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.

My brain hurts, again...

So what this means is that from now on,

(A) For Nids, Double means Double or greater.
(B) For Necrons, Double means Double, but not greater.

Amazing!

No Gobby, it seems like he is saying that normally they are going to make rulings based strictly on what is written in the books (Which is a horrible idea with their track record of quality control). For the bugs (and I can only assume the necrons) this means they will go with what was intended.

 

Hey Gorgon,

Where is that post on the EOT boards? I looked around and couldn't find it.


Edit: Scratch that, I just found it.

go to the US website, its updated. 

TYRANIDS WIN!!                  

FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA ok ok read the new ruling on the synapse thing, then read the ruling right under it..

""THey are killed in the same way as if they were hit by a weapon with a strength of more than double their toughness""

So.. hahahahahahaha the FAQ's now read.... hahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHA that a wraithcannon only does ONE WOUND!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Well, they are getting better the only good thing is that they are immnune to instand death rules, so that second question is redundant.

While this is great news, the quick-fix leaves something to be desired, and now introduces two new quandries.

1. The new updated second bulletpoint paragraph says Synapse is immune to all Instant Death effects, while the question/answer right below it says they are not. Which do we follow?
2. Related to the above, the second question references to the *old* first question, saying that a wraithcannon for example, might inflict instant death just as a lascannon would (ie: double +1 toughness). Right back to square one?

le sigh...

Well, much like developmentally disabled children, you have to give GW points for trying. GW is sooo cute when it tries to run.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/21/2006 6:00 PM
Well, much like developmentally disabled children, you have to give GW points for trying. GW is sooo cute when it tries to run.

no, the second question specifically talks about weapons with no strength value that cause instant death.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/21/2006 6:00 PM
Well, much like developmentally disabled children, you have to give GW points for trying. GW is sooo cute when it tries to run.

Plus they get that whole slow strength thing when they get worked up.

So if everything is going to be RAW, and the old FAQs are apparently invalid because the developers don't like them anymore, does that mean Kharn doesn't get a save because he's still listed as having Daemon Armor, which does not actually exist in the current codex? Or does he keep the 2+ save because that's what he's listed as having anyway? In principle I like the idea of RAW, but not without some decent FAQs and errata to back up GW's horrible rulebooks.

And the FAQ fix was so very simple, just "Tyranids within Synapse range as described above (including the Synapse Creature itself) are not affected by the Instant Death rule." - they never needed to mention "double" or 'more than double" in the first place and could have avoided all this grief and confusion! Well, all's well that ends well. I forgive GW, and will now buy vast quantities of overpriced Raveners and Zoanthropes after all. (Just kidding, actually I'm converting them from plastic warriors and greenstuff.)

I have been watching this thread and trying not to comment but I am so much more confused now than ever that I just will not play nids because I am not sure what is going on. Immune to instant death but not but only on the US website. Like what country's FAQ do you follow and then if you do follow it the FAQ contradicts itself so what parts do you follow. I am in Canada so neither are directly on OUR website.

So we are closer to the U.S. but are loyal to the Queen. So can I choose which one to follow based on the situation??? I am so confused.

I think GW just haven't got their bottoms into gear and updated the UK website yet...

From the Smurf Faq

Quote:
Q. Do drop pods count as immobilized (and hence worth 15 VP) the moment they touch down? Also, are any immobilized hits on them counted for weapon destroyed etc.?

A. Yes.

lolz.

Hooray tyranids got a good decision.

Well good show from them seeing a mistake and changing it.

Thank you.

Posted By magine on 08/22/2006 1:12 AM
I have been watching this thread and trying not to comment but I am so much more confused now than ever that I just will not play nids because I am not sure what is going on. Immune to instant death but not but only on the US website. Like what country's FAQ do you follow and then if you do follow it the FAQ contradicts itself so what parts do you follow. I am in Canada so neither are directly on OUR website.

So we are closer to the U.S. but are loyal to the Queen. So can I choose which one to follow based on the situation??? I am so confused.

I say you follow the one that give you the biggest advantage. If you are playing as the nids, then the US is your best guess. If you are playing against them, then the UK is A-Okay!

Edit: Note- the stupid rhymes and puns were intended and no Gobs were injured during the making of this post. See store for details. All prices subject to change. 24 months at 8%apr OAC. Limited time offer.

Thank you.

So does the Dreadclaw count as immobilized after touchdown, or can I launch it right back into space (according to IA the Dreadclaw is for both arriving and leaving) the next turn and deny my opponent any further chance to get victory points for blowing it up? That makes the Dreadclaw a pretty awesome choice from a tactical perspective now that I think about it - if I only use those instead of Rhinos, I'm denying my opponent 65 VPs for every squad in a Dreadclaw, unless he chooses to stop whatever he's doing to shoot the Dreadclaw before it can leave!

I would look to see if Forgeworld has anything specific about the Dreadclaw first. They have specific rules about other immobile models that don't follow GW's ruling.

And I still like the drop pod ruling

From the GW boards.

PDF will be adding this bit too, but to get it out right away:

Q. Following the previous answer, what happens if a Tyranid in synapse range suffers Instant Death from a weapon that does not have a Strength value, like a Wraithcannon?

A. As they are immune to Instant Death, they only suffer 1 Wound and are not instantly killed.

- Alessio

Wow, so does this mean no more force weapon or plague sword to off hive tyrants as well?

Posted By nobody on 08/22/2006 9:53 AM
Wow, so does this mean no more force weapon or plague sword to off hive tyrants as well?

I believe that "Instant Death" is a specific rule, and is distinct from "kills outright" or other ways of removing all wounds from a model.  Nids in Synapse are immune to Instant Death (yay, my Zoeys can eat a Railgun shot and keep coming!), but the Force Weapon or Plaguesword should still pwn the Tyrant.

Only GW can issue a faq to correct issues, retract it when even they see it is wrong, correct it and in doing so raise more issues.

mmmh, rather than RAW possibly "half baked".

Simple actually. If it causes "Instant Death" like the wraith cannon then it only causes a wound. If it does not say "Instant Death" then no, it should still remove the model. RAW pretty much solves that.

In the original FAQ did they rule on cumulative Lash Whips? I thought they had and that they did stack to a min of 1 attack. Or did I halucinate that. I don't see it now.

In order to use RAW, once has to demonstrate the ability to understand the rules as written. GW has failed consistantly at this time and time again over the years, meaning that their new policy of using RAW is doomed to failure, as they often fail to read their own rules (let along understand them) before answering FAQ questions.

BYE

In the original FAQ did they rule on cumulative Lash Whips? I thought they had and that they did stack to a min of 1 attack. Or did I halucinate that. I don't see it now.

It was in the UK GT FAQ. That FAQ said they stack, but it's filled with so many suspect answers that it's hard to know what to believe. The IK change in the official FAQ was great, but we still need an answer for whips and the twin VC/BS question, among others.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/23/2006 5:31 AM
In order to use RAW, once has to demonstrate the ability to understand the rules as written. GW has failed consistantly at this time and time again over the years, meaning that their new policy of using RAW is doomed to failure, as they often fail to read their own rules (let along understand them) before answering FAQ questions.

BYE

Which is why they should make it the job of the original codex writers to write FAQ's every once in a while.  I fail to see why it shouldn't fall on the authors to fix problems with their own work.

There's exactly one problem with the design team, that's easily fixed and would solve most of the rule problems in a short time:

The buck doesn't stop anywhere.

There is no accountability for the quality of the work that the design team produces. No one is getting called into an office with the door shut and being chastised because ordnance weapons have no rules to cause wounds. And because no one is responsible, no one cares and GW deludes itself into into thinking that there is no problem, or that the problem isn't serious.

So until someone is held responsible for the bad rules, perferably publicly responsible, and the person or persons that manage them get smart enough to identify a shoddy product, we can continue to expect very low quality from the design team.

 

Hmm, the wraithcannon rules (at least in the old codex) refer to the model "suffering instant death." This was always differentiated in the past from the more common "Instant Death (from weapons of Strength equal to double Toughness) in the same was as troops (as in models with a T attribute) was differentiated from Troops (force org slot).

It would seem like the same type of situation as a mission requiring you to have "infantry hold the objective," and having the FAQ state that only models that have the unit type "Infantry" can hold it.

I'm not complaining that this was changed (I'm actually somewhat happy that they are cleaning up the different methods of instantly killing someone), rather, I'm just wondering if they are going to change the wording on Force Weapons and Plague Swords (and now that I think about it, Abbadon's sword) so that they too cause "Instant Death"

So, wait, the no instant death thing applies to double S weapons, and weapons with no S rating, but not force weapons or plague swords? What weapons are there that insta kill with no S rating besides the wraithcannon? Is Instant Death a specific thing that only happens when something has Instant Death stamped on it, or does it apply to any situation in which a model with multiple wounds is killed outright without first depleting those wounds? What does the wording for force weapons and plague swords say, the model shuffles off this mortal coil?