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.

 pretre wrote:
New Draft FAQS up for Adepta, Inq, Assassins and MT.

What is funny is that the team asks for questions to be CONSICES and English. Funny why should we concise when they can't do it themselves? LOL double standard eh?

Neronoxx wrote:
[And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.

How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?

So what is really baffling you?

Neronoxx wrote:

Davor wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
[And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.

How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?

So what is really baffling you?

What is baffling me is how you literally ask a question i have answered twice now. Seriously, read all of my posts before calling me out on something.
IF you had read all of them, you would see that I admit GW has not handled the fluff 100% correctly, but it shouldn't be a bad thing when they do.
That being said, the discussion is closed. But I guess you missed that too. By chance, do you wear white armor and work for a sith lord? Cuz you're 0 for 2 right now buddy.

Oh I am sorry. What makes you so special that I will remember reading your comments that will stand out after reading so many other ones?

What is this 0 for 2 right now? This is not a contest. There is no need to win or loose. You asked a question, I answered it.

Why ask a question if you don't want it answered? Now that is baffling.

Sinful Hero wrote:Of course Space Marines are first.

But they were not first. Or second, or third.

Someone explain to me this please. Getting back to 40K and don't understand this at all.

First there was a question about units in a drop pod on how they move. First they say the unit inside use the disembarkment rule then the next question they say since the unit was in a drop pod and it deep struck in, it can't move then. ???

What am I missing here?

 Zach wrote:
Yea I don't want to live in a world where 9 drop pod lists can open their doors on top of objectives so that empty ObSec pods cant even be contested any more.

Well if this happens what about a Mawloc? Would that help at all?

tneva82 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.

Thing is now, that is a big HUGE foot imprint you have to deepstrike now. Since you can't open and close the doors, you either model them open for "road block" and farther disenbarkemnt but take the hit in where you may not be able to deep strike exactly where you want because of the bigger foot print, which is what, double the size now deep striking it with the doors open?

tneva82 wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
Now he can go for whichever he feels gives him best advantage.

I wouldn't call that fair. Modelling for advantage I would say. So before the game, it's either doors open or doors closed, you can't pick and choose during a game. Other wise we will have someone change their minis in the game for different stances as well then. Have them kneeling in one turn so they can't be seen behind something, then stand up where they are half covered so they can shoot.

So no, I wouldn't allow these kinds of shenanigans to start with. After all if a Drop Pod can do it, why can't a Monstrous Creature or even a Space Marine infantry do it?

 insaniak wrote:
'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.

Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...

Well to be fair we don't know everything that every companies make. Of course PP is not the first one to make them, but I see what the poster was saying as the first of the major companies to put one out for sale. In other words, GW copied PP.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Latest facebook FAQ stuff being the very first time they acknowledged our puny existence.

See what happens when we vote with our wallet?

gungo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

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.

Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.

Still learning the rules, so I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am, but doesn't something about being open top you measure for the vehicle instead of the doors when it's a closed top?

 doktor_g wrote:
Here's the issue.

Doesn't count. Doors are not attached to the base, so the doors don't do nothing. Also why would you have the 2 pods touching? Why not put them 1.999" away from each other since no mini can move within 1" of the enemy. So increase your line. Come on, if you are going to whine about cheese, do it properly lol.

Hey more power to you if you can pull that off. After all they can't scatter for that to happen. There is more things to complain about this. If someone wants to do this, plan for it I say and adapt. Don't whine and cry about it.

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Neronoxx wrote:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Literally never have seen a comment deleted on their page, so I feel that either A) you were being a jerk, or B) you are being less than honest in regards to that statement.

I never posted there so I never got my comments deleted since I never posted. Just going by what others say of their comments being deleted even though they were not rude at all.

Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

If you mean the link in THIS POST, its because its a link to the mobile version of Facebook, easily identified by the 'm.facebook' in the address.

Thank you so much. I didn't know that. Nice to learn something new today.

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That's the joke.

Would be more fun if people would stop all that "pretend funny" macro whining. Sheesh all it does is create negativity. Isn't whole point of game to have fun? Why you choose to suffer then? You have problems with game you have power to fix it so if you keep suffering with the chaos codex it's your fault alonr

And you have the power not to read these posts. Yes a lot of people make themselves suffer for what ever reason. Let them. If a few simple words that are not even toxic help them cope let it be so. You are not helping either with your comments like that. It would be one thing if what they were saying was toxic but it's not. Let people have their fun.

Is it really fair to give +2 attacks without a point increase? Yes it's keeping the codices the same, but how is it fair by gaining free bonuses?

Maybe 40K does need to be Sigmified if people think this this is an ok practice. After all the points don't really mean anything now does it?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

Has any non 7.5th edition codex got an FAQ draft yet? My guess could be Necrons or Orks. Not sure if Orks are a 7.5 army or not.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Wow, that was pretty....uninspiring. Nothing really changed.

Well one thing really did change. For that person who needs his win.

All I can say is if you need a win, fine have your stupid win. Now you are a MAN. So since you had your win, now lets play for fun and my Deathwing will not come on the board until turn 2.

Now if you take your win and will not play for fun, that speaks more of your character and who you really are.

Neronoxx wrote:

Davor wrote:
All I can say is if you need a win, fine have your stupid win. Now you are a MAN. So since you had your win, now lets play for fun and my Deathwing will not come on the board until turn 2.

Now if you take your win and will not play for fun, that speaks more of your character and who you really are.

Right, so If I want to play by the rules that means I'm not a man? Furthermore, why do I need to be a man to play you? Why does your ego have to come into play in a game of toy soldiers? Furthermore, why does your ego come into play while derogatorily stating that if your opponent doesn't allow you to cheat that they don't possess the neccessary qualifications to play you? What makes playing you so worth not playing by the rules?

As an honorable player, I abide by all the rules. Not just the ones that benefit me. And when they don't work in my favor, I don't belittle my opponent - that's called being a good sport. I also don't make assumptions of my opponent's integrity when they decide they want to win in a game that has a clear set victory condition.

Riiiigggggghhhhhhttttttt. I want to play for fun with a fluffy army and me asking to not use one rule and you call me cheating. Right there speaks Volumes about you. Where is my ego in here? I haven't won a 40K game yet in my life. Now who is derogatorily saying someone is cheating when the rules clearly say speak to your opponent and you can change any rule you like. To me that right there speaks on who you are when it comes down to playing plastic toy soldiers.

You do know that the game is not written properly. You know the game is not very well balanced and you claim with honour that you play by the rules? How is that honourable? Knowing to play a game that is imbalanced poorly worded, poorly written, different edition codices and you will not let people tweak the rules. Is that honour or "PLAY MY WAY"?

Again, I said you have won your first game. I didn't complain, I didn't whine. You have won. So why not play a second game for fun now and tweak the rules a bit so some people can play how they want. I will play your way the first time, and have stuff on the table and play a game your way, then whow about after that game you can play my way the second time but with some tweaked rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skerr wrote:
Hi,

Is it too late to post a question on certain Codex. I want to be sure to post in the correct place.

I would like to ask about something in regards to the Harlequin dex.

If it's a question Ask in the general 40K section unless it's a rumour about something upcoming with the Harlequin dex. The mods frown when people ask questions in the News and Rumours section.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

The DA FAQ disgusted me with their stance on the Deathwing detachment autolosing on Turn 1 because of that damn rule.

And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?

Use Unbound. Use Unbound.

When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'

That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?

What?

Uhm. Why is this GW fault? GW clearly states that Unbound is legal choice. When store events and tournaments don't allow Unbound those are "house rules", so why is it up to GW to do anything about it when people are changing the rules?

It's the stores and the people who are changing GW rules. So you either accept it or you don't. Unbound is perfectly legal. It gives us the way to play how we want. It's other people who say you can't play as you want. So again why are you ranting on GW and not other people?

So the Errata takes effect right away but the FAQs are first draft? First time I see the Errata first and didn't see a first draft on it.

I never paid attention i fat either Errata were first drafts or not.

Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.

They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
It's still a turn the first turn or any turn it enters. I enter from reserves drop drones and then leave that turn. Nothing explicitly prevents it, but it's been a long time since I've played a game so I could be rusty. In the FAQ page 2 it specifically says may enter reserves on every turn. EVERY. As in all inclusive. Opposite of nothing. You won't find rules for markerlights in the BRB and yet we still use those rules as in our codex.

Question btw isn't does something explictly prevent it but explictly allows it. If it's not explictly allowed it's not possible. Even if there's nothing explictly preventing from doing it.

Vaktathi wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
It doesn't say it can't

40k's rules are permissive, if it doesn't say it can, then it can't.

Refute these points please Gamgee.

Fragile wrote:

Davor wrote:
Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.

They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.

The counter point is that the FAQ addresses when the unit can leave the table, which is every turn. Since the unit is put into Ongoing Reserves, it must reenter the subsequent turn. Therefore permission to leave every turn, is also permission to enter and leave every turn.

But this is a YMDC issue and not a News and Rumors one.

The way I see it is yes the FAQ says he can leave the table any turn. Nobody is arguing that point. What it DOESN't say is it can leave the turn it arrives. You still have to follow the rule "when a unit arrives it can't go back into reserve.. Where is the rule that says this part is over ridden? It doesn't. It just clearly says it can leave but you still have to follow the rules that lets it leave. So what are the rules that let it leave? I don't have the codex so I can't quote the rule.

But it doesn't matter, it's a first draft, not official only the errata is official correct? So we can debate this in YMDC when it is an official ruling.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
After giving it some consideration I was wrong. I think everyone who says it can't enter and leave in the same turn is right.

No matter which way it is eventually ruled, I would like to take a moment to show some respect to someone who's willing to admit they may be wrong in the Internet. Most people can't do that, so I salute you, sir.

That is why I have respect for him. I know I have been hard on him once before for not debating properly but he always mans up.

 redleger wrote:

 anticitizen013 wrote:
I don't know if I'm the only one but I really look forward to these FAQs... my life is clearly very exciting

I honestly only looked forward to seeing Tau, so I could start using my Hunter contingent again. Now I honestly don't care.

As far as the piranhas go, I know the BRB FAQ stated that you can not enter then leave in the same turn, however the FAQ for Tau specifically seems to state that the opposite is true for that formation only. Many formations have rules that over ride BRB rules. Its called a formation bonus, and its why people use formations. Im pretty sure the EVERY TURN is pretty clear, and not ambiguous at all. Its how I will play it until someone can point me to something that refutes this.

Here we go again. I guess we can tell this person didn't read the last few pages.