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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:jmurph - not inane, just using the rules that were written down to actually draw a logical conclusion.

If obscured...then.... is very, very simple and straightforward - and they got it "right" with Orks so why, if they really wanted vehicles to benefit (remember SW and BA are in the same boat currently) did they not simply use the same language?

Because GW writers have a pretty shaky grasp of things and often make this kind of mistake.

If you take double reserve bonus and 5 or 6 pods, with 2 mawlocs you can destroy an entire ig parking lot in one turn ... surround with pods and all that cant be moved are destroyed.

Kinda gimmicky, but it can work.

Night Lords wrote:I have never seen or heard anyone run an empty pods list. Ever. I really dont see a point to giving a bunch of free kill points away at 40 points a pop, especially when there are so many slots and units tyranid players cant fit in to begin with.

At least before you had the choice to walk about and drop the pods in by themselves. Doesn't have to be maximum cheese. They are a killpoint if taken with a squad anyway. I know marines are not the same as nids but it kinda blows to have people saying scratch built pods should mirror sm pods (INAT) but then nerf their choices without good reason.

I am suprised that they didn't address the question of whether or not you got the reserve bonus if the Hive Tyrant or Swarm Lord were currently in reserve.

kill dem stunties wrote:If you take double reserve bonus and 5 or 6 pods, with 2 mawlocs you can destroy an entire ig parking lot in one turn ... surround with pods and all that cant be moved are destroyed.

Pods used to be pretty great at objective shanagins, and they gave you some deployment flexibility if you didn't /want/ to deep strike that particular game, but had to use the list (a tourney for example)

Not even being able to put an IC in your pods is total unfair crap though. >.<

Gwar, whilst I understand your disappointment in GW not adhering to your stance, it's their rulebook and their FAQ/Errata.

The thing that immediately leaps to mind is that rather than waste your time writing unofficial FAQs or adjudicating according to a style that GW themselves don't hold with, that you write your own rules, from scratch.

And no, I'm not being underhand or subtly implying here, you have this passion for rules and applications and use of wording.

So apply it, write a minitures wargame, from scratch and set the bar for it precisely as you wish it, because it definately does not fit the GW design studio's ethos regarding casual play and 'the most important rule' (BGB).

These faqs are pretty good in my opinion. They cleared up the main points of contention. And the rest of the stuff like nid IC's in spods and lashwhips not working on banshees and furious charge will turn out to be just something we adapt to. I.E. it's not a biggy.

And by the way, even though I really do respect what GWAR! does with his FAQs and YMDC help, this isn't GWAR!Hammer 40K, this is Warhammer 40k.

GG

Using the logic they've applied to the lash whip, does this mean that units assaulting into cover with furious charge should be striking at initiative 2?

FAQs have always changed the rules instead of just clarify them. Nothing new here. I'm only disappointed by the BA psychic power answer because it doesn't clarify the issue since the wording is incorrect and instead leaves the underlying issue still unanswered. This is of course because the question was formulated wrong.

There's tons of stupid rules in GW games. I really don't care what they are, as long as we know how the stupid rules are supposed to work and didn't have to play a different way at every tournament or roll a D6 each time. That's why I find pretty much every other answer perfectly okay except the Shield of Sanguinius one.

Grundz wrote:Pods used to be pretty great at objective shanagins, and they gave you some deployment flexibility if you didn't /want/ to deep strike that particular game, but had to use the list (a tourney for example)

Not even being able to put an IC in your pods is total unfair crap though. >.<

That's kind of the nerf as I see it. There are times you don't want to drop the unit. It's not the worst thing in the FAQ, though.

I don't understand the mindset at all regarding ICs in pods. And maybe I should expand that to say I don't understand the design philosophy of adding umpteen alternate deployment methods to the army, but then building in umpteen limitations to make sure you can't exploit (I mean this in a non-TFG way) those methods.

Trygon tunnels also didn't get any clarification or errata, so those are still a complete crapshoot as a tactic.

Everything I expected to be answered and how. Now all these cries of 'omg Nids suck even worse' are just the icing on the cake. Interesting on the Shadow not hitting units in transports.

Kurgash wrote:Everything I expected to be answered and how. Now all these cries of 'omg Nids suck even worse' are just the icing on the cake. Interesting on the Shadow not hitting units in transports.

FU

Hell yeah!!!! that Nyds faq are sooo sweeett )))))))

Are there specific rules that allow a SM IC to be dropped in a pod?

Deep striking my entire force now including the winged tyrant though seems like it would be fun.

So much of the nid FAQ is common sense (mawloc deepstriking into units, doom=zoan) it is fairly jarring to see one or two baffling and seemingly arbitrary decisions about relative non-issues (SotW, IC in pods).

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Actually, all it suggests is that the GW Writers are morons.

And to repeat what I said in the YMDC thread:

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

Thats a bit narcisstic don't you think? (curse you for making me try to type that word )
I highly doubt they are aware of your FAQ, and only slightly aware of this board(if at all). But its your personal opinion so equally valid.

they don't have to be RAW, RAI, or anythihng. They write the rules. That means they win.

Frazzled wrote:I highly doubt they are aware of your FAQ, and only slightly aware of this board(if at all).

To be fair, they have in the past used GWAR!'s work verbatim...

It just goes to show that paying attention to Gwar and his FAQs will steer you wrong.

Gwar: I agree with MeanGreenStompa the suggestion that you go write your own rules, because the fact of the matter is that you will never be the authority on Warhammer regardless of your posturing.

Soup and a roll wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I highly doubt they are aware of your FAQ, and only slightly aware of this board(if at all).

To be fair, they have in the past used GWAR!'s work verbatim...

According to him.

EDIT: They may even have done so. My point is its the Company's rules and the company's writers. The point of an FAQ is to fix inconsistencies or questions. Their method doesn't concern me. Whether they even have a method doesn't concern me. I don't care how they do it, only that they do it.

Surely you're not suggesting that people tell untruths? On the internet?

Edit: Can't disagree with the rest

Gwar! wrote:
So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

At first, I was shocked by this statement - I thought, "No way!".

Then I applied a RaW approach to understanding it.

I don't think it means Gwar! won't be posting about GW games anymore...

More OT, well, at least GW put something out!

kill dem stunties wrote:

no attaching a tyranid prime to podding warriors? are your $%#^ing kidding me? If i ever play against someone who trys to disallow this id apply the same logic to sm ICs and drop pods, and make a 4+ or not play .... slowed rulings abound.

Come and play me. Of course I am insisting that my guys all get a 2++ save, and if you don't agree we will 4+ it or I won't play.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

^^ THIS !!

Q: Can a Furioso Librarian take additional equipment
(such as extra armour)?
A: No.

Okay, this is just dumb. I understand that they may have wanted to keep the Magna-grapple away from the Librarian Dread (though I don't see it as that big of a deal really), but not allowing a honored and valuable asset like a Librarian Dreadnought to not have the protection afforded by extra armor is just... dumb.

"Hey, Techmarine Bob, I noticed that our honored pal Furioso Librarian Chuck isn't as well protected as honored pal Dreadnought Frank. Why is that? Don't we want to protect our chapter's former leader just as well as any other Dreadnought in our ranks?"

"No, Brother Poindexter, we don't."

"Why not?"

"That metal from the extra armor interferes with his psychic abilities."

"Uhh... But isn't Librarian Chuck already entombed within a massive metal body? How can a bit more armor interfere with his psychic power?"

"The power of the warp works in mysterious ways."

"Yeah, no $h!+."

Dumb.

Good, the nid faq came out finally with some sense attached.

Nid players, your days of being a whore are over!

juraigamer wrote:Good, the nid faq came out finally with some sense attached.

Nid players, your days of being a whore are over!

FU

Modquisiton Frazzled: see here's an excellent example of how to be both an ass and suspended without even writing a complete word. Leaving it up as an example of what not to post.

Oh, my whoring has only JUST begun...

Modquisition on. This thread is being closed for just a minute as Dakka Rule #1 has been vilated to the point I have to decide whether to suspend someone or ban them. Anyone have a coin?

EDIT: Reopened. Evil doers have been dealt with. A reminder be polite here folks or you too shall enjoy a multiweek suspension.

Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's I can not wait to make some interesting argument on special abilities while embarked, or that EVERY type of attack REQUIRES a cover save and LOS now, what else. . . there will a bunch of things I will mess with on other armies now because GW has opened that door.

It is nice to know that Eldar Seer Council just got harder to play against thanks to the lack of Shadow of the Warp. . . .

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

QFT!

reds8n wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So shield gives youa cover save, brililant.

Still doesnt mean it can be used against glancing / penetrating hits, as you must be obscured to do that. Typical non-answer...

You should go into politics, you'd go far.

+1

Just goes to show how deeply rooted the "I'm never wrong no matter what" RAW followers will go to do just that.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Actually, all it suggests is that the GW Writers are morons.

And to repeat what I said in the YMDC thread:

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

As already pointed out.... this isn't GWARHAMMER! If you do not like playing 40k by Games Workshops rules, then I highly suggest you actually take your own advice and stop playing.... and stop writing/complaining about it here. We are really sick of hearing you bitch about GW.

"How very petty and childish. -sigh-"
Pretty much sums your own reply useing your own words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lysenis wrote:Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's I can not wait to make some interesting argument on special abilities while embarked, or that EVERY type of attack REQUIRES a cover save and LOS now, what else. . . there will a bunch of things I will mess with on other armies now because GW has opened that door.

It is nice to know that Eldar Seer Council just got harder to play against thanks to the lack of Shadow of the Warp. . . .

Good luck trying to find anyone willing to play you, cause you will quickly become TFG.