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.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf

First One, pg 6:

Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.


Second one, Pg 7:

Q: Can a unit occupying a Bastion manually fire a gun
emplacement (eg. quad gun) on the Bastion’s roof? (p116)
A: No – a model must be in base contact to manually fire a
gun emplacement, therefore the unit must be on the
Bastion’s roof.



No one I know ever assumed either of those two things was true. I wondered if you could fire the gun from the roof (but I assumed you could not), but I would not have in a million years assumed you had to be up there to fire it.


I had a good thing going, putting some Broadsides in there, with a BS 5 Shas'El to run the gun..... having to put him on top (probably with some pathfinders for ablative wounds) is still doable, but annoying.

Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.

We had people do this. It was argued that the rule never said it was no longer a flyer, it just was treated as a fast,skimmer. So since its unit line still was a labeled as a flyer in the BRB P.400 something that it could still in fact choose to shoot skyfire. It's nice to just make sure things are clear now.

I like how in the FAQ they feel the need to clarify if you have to take the 1+ Fire Warrior Squad and the 1+ Command Suit but they don't address the Point Value requirement for the Special Characters when taking Tau as Allies.

There was no legitimate debate as to whether you have to use the 1+ units, that is very clear. But on the point value SC, we have no idea if you have to take 1500 points of Tau or just use them in any army that is at least 1500 points.

I almost want to take a black marker to the pointless entries in the FAQs if it wasn't for the occasional player that needs obvoius question reaffirmed by the GW FAQ.

 Goat wrote:
Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.

We had people do this. It was argued that the rule never said it was no longer a flyer, it just was treated as a fast,skimmer. So since its unit line still was a labeled as a flyer in the BRB P.400 something that it could still in fact choose to shoot skyfire. It's nice to just make sure things are clear now.

Yeah, I'm ok with that ruling, actually (annoyed about the Bastion, though) it's just that seriously, NO ONE I know played it that way.

Oh, yeah, (not to make this YMDC thread) if it hovers, does that mean it could fire more than 2 missiles? (only really applicable to the SR)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I like how in the FAQ they feel the need to clarify if you have to take the 1+ Fire Warrior Squad and the 1+ Command Suit but they don't address the Point Value requirement for the Special Characters when taking Tau as Allies.

There was no legitimate debate as to whether you have to use the 1+ units, that is very clear. But on the point value SC, we have no idea if you have to take 1500 points of Tau or just use them in any army that is at least 1500 points.

I almost want to take a black marker to the pointless entries in the FAQs if it wasn't for the occasional player that needs obvoius question reaffirmed by the GW FAQ.

Well, there's always a bunch of questions they don't answer (I got a few: Is a Shas'O with bodyguard an upgrade character, or an IC? RAW it's just an upgrade. And: Can a SR shoot 3 missiles due to POTMS?), eh. And jokes about "frequently asked questions.....that nobody asked" are old as the hills.

Personally was thinking that this is the best, and promptest FAQ that GW has ever written in the more than 10 years I've been playing this game.

I wasn't looking for perfection. I'm just glad we don't have to play with gimpy jury-rigged rules interpretations for years and years like we used to.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf
Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.

The YMDC crowd were convinced this was going to be "Yes".

 Flavius Infernus wrote:
Personally was thinking that this is the best, and promptest FAQ that GW has ever written in the more than 10 years I've been playing this game.

I wasn't looking for perfection. I'm just glad we don't have to play with gimpy jury-rigged rules interpretations for years and years like we used to.

Oh, I totally agree, I even made a post about it. Doesn't mean I can't make fun of the stuff that makes no sense.

http://prometheusatwar.com/2012/09/highlights-of-the-new-6th-ed-40k-faqs-the-things-you-need-to-know/

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf
Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.

The YMDC crowd were convinced this was going to be "Yes".

Yeah, it seems GW has gone against the RAW again. Not that we should be surprised.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf
Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.

The YMDC crowd were convinced this was going to be "Yes".

It's another good reason to not pay attention to the YMDC crowd. Really, I feel it's what a competitive tournament atmosphere brings out of people... they're looking for every edge so that they can table their opponents.

Are you really surprised that those tourney neckbeards were abusing grammar structure in rules?

I think it's a little hard to accuse people of beardiness on this. Everyone I know just assumed Flyers get skyfire, regardless, and that is independent of what mode they were in. If GW wanted that to apply only while they were "acting as a flyer", well, they coulda just said that. But they didn't, cuz GW is somehow allergic to making things clear.

From the point of view that having them always have skyfire is worse for other flyers, generally, I'd call it ant-beardy. No need to cast aspersions.

Rakeeb wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf
Q: Can Flyers in Hover mode still choose to use the Skyfire special
rule? (p81)
A: No.

The YMDC crowd were convinced this was going to be "Yes".

It's another good reason to not pay attention to the YMDC crowd. Really, I feel it's what a competitive tournament atmosphere brings out of people... they're looking for every edge so that they can table their opponents.

Are you really surprised that those tourney neckbeards were abusing grammar structure in rules?

Could you be more insulting for no reason? That'd be great.

Please try and discuss our toy soldier hobby without reaching for blanket derogatory terms for other posters.

Thanks.

It's another good reason to not pay attention to the YMDC crowd. Really, I feel it's what a competitive tournament atmosphere brings out of people... they're looking for every edge so that they can table their opponents.

Are you really surprised that those tourney neckbeards were abusing grammar structure in rules?

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the functions of YMDC.

Most Q&A topics in there are quick and simple, with people getting easy answers to stuff they're unclear about.

Some rules, however, are genuinely ambiguous. In those cases, YMDC serves a great function of allowing people to hash out the meaning and figure out how it's supposed to work, or how it can most practically be resolved, so they don't waste time arguing about it at the table. A hour or two of debating it online can save precious real game time and spare you confusion when you are with your RL friend for a RL game.

Beyond the above, primary uses, debating the fine points rules online is itself an enjoyable hobby for some folks. Akin to the kind of arguing over minutiae that sports fans enjoy. Usually when you get a really long, drawn-out thread it's because one or more of those guys is involved, and likes the pure intellectual aspect of the argument. Or can't admit they're wrong.

People need to be able to separate this kind of online debate pastime from the way players actually behave at the table IRL. IME practically no one wants to waste time at the table in a drawn out debate. Drawing judgmental conclusions about people based on how they choose to pass their time online is usually not going to be accurate.

The only issue with that set of replies, mods, is that people really DO act like that at the table.

There's all kinds of beardy nonsense that go on at tables in tournaments. A good example is the Kroot congaline deployment when an opponent puts everything into reserves. Another one is abusing grammar rules and structure meant for having squad leaders as character, and claiming that it justifies a unit full of "characters" - ie a wound allocation nightmare. A third is armies built to require as lengthy turns as possible, so that the game can be artificially ended early in the turn structure because of time requirements. Not only are these three situations against the spirit of the game, they're also regularly discussed as valid tactics on this forum. There are even posts in YMDC with people who have found potential RAW-based exploits that clearly violate the spirit of the game and the RAI... the typical objective of these posts is to establish that the RAW reading is valid, regardless of its impact on the game and everyone's enjoyment therein, and then to be sprung on unsuspecting players at tourneys.

This very topic makes a good point related to the thrust of my argument. Units in hover mode able to shoot Skyfire, even though it's clear that they're intended to behave as fast skimmers in the rules? Come now. The fact that anyone played it in that manner is clear evidence to me that this kind of player both exists and uses forums like YMDC to vet their ideas before games.

At tournaments, the drive to win is such that ALL participants having fun becomes a secondary and typically abandoned goal. It's a shame, it's perpetuated by the WAAC-type players, and those advancing it need to be called out.

Rakeeb wrote:
The only issue with that set of replies, mods, is that people really DO act like that at the table.

So it's fair to insult everyone that participates in YMDC because there are people who are poor sports?

A good example is the Kroot congaline deployment when an opponent puts everything into reserves.

Wait - how is that "beardy"? Going full reserve was always a risk. Going full reserve (after the FAQ) when your opponent has lots of infiltrators is a silly risk.

Another one is abusing grammar rules and structure meant for having squad leaders as character, and claiming that it justifies a unit full of "characters" - ie a wound allocation nightmare.

You mean the listing in the back of the book? Those grammar rules?
With the fact that wound allocation existed for those units in 5th, there was no reason to expect it'd be removed in 6th.

A third is armies built to require as lengthy turns as possible, so that the game can be artificially ended early in the turn structure because of time requirements. Not only are these three situations against the spirit of the game, they're also regularly discussed as valid tactics on this forum.

The last thread that advocated building an army to slow the game down intentionally wasn't ever accepted as a valid tactic - it was derided pretty heavily.

There are even posts in YMDC with people who have found potential RAW-based exploits that clearly violate the spirit of the game and the RAI... the typical objective of these posts is to establish that the RAW reading is valid, regardless of its impact on the game and everyone's enjoyment therein, and then to be sprung on unsuspecting players at tourneys.

You're assuming the bolded part. I would bet that most of those threads are more a thought exercise than anything else. Coming up with some tactic based on a rules exploit to use at tournaments rarely works out for you because there's TOs there can can rule however they want - even against clear RAW.

This very topic makes a good point related to the thrust of my argument. Units in hover mode able to shoot Skyfire, even though it's clear that they're intended to behave as fast skimmers in the rules? Come now. The fact that anyone played it in that manner is clear evidence to me that this kind of player both exists and uses forums like YMDC to vet their ideas before games.

No, it wasn't clear. They're still a Flyer, Flyers have Skyfire. Your assumption that it's clear and that anyone who played otherwise is "beardy" is just wrong - I'm not sure what other way to put it.

At tournaments, the drive to win is such that ALL participants having fun becomes a secondary and typically abandoned goal. It's a shame, it's perpetuated by the WAAC-type players, and those advancing it need to be called out.

Absolutely false. The only games I get anymore are tournaments, and I've never placed above 4th. But I have fun every single game (save one, ever).

Rakeeb wrote:
The only issue with that set of replies, mods, is that people really DO act like that at the table.

There's all kinds of beardy nonsense that go on at tables in tournaments. A good example is the Kroot congaline deployment when an opponent puts everything into reserves.

So, who was more beardy - the player denying the tau player his first round of shooting by reserving everything (now impossible), or the tau player using a common tactic, blocking movement by model placement.

Another one is abusing grammar rules and structure meant for having squad leaders as character, and claiming that it justifies a unit full of "characters" - ie a wound allocation nightmare.

Paladins can never be squad leaders. Warlocks can be squad leaders but still form units of characters, even after the FAQ. It's safe to assume that GW actually wrote the rules the way they were used and simply didn't think it through.

A third is armies built to require as lengthy turns as possible, so that the game can be artificially ended early in the turn structure because of time requirements. Not only are these three situations against the spirit of the game, they're also regularly discussed as valid tactics on this forum.

Yeah, discussed on the forum. Have you ever actually seen someone slow down a tournament game on purpose and get away with it? You do realize that the internet is not reality? And what trolling is?

There are even posts in YMDC with people who have found potential RAW-based exploits that clearly violate the spirit of the game and the RAI...

The spirit of the game and RAI are both subjective opinions which can differ between two people without either being a madman or an ass. I know there is a whole ork forum full of people thinking that fielding two warbosses is clearly against the spirit of the game. I know a player who thinks calling a Waagh! without having a warboss is clearly against the spirit of the game. Who are you to decide what the game is supposed to be played like? RAW is always the same, no matter who looks at it, no matter how stupid it is. That's the whole reason why GW is printing that big book. So you can bring your minis over to a store in Germany and play me without starting a head-butting contest over whose plastic soldiers are more powerful first.

the typical objective of these posts is to establish that the RAW reading is valid, regardless of its impact on the game and everyone's enjoyment therein, and then to be sprung on unsuspecting players at tourneys.

And the typical outcome of these posts is that the person is told that he might be right, but will not get away with it at any tournament.

This very topic makes a good point related to the thrust of my argument. Units in hover mode able to shoot Skyfire, even though it's clear that they're intended to behave as fast skimmers in the rules?

Clearly? Why? As far as I can tell, it could have gone both ways, because harriers doesn't exactly stop being plane if it hovers either. GW has made stranger calls in the past.

Come now. The fact that anyone played it in that manner is clear evidence to me that this kind of player both exists and uses forums like YMDC to vet their ideas before games.

If GW would have a proper QA checking and playtesting their rules, that wouldn't be a problem. There are also players who get these kind of ideas who don't even read WH40k forum. One of my regular opponents keeps re-reading his codex and rule books until he thinks he has found another loophole. Oh, and you've obviously never player a P&P game with power gamers. Those guys were masters of finding loopholes, long before internet communities existed.

At tournaments, the drive to win is such that ALL participants having fun becomes a secondary and typically abandoned goal.

You know, I bet all those athletes during Olympia were making sure that all their competitors were having fun. Don't kid yourself, as soon as something of value is on the line, fun becomes a secondary objective. Being a good sportsman does not require your opponent to have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
D'oh. Ninjad by rigeld.

I'm not wavering from my position in the least, Rigeld2 and Jidmah. I appreciate your effort but you two and I are not going to agree on this one. Games are meant to be enjoyable.

EDIT: Not participating in this thread any further. Likely not going to participate in the forums further other than watching the Tau tactica thread.

Rakeeb wrote:
I'm not wavering from my position in the least, Rigeld2 and Jidmah. I appreciate your effort but you two and I are not going to agree on this one. Games are meant to be enjoyable.

And your position is that anyone who participates in YMDC makes the game not enjoyable?
And you think that's a valid position?

Rakeeb wrote:
I'm not wavering from my position in the least, Rigeld2 and Jidmah. I appreciate your effort but you two and I are not going to agree on this one. Games are meant to be enjoyable.

EDIT: Not participating in this thread any further. Likely not going to participate in the forums further other than watching the Tau tactica thread.

Goodbye then, I guess. But think about this, maybe someone doesn't enjoy a game playing you, because you keep changing the rules to meet your personal view of how they should be played, rather simply playing by the rules they paid money for?

Rakeeb wrote:
The only issue with that set of replies, mods, is that people really DO act like that at the table.

There's all kinds of beardy nonsense that go on at tables in tournaments. A good example is the Kroot congaline deployment when an opponent puts everything into reserves. Another one is abusing grammar rules and structure meant for having squad leaders as character, and claiming that it justifies a unit full of "characters" - ie a wound allocation nightmare. A third is armies built to require as lengthy turns as possible, so that the game can be artificially ended early in the turn structure because of time requirements. Not only are these three situations against the spirit of the game, they're also regularly discussed as valid tactics on this forum. There are even posts in YMDC with people who have found potential RAW-based exploits that clearly violate the spirit of the game and the RAI... the typical objective of these posts is to establish that the RAW reading is valid, regardless of its impact on the game and everyone's enjoyment therein, and then to be sprung on unsuspecting players at tourneys.

This very topic makes a good point related to the thrust of my argument. Units in hover mode able to shoot Skyfire, even though it's clear that they're intended to behave as fast skimmers in the rules? Come now. The fact that anyone played it in that manner is clear evidence to me that this kind of player both exists and uses forums like YMDC to vet their ideas before games.

At tournaments, the drive to win is such that ALL participants having fun becomes a secondary and typically abandoned goal. It's a shame, it's perpetuated by the WAAC-type players, and those advancing it need to be called out.

Ok, you kinda need an attitude adjustment. Sure, there is definitely such as thing as people wanting to twist rules to ridiculous extents, taking GWs poor grammar and going for something that is clearly not RAI. This is not that case.

Why did I title this post this "was ANYONE playing them this way?"? Because everyone I know assumed Flyers had Skyfire all the time. Everyone in agreement. No one is "twisting" anything, no one is trying to interpret things for advantage --indeed, you gotta figure about half of people that's more bad than good.

So, none of your comments about WAAC make any sense in this context. Completely tangential to the conversation. (and successfully de-railed it, btw, grr)

Oh, and the thing about units of characters and wound allocation? Yeah it was broken, and I don't think most people who played it liked it, but it was also exactly how the rule was written and what was supposed to happen. Until they fixed it via FAQ last week. But that's what the rule was--people playing it that way aren't interpretting things for advantage, they're using the damn rulebook

Last chance for this thread; anything past this post better be related to the original topic, or Bad Things may result.

OK, that's what I want, too.

On the original topic, I kinda want an informal poll: How many people played it the way the FAQ describes? On the other hand, how many people assumed flyers always had skyfire, and you shot the gun on the bastion from inside?

I played that flyers always had skyfire but that you could not shoot the bastion gun from inside.

rigeld2 wrote:
I played that flyers always had skyfire but that you could not shoot the bastion gun from inside.

This is how I read it, but the situation never occurred in any of the games I've played to date (still haven't seen a Bastion, actually, and my Tyranids weren't going to bring one).

Yeah - I haven't faced a bastion yet so I guess technically I haven't "played" it that way... but that's likely how it would've gone down in our local group.

The Flyer thing we did play that way, to my detriment.

Rakeeb wrote:
The only issue with that set of replies, mods, is that people really DO act like that at the table.

People who are actively unpleasant are vanishingly rare, IME. I've played close to a thousand competitive games of 40k and WHFB over the past twelve years, in local leagues and in tournaments in eleven different US states, and the vast majority of players I've met and played against have been fun and friendly people. The occasional TFG is out there, but no more than one in maybe every twenty or thirty players. Just because people interpret the rules differently than you doesn't make them bad people.

Back on the original topic...

rigeld2 wrote:
I played that flyers always had skyfire but that you could not shoot the bastion gun from inside.

This. Although I did run into a player who argued that flyers would lose skyfire when hovering, and our local group considered that and saw his point, but decided the rulebook probably meant they always have it.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Just because people interpret the rules differently than you doesn't make them bad people.

No, but interpreting the rules in a convoluted and roundabout way that runs contrary to the obvious intention and spirit does. I remember the endless arguments about FMCs losing hard to hit when they became grounded. I can accept the rational argument behind it, but the idea that people actually play that way baffled me.

Ditto with The Changeling pre-FAQ. Now, I read the demon codex and NOT the FAQ, and it didn't even occur to me that a single wrong word in the rule allowed you to use his power against EVERY shooting unit within 24" of him. Apparently at the time, plenty did.

Also the people who gave Howling Banshees power axes. Mega lols.

Probably the most confusing thing in the FAQ I've ever seen is the several instances of "Can I claim XYZ cover save against a Hive Guard?"

No.

And seriously, why does it even need to be written? It's not like the Hive Guard's rule is obfuscating anything lol.

uberjoras wrote:
Probably the most confusing thing in the FAQ I've ever seen is the several instances of "Can I claim XYZ cover save against a Hive Guard?"

No.

And seriously, why does it even need to be written? It's not like the Hive Guard's rule is obfuscating anything lol.

I keep wondering that too.
"Can I claim <xyz> cover save against an Impaler Cannon?" "No. Read the words in the rule." "But this is a new thing!" "Read the words in the rule." "But.." "Here's an FAQ."

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Just because people interpret the rules differently than you doesn't make them bad people.

No, but interpreting ....

Please don't? I get you, we're just trying to forget that diversion ever happened.

----------------------------------------------------

So so far I'm counting 3 people all in agreement, that

1) They assumed Flyers had skyfire all the time

2) That yes, you had to fire the weapon from the bastions roof (though it seems in at least two cases this was untested).

This also goes pretty uniformly for their player groups, it sounds like?


Interesting lesson in group think -- in my area it was the same on #1, but different on #2. Or more precisely, Bastions aren't really common around here either (people go nuts for Aegis though, lol). I was using a Bastion, I assumed that you fired the gun from the inside (and in fact wondered if you could also shoot it form the roof but assumed you could not). I probably just used in that fashion, and no one saw fit to argue with me about it ....cuz who knows, anyway, right? We spent 4 days trying to figure out (friendly, on a forum) what arcs of fire the HBs had (please don't answer that, not the point).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

uberjoras wrote:
Probably the most confusing thing in the FAQ I've ever seen is the several instances of "Can I claim XYZ cover save against a Hive Guard?"

No.

And seriously, why does it even need to be written? It's not like the Hive Guard's rule is obfuscating anything lol.

Well, I forget the exact current state of it, but the hive guard no-cover rule has gone through a lot iterations. At one time, you could get cover if you were in cover, but not behind it, you could get smoke/jink saves at one point, then you couldn't, etc.

Is it really just no cover, never? That's fine, and simplicity is best, but the thing is it certainly didn't used to be simple.