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.

From the new FAQ:

Q: If a base of models with the Swarms special rule suffers a Wound
from a Blast, Large Blast or Template weapon that would cause it to
suffer Instant Death, does the fact that Wound is doubled to two
Wounds mean that two bases should be removed instead of one?
(p43)
A: No

So what happens to the second wound? Do you not double wounds that cause instant death? Do you double them but end up ignoring half? I don't understand how this is supposed to work now. The answer to the questions directly contradicts the wording of the rule itself, and offers no explanation as to why. Help me understand Dakka!

The wound is doubled on the model it is allocated to.
So the IDed swarm base takes 2 ID wounds instead.
Essentially overkilling.

Like you could have 5 pens/glance on a 3 Hull point models.

It means that the second wound is unnecessary since the base is ID' by the initial wound to begin with. In Short, it is lost or if you prefer, it is still applied to the same base and is ID a second time for good measure.

40k-noob wrote:
It means that the second wound is unnecessary since the base is ID' by the initial wound to begin with. In Short, it is lost or if you prefer, it is still applied to the same base and is ID a second time for good measure.

Ahh, so we're beating a dead horse then

I'll accept apologies in my PM box.
(just kidding - I don't expect any and don't think less of people who disagreed vehemently with me)

Bear this one in mind for the day someone manages to pull off Eternal Warrior on a swarm somehow.

Swarm of Psykers with access to Biomancy?

rigeld2 wrote:
I'll accept apologies in my PM box.
(just kidding - I don't expect any and don't think less of people who disagreed vehemently with me)

This one shocked me, I really didn't believe they would rule it this way. but at least its settled now. now if only they would have clarified barrage and night fighting while they fixed LOS and blasts

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'll accept apologies in my PM box.
(just kidding - I don't expect any and don't think less of people who disagreed vehemently with me)

This one shocked me, I really didn't believe they would rule it this way. but at least its settled now. now if only they would have clarified barrage and night fighting while they fixed LOS and blasts

Actually...they only partially fixed it. If the closest model in the target unit is out of sight, blast wounds can be allocated to them...what?

I'd also like to point out this little gem:

"Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes."

Oh the arguments this would have saved had it been printed years ago. Ah well, better late than never.

Well I'm glad it's cleared up. There was a post not to long ago that made me re-read the rules and changed my thinking on this kudos to that guy .

Yet another win for RAI vs. RAW. As usual.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Yet another win for RAI vs. RAW. As usual.

That was debateable before - Did GW intend to change this from the way it's been ruled in every edition it's ever come into play?
Obviously now the answer is yes. That doesn't mean that it was clear before, and pretending that it was is disingenuous.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Yet another win for RAI vs. RAW. As usual.

That was debateable before - Did GW intend to change this from the way it's been ruled in every edition it's ever come into play?
Obviously now the answer is yes. That doesn't mean that it was clear before, and pretending that it was is disingenuous.

As usual is also laughable.

See SitW and Rhinos. See Farseer powers while embarked.

@ Nos

I'm sorry I don't understand. Could you clarify please?

Apparently he's claiming that because some FAQ's ignore both RaW and RaI (and pretty much come out of left field), the notion that FAQ's tend towards RaI is "laughable".

Also that they flop back and forth - the SitW question flopped back and forth, for example.

I don't know, it was pretty clear to me after scrutinizing the rule and pushing out the 5th edition holdover that they intended for this situation not to happen (situation being, Swarm+blast/template+ID=2 bases dead).

To me, it IS raw to not lose two swarms per wound to an ID blast/template.

Agreed, it is and was. A lot of people didn't want to accept that this had changed from previous editions, however.

@Pyrian

Ah, I see I think.

BTW, what's SitW, and what are the posters referring to? I'm not sure what this means, and also what it does to a Rhino.

Thanks in advance.

Shadow in the Warp - it was FAQed to not affect Psykers in vehicles for a long time, and then last February it suddenly flopped back to affecting them. For no reason.

Pyrian wrote:
Apparently he's claiming that because some FAQ's ignore both RaW and RaI (and pretty much come out of left field), the notion that FAQ's tend towards RaI is "laughable".

No, the notion that "as usual" is true is laughable. I even "quoted" it, to make it clear

Just to clarify, this FAQ means that no wounds are ever doubled until assigned to a model right?

So when a template that doesn't cause instant death inflicts 2 wounds on a 3 wound swarm base, 1 of the resulting unsaved wounds after doubling will be lost to the ether?

I mean I already felt that to be the case, but I'm wanting to gauge whether people feel this FAQ leaves no doubts about that.

Yes, one of them must be lost - which is both the Rules as well as being what they intended the rule to be.

rigeld2 wrote:
Agreed, it is and was. A lot of people didn't want to accept that this had changed from previous editions, however.

Admit it though, even you thought when it finally got FAQ'd, it would remove double the bases again.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Agreed, it is and was. A lot of people didn't want to accept that this had changed from previous editions, however.

Admit it though, even you thought when it finally got FAQ'd, it would remove double the bases again.

Think that? No. but I had a feeling...

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Agreed, it is and was. A lot of people didn't want to accept that this had changed from previous editions, however.

Admit it though, even you thought when it finally got FAQ'd, it would remove double the bases again.

No, I'm pretty sure in every thread about it I said it could go either way and that I wouldn't be surprised in either instance.