


I like the KFF ruling, it is now "all or nothing" instead of 4+ for the individual vehicles, and a 5+ for the unit if less than 2 of 3 are within range(I advocated the RAW, but hated the outcome).

There's no contradiction in the Scouts ruling. Units with Scouts confer the Scout USR to their Dedicated Transports only.

Yeah, they finally cleared up the whole Telion Stealth debate! Now I can go back to using my scouts

They cleared that up last time around...

They did?? Reading fail then. Either way, now I know

Jidmah wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Ouze wrote:

That thread makes me wonder if someone at GWS does monitor forums like these looking for legitimately unclear rules (such as the KFF one) for improvements. If so, maybe the Kareen! argument could be next (though I think that one is less in dispute... but that's a different thread).

Seems the new rulebook FAQ covered anything to do with Ramshackle, I think.

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.

Ah, now I get it.
Ramshackle is never applied after the trukk is destroyed. The trukk is destroyed by ramshackle. FAQ doesn't do nothing to the Kareen situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JBW wrote:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

So, when that reserve modifying Eldar guy and the reserve modifying Tyranid bug are being played, do you just roll it off and the highest gets their effect?

They don't conflict, you can apply both without any problem.

You are right about this. When I first read the FAQ i was thinking this will be tied back to the Trukk so I reread the rule and I came up to the same thing! If someone were to disagree then the whole Ramshackle rule would have to be deleted.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

I like the KFF ruling, it is now "all or nothing" instead of 4+ for the individual vehicles, and a 5+ for the unit if less than 2 of 3 are within range(I advocated the RAW, but hated the outcome).

You can still get the 5+ if the unit is within 6" of the Big Mek but less than half the squadron is obscured. The FAQ clarified that the cover save for being obscured was 4+.

How do we find out if they take stuff out of the FAQ? I could have sworn that they removed "Mob" rule from the Deffkoptas in the last FAQ update, and now it's not there. Did they change their mind? Why isn't that on there crossed out or something?

So if I fly my stormraven/vendetta so that its wings are over your troops, you can't place it there - or rather, scattering off my center will probably hit your troops too - awesome!

axeman1n wrote:How do we find out if they take stuff out of the FAQ? I could have sworn that they removed "Mob" rule from the Deffkoptas in the last FAQ update, and now it's not there. Did they change their mind? Why isn't that on there crossed out or something?

They never did such a thing. Mob rule on deff koptas is never useful outside of apocalypse anyway.