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.

GW posted some FAQ updates in January,

40K

main Book: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Warhammer_40000_Rules_EN.pdf

Dark Eldar: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Dark_Eldar_EN.pdf

Orks: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Orks_EN.pdf

Space Wolves: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Space_Wolves_EN.pdf

Fantasy

Daemons: http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer/Daemons_of_Chaos_EN.pdf



I don't see anything really noteworthy, but if you play take a look? (or not, your choice after all)

These FAQ's are so random! Why would they even bother answering that question about Tank Hunter and Rending when there are so many other pressing questions? It's so strange.

Yay for more loose wording! In trying to fix the 'issue' of immobilised skimmers Jinking, they just said that immobilised vehicles can jink...


And they've just put another nail in Captain Shrike's ability to infiltrate with a unit...




So much stuff that needs fixing, and this is the best they could do.

A shame they didn't change the DE Archon's wargear options from Power Sword to Power Weapon and add Ghostplate armour back to his options too..

They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

wow.

Awesome. nearly 8 months overdue, but great to see finally done.


That said, some of the other things seem insanely niche, and there's a huge ton of things they still need to get to and it's difficult to see how they haven't yet.

fixing the issue with rending + tank hunter matters.... lots of punisher pask builds out there probably crying... myself included.


the change ot cyber wolf toughness is good,

the clarification on infiltrate and jink while immobile is nice, but is a testament to how much our community will "game the rules" that those clarifications were even needed in the first place.

I don't think that's fair.

While I'll agree that being immobilised disallowing jink feels intuitive, if the rules weren't clear, then where does one draw the line?

FMCs can jink when they're apparently not airborne, bikes can jink even if they didn't move, why, then, is it not feasible that a skimmer unable to make lateral progress across the field can't do something like employ countermeasures or small thrusters or altitude adjustments to try and mitigate incoming fire?

There are some discussions in YMDC that should be taken outside and shot, but I don't feel this was one of them.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think that's fair.

While I'll agree that being immobilised disallowing jink feels intuitive, if the rules weren't clear, then where does one draw the line?

FMCs can jink when they're apparently not airborne, bikes can jink even if they didn't move, why, then, is it not feasible that a skimmer unable to make lateral progress across the field can't do something like employ countermeasures or small thrusters or altitude adjustments to try and mitigate incoming fire?

There are some discussions in YMDC that should be taken outside and shot, but I don't feel this was one of them.

I'm of the opinion that none of those units should be able to Jink if they're not in appropriate motion (e.g. FMC's should have to be Swooping, bikes have to at least be moving).

That said, given that in every previous edition there was an explicit point about Skimmers and Immobilization, this feels more like fixing something that got left out due to a brainfart/error rather than retroactively punishing Skimmers. It's also the only instance where the unit is literally incapable of any theoretical movement, unlike the other instances where one could argue jinking in place.

The fix to Jink not working when immobilized could be worded better, but it still gets the point across. No more Jinking while immobilized is a big and overdue change.

Still no meaningful FAQs for Wood Elves.

Shame.

Vaktathi wrote:They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

No, they didn't.

Again, that FAQ actually says that immobilised skimmers can Jink...

easysauce wrote:the clarification on infiltrate and jink while immobile is nice, but is a testament to how much our community will "game the rules" that those clarifications were even needed in the first place.

Yeah, it's totally the fault of the players that GW write incomplete rules, and then wait a year or more before giving any indication that the rules they wrote aren't what they actually meant to write.

Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

 Jambles wrote:
Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

If you print those pages on a laser printer and then rub lemon juice on them, you get the rules for Wazdakka and Old Zogwort.

 insaniak wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

No, they didn't.

Again, that FAQ actually says that immobilised skimmers can Jink...

Your going to have to break down how you came to that conclusion my friend.

What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Yeah its clear what they intended - but its bad grammar on their part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

If you print those pages on a laser printer and then rub lemon juice on them, you get the rules for Wazdakka and Old Zogwort.

Stand by the grey stone when the thrush knocks and the setting sun with the last light of Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole and there shall be revealed the answers for the foe of the Naugrim.

 insaniak wrote:
What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

If (Skimmer != Heavy OR Skimmer = Immobilized) then Jink.

So now we know that only immobilised flyers can jink, and that insaniak has very specific cookie distribution requirements.

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

They can't even write the FAQ properly.

 insaniak wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

'Or is' would have been grammatically worse, but had the same outcome as 'or are'... That second 'are' is the problem, as it separates the second statement from the original 'are not'.

"You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or naked" allows you to apply that original 'are not' to both states. If you are not naughty, you get a cookie. If you are not naked, you get a cookie.

If I instead say "You can have a cookie if you are not naughty or are naked" then I've completely changed the requirements. Now, it reads: If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie.

I figure it was a grammar thing lol. As many of us do not have that level of understanding of grammar it says exactly what it was intended to say. For you it says something to the opposite.

Which means that GW might want to have better editors checking things or not have joe shmoe writing rules. As naturally rules will get picked apart and dissected.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Dem two blank pages in the Ork FAQ, lol. What happened there I wonder?

If you print those pages on a laser printer and then rub lemon juice on them, you get the rules for Wazdakka and Old Zogwort.

These two pages are to answer the FAQ: "How are you suppose to be competitive with orks?"

 plastictrees wrote:
So now we know that only immobilised flyers can jink, and that insaniak has very specific cookie distribution requirements.

I think I'll just have a muffin.

 insaniak wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:They finally fixed Immobilized skimmers and Jink...

No, they didn't.

Again, that FAQ actually says that immobilised skimmers can Jink...

easysauce wrote:the clarification on infiltrate and jink while immobile is nice, but is a testament to how much our community will "game the rules" that those clarifications were even needed in the first place.

Yeah, it's totally the fault of the players that GW write incomplete rules, and then wait a year or more before giving any indication that the rules they wrote aren't what they actually meant to write.

well when you make incorrect statements like claiming the new FAQ that specifically disallows immobile skimmers to jink, actually allows them to jink, yes that is on you. the faq is quite clear, immobile skimmers cannot jink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

I mean call me stupid but my understanding of the in and out of written english (which isn't that amazing) I see zero significant difference between what they wrote and what you wrote.

Is the skimmer heavy or are immobilized (cumbersome to say yes) no then it has jink. Possible "or is" would of been prettier but still I understand what they wrote clearly.

there is no difference, that's a perfect example of the players not knowing how to read the rules, which is why GW has to do most FAQ's unfortunately.


Getting a cookie if I am "not naked or ugly" and "not naked or are ugly" both mean the same thing, you can use the improper English that insaniak is using to claim BOTH sentences mean different things,

but factually they both mean "you cant have a cookie if you are ugly" adding "are" into there doesnt change a positive to a negative, nor does it remove the context from the previous words in the sentence.

you have been told you cannot do ___________ if you are X or are Y

the ARE does nothing to change the meaning if you read the entire sentence properly.

Sooo Discounted FNP wounds still kill Shadowfield?

Surprised by that :/

 easysauce wrote:
well when you make incorrect statements like claiming the new FAQ that specifically disallows immobile skimmers to jink, actually allows them to jink, yes that is on you. the faq is quite clear, immobile skimmers cannot jink.

insaniak's statement is correct, as can be seen if you actually look at the sentence in question:

Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the Jink special rule.

Remove the yellow section and the 'or' and it becomes even clearer.

 easysauce wrote:
... adding "are" into there doesnt change a positive to a negative,.

No, it changes a negative to a positive.

'Are' and 'are not' do not mean the same thing.

You would think the British would have a better understanding of the English language...

I can see how it is unclear, but the intent is pretty obvious.

the problem is English is a rich and ever changing language,

words and punctuation change an often there are decades or even centuries where you can pick different versions both of which are technically correct (often common usage romps ahead of what some consider proper, sometimes things drift one way and then another)

embrace the chaos