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.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

There's tha word again- optional - ...where is this coming from? Everything I have seen says this replaces current flier rules.

This very FAQ said it was optional.

 SaJeel wrote:

That said they are so amazingly good now, Maleceptor is an amazing sniper, weird boy powers are all useful, so happy

Maleceptor didn't really change. Or were you rolling to hit before?

If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.

Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.

In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.

And it's already gone.

gungo wrote:
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.

This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.

Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.

You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.

 doktor_g wrote:
Here's the issue.

Why is that an issue exactly? I wasn't aware of anything in the FAQ that somehow made Drop Pods completely invulnerable.

I've been dealing with Drop Pods keeping me away from objectives for 10 years now. You too can adapt.

Dudeface wrote:

The problem being that the enemy cannot reach that objective without either going around or first destroying a pod then difficult terrain-ing through it

Yes, do one of those. Problem solved.

 EnTyme wrote:
I think it may be time to dust off that old 35 drop pod list I saw on dakka a few months back. May be one of the most broken lists in the game now.

It's be very likely to kill many of its own units. And if it doesn't, it'll finally give Battle Cannons something to do in 40k again. So go for it. Your opponents might appreciate it.

tneva82 wrote:

Who CC's in the shooty edition? Especially in tournament settings with their turkey shoot gallery tables...

Sure, the crummy battlecannon is the reason people are using Imperial Knights...

Poor Hellbrutes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did anyone ask for the Space Marine FAQ if the Iron Hands CT extends to non-Dread vehicles gaining IWND?

That question is specifically answered in the FAQ.

I want to play with Following Fire on my Shuriken Catapults too, but surprisingly few people are willing to allow that. I don't insult them over it either.

Well now I'm back to not knowing what order they want multiplication and addition to be done in, since Space Wolves and Blood Angels apparently do it differently.

What exactly were you expecting out of a FAQ? It already provided buffs for 6 units.

Tough break for Dark Eldar's one good trick of leadership penalties.

 Imateria wrote:
does that errata mean that Freakish spectacle from mutliple detachments doesn't stack anymore?

Yes, they do not any longer.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.