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.

Maybe. If units can be voluntarily pinned, then that takes some of the hurt out of the Lash of Submission.

Hmm... interesting answer on 11+ model units taking Rhinos.

Interesting answer on the LoC too, being able to fire two guns. May 'Zilla 'Nids isn't dead in 5th?

I like the Typhus answer.

BYE

Savnock wrote:
On a side note, I'm really stoked that the erratta seem to confirm that units inside transports don't seem to be considered "off the table." My guess is that psychic powers will still be blocked from ebing used out of the vehicle (except possibly through fire ports), but the off chance that powers might still be able affect the vehicle _itself_ makes my little Serpent-Fortuning schemes seem a bit more realistic.

The leaked PDF already pretty much confirmed this. In 5th edition as long as the power doesn't require LOS, you should be able to use it freely from inside a vehicle.

Hmmm, interesting. I guess I overlooked that bit in the PDF and just factored in the the 4th edition FAQ assuming I would not be able to do it.

I agree with Savnock; Wave Serpents may be a pretty viable choice.

With my current Ulthwe list, I could have Eldrad, his entire Warlock retinue all in a Fortuned Wave Serpent and Fortune the squad. Plus, the Warlock w/ Embolden will give rerolls for Eldrad's psychic power rolls (which I always end up wounding Eldrad with every game).

Possibilities...

skyth wrote:

I notice the Eldar FAQ didn't address fleeting jetbikes, though they did address fleeting autarchs w/warp generator (Says that even though warp spiders can't fleet, the autarch can-lends credence to Bikes being able to fleet).

It seems as though the FAQ is written with 5th edition in mind. In 5th edition, bike models cannot run in the shooting phase. Since the Fleet special rule only allows models which ran in the shooting phase to then charge in the same turn, such a clarification will be unneeded for 5th edition, hence it isn't included in the FAQ.

Doesn't it seem a little odd to release these FAQs so close to the release of 5th edition? Surely small details of the new rules will interact problematically with even these two books and raise several new questions.

Either way, good work Mr. Yak.

Doesn't it seem a little odd to release these FAQs so close to the release of 5th edition? Surely small details of the new rules will interact problematically with even these two books and raise several new questions.

That was my thought before looking at em but now I agree with others, these are more 5ed FAQs then 4ed (which is odd to me).

Kilkrazy wrote:All those people who were dissing the Adepticon FAQ, what do they say now that the official GW publications are crediting Yakface?

Eh? Eh?

I'd say that those FAQ's, Like all other FAQ's are not official since they're not in a Codex.

Blackheart666 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:All those people who were dissing the Adepticon FAQ, what do they say now that the official GW publications are crediting Yakface?

Eh? Eh?

I'd say that those FAQ's, Like all other FAQ's are not official since they're not in a Codex.

Do you understand the phrase, "Willful ignorance?"

Blackheart666, you're being ridiculous. The same thing that makes codices official is what makes these errata/FAQs official.

Call me dumb if you want but do vibrocannons need a LOS, the FAQ doesn´t seem to clear to me. I would say no but...

M.

DeathGod wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

I'm curious. Does your gaming circle use the term "mouthbreathers" also, or are you taking it from one of my posts?

Common usage. Truth is rare, but disparaging terms are universal

I'd say that those FAQ's, Like all other FAQ's are not official since they're not in a Codex.

Thats neither a lucid, nor coherent argument.

inquisitor_bob wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

Anything that hurts MEQs is fine with me. Bunching up marines and then hit them with a Demolisher is fun.


Now we're going to hear Marine players whine again.

You say it like its a bad thing

edit-double post

inquisitor_bob wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

Anything that hurts MEQs is fine with me. Bunching up marines and then hit them with a Demolisher is fun.


Now we're going to hear Marine players whine again.

I find it funny that a Chaos Marine player is talking about hearing "Marine Players" whine again.

Ironic isn't it.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I find it funny that a Chaos Marine player is talking about hearing "Marine Players" whine again.

You're not lumping US in with THEM are you?

Well to us "hordy's" all you MEQs look alike...

Lots of skulls- check
Gaudy paint job in a combat theater - check
One arm raised in the air in fist/waving gun/sword- check

yep, you all look alike to us

Rbb wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I find it funny that a Chaos Marine player is talking about hearing "Marine Players" whine again.

You're not lumping US in with THEM are you?

I fail to see how Chaos Marines aren't just another MEQ army.

Sure they've got a bit more variety than your average MEQ list, and they're still really cool, with good fluff and all that, but at the end of the day they're still Marines of some sort or another. It was that way before the 4th Ed Codex, but then they were just MEQ's with really nasty assault support.

Mosg wrote:Anyone else a little surprised that they took the most powerful and user-lenient approach to Lash?

Yes, but on further reflection I think it’s mostly for ease of play. If you just treat it as regular movement (except for the specified exceptions) it’s extremely powerful, but it prevents lots of other questions. For example, if you say that all models must move exactly the rolled distance in a nominated direction, you have to explain what happens if some of them CAN’T. Like if one model in the unit is blocked by another unit or impassible terrain. Does the whole movement get stopped? Does that model move as far as he can, with the other models reducing their moves just enough to stay in coherency? Or what? Also, under the straight line interpretation, a fair number of armies can pretty easily negate the lash by interspersing their models.

Allowing the Lashing player to move the models around just like regular voluntary movement avoids all those issues.

About time they posted FAQs. Hopefully they'll get the other codecii up to snuff within a few months so we can all start 5th edition on an even playground.

I was very glad to see Yakface and Council get the nod. Were you guys approached beforehand or was this as much a surprise to you as it was to all of us?

1) I hope you guys get some free product for being the 2007 contributors of the year.

2) I hope GW continues to utilize Team Yakface to fix the ambiguities associated with all of their rules.

Flagg07 wrote:2) I hope GW continues to utilize Team Yakface to fix the ambiguities associated with all of their rules.

Considering GW's record with contradictory, incorrect, broken and in some cases actually offensive answers, I think it's better they let other people do the work for them. They're bad at writing rules, but their worse at correcting their mistakes.

BYE

It's encouraging when they show signs of listening to people who care so much about the hobby and put so much work into trying to make it better.

Yakface and the FAQ guys (and all of the people who supported them- I’m looking at you, You Make The Call fanatics) on the 40k side, and the Direwolf team on the Warhammer side. There are some very dedicated hobbyists doing a lot of work for nothing but love of the hobby and a desire to help their fellow players.

Definitely grats to Yak and the council. It warms my heart to see GW starting to look to outside sources for input on the game. I hope this bodes well for future co-operations between players and developers.

jeremycobert wrote:good to see that the marine faq will be updated in the 15th month of the year?!?!? their website is so unprofessional, much like their rules writing.

set up your own games company and do it yourself then

Will have a look at these when I get home - cant believe they didnt rein in the lash for CSM - ie made it the same as Pavane for the Daemon dex......

40kenthusiast wrote:Also, Lash's ability to be stopped by the target unit being pinned by a previous lash is funny to me.

Also if you take wounds in shooting you can voluntarily pin yourself to keep you from getting lashed - so if the sorc is in a unit they have to (or rather, should) give up their shooting. Interesting to say the least.

edit: oh yeah pavane =/= lash. you can stop lash, you can't stop pavane.

So, they fix the moonstone but fail to fix a Treeman stand and shooting 360.

You fail GW, you fail.

The newer FAQs are ok, CSM is decent, but they fail with Ahriman. Can GW please make up its mind if it wants to be RAW or Not?
Seriously. They could just rule that he can. make it work that way and be done with it. Its what the FAQ is for. Making sure things
_work_. And hell make sure they work _AS INTENDED_. It's a shame that GW finds it in their hearts to Errata _some_ things. But
not others that _clearly_ need errata. (I'm looking at you Beasts of Chaos)
Also big fail on Blood Drinker and the Vampire Counts FAQ. The item clearly states that it works as if the spell was
cast on the unit. So its a kinda not really casting eh?

Agree with you on the Beasts of Chaos issues...

Oh well!

In as far as GW has made these two FAQs official , I will be useing them most Riki Tic.
I do find at least one ruling compleatly wrong , but if GW says "jobs a good'un" then so be it.

Sincity

Did anyone else notice that it seems that Warp Spiders can jump in the opponents assult phase?

Yea , thats what is says. Poor wording or stupid , you pick.

From now on , my motto will be "all errors will be abused".

Sincity