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.

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:The recent Space Wolves FAQ allows a repair roll on the transport an Iron Priest is on. I know your feeling on FAQ's but the shouldn't this also apply to a BA Techmarine?
Homer

You mean the GW one? The GW one is completely and utterly Wrong. Embarked is NOT the same as Base Contact. Until GW decide to release their own FAQ pissing over RaW, I will follow the RaW (and the INAT ruling).

And in any Case, the SW FAQ applies to the SW, because it is the SW FAQ. I do not look to it for guidance any more than I would look at the Necron or Skaven FAQs.

So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

The SW codex, BA and the Vanilla Marine codex contain rules for 'techmarine' type unit choices capable of performing a repair role on a vehicle. These units are clearly analogous and perform a similar function to one another. The Question raised and it's subsequent Answer in the Games Workshop FAQ can certainly be argued to set precedence for this unit type in the other marine codices. There is no RAW in this case as the FAQ Expands on the information and provides additional situational guidance. I am also fairly certain the INAT ruling council are often very led by precendence set by other similarly functioning items or rules in other codices. It can also be suggested that raising this question re Mekboyz for orks might give the same answer.

The FAQ produced by Games Workshop is clearly dominant to any independant FAQ written by several individuals with differing opinions for tourneys and they in turn can be viewed as superior to one written by an individual who expresses a rather fundamental view on play style.

Well, there IS a RAW - embarked is not equal to "in base contact", as you dont have a model in base contact.

The FAQ which states it is a studio houserule, can certainly be wrong compared to the rules as actually written in the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Well, there IS a RAW - embarked is not equal to "in base contact", as you dont have a model in base contact.

The FAQ which states it is a studio houserule, can certainly be wrong compared to the rules as actually written in the rulebook.

That is not a rule as written. That is taking the written word as exclusive. The FAQ expands the definition of 'in base contact' to include 'embarked'.
What if, in the case of a land raider for example, you simply place the model inside the tank? It is a case of Games Workshop's original rulebook failing to provide an entirely comprehensive answer, this is highlighted by the question being raised, followed by an answer from Games Workshop that does not correspond to the way the 'RAW' folks called it.

GW are saying that they consider an embarked model to be in base contact with the transporting vehicle in this instance, since this expands on the rules provided in the book and 'fills a gap' information wise, it would be appropriate to expand this to cover the same information gap in similar circumstances.

The writing of 'in base contact' connects to distance. It alludes to requiring zero distance from the vehicle to perform repair, it is clear the model should be connecting with the tank to repair it. We can question whether a model in contact with the tank but 'embarked' in the tank can repair it, this question is answered by the FAQ that yes, GW believe the model is in contact and can carry out the repair.
The role is analogous for 'techmarines' in all the marine variant armies and the 'codex' marines, the conclusion of the information provided by the FAQ is that other 'techmarine type' models can perform repairs to vehicles from an 'embarked' status.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
What if, in the case of a land raider for example, you simply place the model inside the tank? It is a case of Games Workshop's original rulebook failing to provide an entirely comprehensive answer, this is highlighted by the question being raised, followed by an answer from Games Workshop that does not correspond to the way the 'RAW' folks called it.

while i personally agree with the GW FAQ, your example isn't the greatest. you can't have a model "inside" a tank per RAW as two models can't occupy the same space per RAW and units that embark are removed from the table per clear RAW. the faq simply restates common sense but unfortunately some people use neither house rules nor common sense during games.

And other people think that repairing the tanks tracks from inside the tank is unlikely. Or that fixing the lascannon sponson that is hanging off while inside is unlikely.

"Common sense" as a plea fails on many, many counts.

"In base contact" means, IN. BASE. CONTACT. Are the two models in base contact? No? Then the rule dfoe not apply.

They then, via a HouseRule, *changed* the rule to state that inside the vehicle counts as well. That is a change in the rules, as being embarked means you are not on the table, and cannot be in base to base.

nosferatu1001 wrote: "In base contact" means, IN. BASE. CONTACT. Are the two models in base contact? No? Then the rule dfoe not apply.

They then, via a HouseRule, *changed* the rule to state that inside the vehicle counts as well. That is a change in the rules, as being embarked means you are not on the table, and cannot be in base to base.

No, they clarified that in the case of a techmarine making a repair, they included 'embarked' as part of being in base contact.

The original rule was not exclusive of embarked. The FAQ clarification does not clash with the rule in the book, it simply expands on it.

There is no rule that states 'Embarked models are not in base contact with the vehicle they are embarked on'. What you are claiming isn't RAW, it is your interpretation of the rule to exclude embarked models, the FAQ indicates it is not the same conclusion reached by the company that make the game.

Again, this now shows that a model embarked on a vehicle count as 'in base contact', the blood angels techmarine is as free to make repairs whilst embarked as the SW one is, since for both, embarked now counts as 'in base contact' for the purpose of 'making a repair'.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, they clarified that in the case of a techmarine making a repair, they included 'embarked' as part of being in base contact.

This is an interesting argument for the reason behind the GW FAQ. I do not agree but you could make that argument. Then again, if it was supposed to say embarked then that should have been in an errata or the original.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is no rule that states 'Embarked models are not in base contact with the vehicle they are embarked on'.

This is a poor argument, since the rule set is permissive.

calypso2ts wrote:
This is an interesting argument for the reason behind the GW FAQ. I do not agree but you could make that argument. Then again, if it was supposed to say embarked then that should have been in an errata or the original.

What does it matter if it's in the errata or the question part? If you're playing by a FAQ written by some random British dude then you're probably playing by GW's FAQs anyway.

If it is an errata to the codex then it does not imply other techmarines have the same ability.

If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

calypso2ts wrote:I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

The problem is, the RaW is very, very clear. There is a very fine line between changing rules so it actually works, and changing rules because I feel like it. If it was the latter, I would have said "Wolf Guard can Join Skyclaws", which they most certainly cannot. I err on the side of caution, so Until GW Errata it, it's staying as RaW.

calypso2ts wrote:If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

No, it cannot. The SW FAQ applies to SW ONLY, the Skaven FAQ to Skaven and the NEcron FAQ to Necrons. It does NOT apply to ANY OTHER CODEX.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

In a word, yes.

The SW codex, BA and the Vanilla Marine codex contain rules for 'techmarine' type unit choices capable of performing a repair role on a vehicle. These units are clearly analogous and perform a similar function to one another. The Question raised and it's subsequent Answer in the Games Workshop FAQ can certainly be argued to set precedence for this unit type in the other marine codices. There is no RAW in this case as the FAQ Expands on the information and provides additional situational guidance. I am also fairly certain the INAT ruling council are often very led by precendence set by other similarly functioning items or rules in other codices. It can also be suggested that raising this question re Mekboyz for orks might give the same answer.

By that logic, Dark Angels and Black Templars have 3++ Storm Shields.

The FAQ produced by Games Workshop is clearly dominant to any independant FAQ written by several individuals with differing opinions for tourneys and they in turn can be viewed as superior to one written by an individual who expresses a rather fundamental view on play style.

Well, if you don't like my FAQ, don't use it and don't post here then. Simple!

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:
This is an interesting argument for the reason behind the GW FAQ. I do not agree but you could make that argument. Then again, if it was supposed to say embarked then that should have been in an errata or the original.

What does it matter if it's in the errata or the question part? If you're playing by a FAQ written by some random British dude then you're probably playing by GW's FAQs anyway.

The difference is that GW themselves have stated that Errata are changes made to the rules, while the FAQ answers are merely the house rules that they at the studio use.

If they wanted all of the FAQ to have the weight of "final arbitration," then they would not have made the differentiation between the two classes of information found on their FAQ files.

MGS - sorry, the English language tells you that "In base contact" means "in base contact", and not anything else.

By changing the rule to state "well, actually, it doesnt mean JSUT in base contact" that is a *rules change*, and is therefore an errata worthy topic.

However, they chose to make it a studio houserule, i.e not the actual rule they wrote.

What about IC with Jump Packs wanting to "jump" with Sanguinary Guard, Assault Troops, or other units with Descent of Angels? Can they start the game with the unit and thus benefitting from DoA, or do they have to be rolled for seperately?

They have Descent of Angels in any case by virtue of the Jump Pack rules.

As for Reserves units are rolled for so if the IC was placed with the unit in reserve a single roll is made for them collectively.

Jack

Ok ignore me. I had looked right over that in the rules. Thanks Jackmojo.

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

The problem is, the RaW is very, very clear. There is a very fine line between changing rules so it actually works, and changing rules because I feel like it. If it was the latter, I would have said "Wolf Guard can Join Skyclaws", which they most certainly cannot. I err on the side of caution, so Until GW Errata it, it's staying as RaW.

I agree with you on this, but I thought it was worth pointing out as well.

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

No, it cannot. The SW FAQ applies to SW ONLY, the Skaven FAQ to Skaven and the NEcron FAQ to Necrons. It does NOT apply to ANY OTHER CODEX.

Once again I agree with you on this. However, that comment was for the benefit of the individual above who asked why it mattered if it was an errata or a FAQ.

calypso2ts wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:I know that a FAQ is not officially a change in rules, but for the record the WH FAQ states this with regards to the Inferno Pistol:

Q. Can the Eldar Avatar be wounded by the
Inferno pistol?

A. No. The Codex predates the common use of
the term ‘melta’ as a special rule, but the effects
are exactly the same.

This would suggest that the Inferno Pistol does not get 2d6 against the Stormraven. While I realize strictly R.A.W. this is not the case, I think changing this in your F.A.Q. would make it consistent with the existing rule set.

The problem is, the RaW is very, very clear. There is a very fine line between changing rules so it actually works, and changing rules because I feel like it. If it was the latter, I would have said "Wolf Guard can Join Skyclaws", which they most certainly cannot. I err on the side of caution, so Until GW Errata it, it's staying as RaW.

I agree with you on this, but I thought it was worth pointing out as well.

Gwar! wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:If it is a rules interpretation then it can be broadly implied others benefit as well (like the original SW counterattack and furious charge FAQ).

No, it cannot. The SW FAQ applies to SW ONLY, the Skaven FAQ to Skaven and the NEcron FAQ to Necrons. It does NOT apply to ANY OTHER CODEX.

Once again I agree with you on this. However, that comment was for the benefit of the individual above who asked why it mattered if it was an errata or a FAQ.

Glad to see we are on the same page.

So, v1.1 is shaping up nicely, I have fixed the Mephiston typo and added the questions about Blood Lance, namely about the size of the line and such. I have scoured the codex now and cannot really find anything else. For what it's worth, GW did a better job than normal on this codex

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So Games Workshop's FAQ is 'Wrong' and yours is right?

In a word, yes.

Self praise is no recommendation...

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The SW codex, BA and the Vanilla Marine codex contain rules for 'techmarine' type unit choices capable of performing a repair role on a vehicle. These units are clearly analogous and perform a similar function to one another. The Question raised and it's subsequent Answer in the Games Workshop FAQ can certainly be argued to set precedence for this unit type in the other marine codices. There is no RAW in this case as the FAQ Expands on the information and provides additional situational guidance. I am also fairly certain the INAT ruling council are often very led by precendence set by other similarly functioning items or rules in other codices. It can also be suggested that raising this question re Mekboyz for orks might give the same answer.

By that logic, Dark Angels and Black Templars have 3++ Storm Shields.

The FAQ produced by Games Workshop is clearly dominant to any independant FAQ written by several individuals with differing opinions for tourneys and they in turn can be viewed as superior to one written by an individual who expresses a rather fundamental view on play style.

Well, if you don't like my FAQ, don't use it and don't post here then. Simple!

Or don't post your 'FAQ' here if you don't like people who don't share your view posting or taking issue with what you're saying.
The Storm Shield comparison is misleading, those shields have clearly printed differing stats. The issue of techmarines being able to repair whilst embarked had not been set out in black and white. Nowhere does it say you can't repair the vehicle, we already have the issue of other models shooting from vehicles or using psychic powers like fortune from inside a vehicle. We have therefore established that 'embarked' does not automatically remove the abilities of models aboard vehicles, that the understanding of 'embarked' is a variable. The actual question had never been set in black and white, the question was then asked and answered in the FAQ produced by Games Workshop.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nowhere does it say you can't repair the vehicle

Nowhere does it say Tactical Marines cannot repair the vehicle either. Are you arguing that they can also repair vehicles now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:MGS - sorry, the English language tells you that "In base contact" means "in base contact", and not anything else.

By changing the rule to state "well, actually, it doesnt mean JSUT in base contact" that is a *rules change*, and is therefore an errata worthy topic.

However, they chose to make it a studio houserule, i.e not the actual rule they wrote.

Yes yes, in base contact, the English language, etc etc. And then GW stated that the SW techmarine can repair whilst embarked, Precedence is Set.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the techmarine should be able to repair the tank whilst embarked, for purely fluffy reasons you'd hate, but the FAQ is a measure of how the rule is played by Games Workshop and they say repairs whilst embarked are a go in the SW codex, given the parallel with the BA techmarine role, the same rule should apply and there is no clear rule to the contrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Nowhere does it say you can't repair the vehicle

Nowhere does it say Tactical Marines cannot repair the vehicle either. Are you arguing that they can also repair vehicles now?

Find me the part about tactical marines performing repairs in the first place and sure.

Version 1.1 available for download.

I have one about Libby Dreads Gwar.

Can the SW power Jaws of the World Wolf if passing the requirements force a moral check on a librarian dreadnought?

No. Why do you think it would?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:No. Why do you think it would?

Its a stupid question in retrospec. I saw that "Librarian Dreads have Ld 10" and missed the rest of it. Case of the mind racing ahead of the eyes EDIT: Compounded by the fact I continually see JotWW and think moral test when its an initiative test XD.

Hey guys. Just a quick heads up, if you downloaded v1.1 before 7:20 AM on 30th March, Please re-download it. There was an issue with the encryption that was making it unopenable for some people, as well as a few formatting errors that I forgot to correct when I added the new Questions.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

So I finally got my hands on the dex, seems like you've already caught most of the issues though.

BA.38.06 – Q: When a Stormraven Gunship is immobilized (off its base) can friendly or enemy models move under its
wings at all?
A: Friendly models are able to move under the wings, invoking “Wobbly Model Syndrome” if they cannot physically fit there. In
addition, provided that the wings are more than 1” from the table surface, enemy models may also move under the wings, invoking
“Wobbly Model Syndrome” if they cannot physically fit there and don't move so their base is within 1” of the hull. If the Wings are
physically 1” or less from the table surface, enemy models may not move under the wings except as part of an assault move.
[R.a.W]

I've got a few problems with this.

first is the idea of invoking Wobbly Model Syndrome if the wings are so close to the ground a model cannot physically fit under them. This is exactly the kind of thing forbidden by the rule which states "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)".

I understand that, perhaps if you consider the wings not to be hull, you can do so, however you don't specify this in the FAQ, merely suggesting players clarify what constitutes hull beforehand. This ruling requires a note about your assumptions of what constitutes the hull because if I were to rull the wings are hull, then this ruling is incorrect.

Further, you suggest that, as long as the wings are 1" or more off the table, an enemy model could potentially move under them, but the rules regarding this simply state "a model may not move within 1 inch of an enemy model unless assaulting." It lacks the earlier caveat of bases and hulls, and as such, no part of any model, may be within 1" of any part of an enemy model, the wing would have to be 1" above the enemy's head, not 1" above the table. This also applies to question 'BA.38.03' which states

"making sure that enemy models hulls and/or bases are more than 1” away from the Stormraven Gunship's hull and base," once again this should obviously be altered to reflect that it cannot be within 1" of any part of enemy models, not just their hulls or bases.




'BA.38.14' This is a duplicate question of 'BA.37.01', perhaps intentional given both pages do mention PotMS although 38 simply tells you to view page 37, just making sure you are aware.

BA.38.04 – Q: Can a Servo-arm's additional Power fist attack be used the same phase a Techmarine uses another Special Close
Combat Weapon?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]
• By the strict letter of the rules, in order to use the Power fist attack, he would have to give up the Special Close Combat
Weapon attacks and visa versa.

This seems wrong(the RAW interpretation, not the resultant ruling) given the Servo Arm attack isn't actually said to be a Power Fist attack or something like that, it says "Each Servo-arm grants the model a single extra close combat attack, made separately at Initiative 1 and Strength 8, ignoring Armour Saves."

I fail to see how this would impact his ability to use another special weapon by RAW since it bears a greater resemblance to Tyranid close combat biomorphs than true close combat weapons.

BA.48.01 – Q: When is the range checked to see if unit's are affected by the “Blood Chalice”? Specifically, do units that are
within range before making assault moves but not within range after making assault moves still benefit?
A: Check the range at the beginning of each assault phase, before any assault moves are made. Units found to be within range of
the Sanguinary Priest at this time benefit from the effects of the “Blood Chalice” for the remainder of the phase, even if the “Blood
Chalice” becomes out of range at some point during the phase or if the Sanguinary Priest is slain. [Clarification]
• The rules as written are not sufficiently clear, hence the above clarification. It can, as such, be argued that moving out of
range, sustaining casualties that cause it to be out of range or having the Priest be slain causes the unit to immediately lose
the effect.

Feel No Pain could potentially benefit models within 6" of him outside of the assault phase, your ruling does not allow for that and seems like it focused only on Furious Charge. This also applies to 'BA.49.02' and 'BA.52.01'.

BA.51.02 – Q: How so you determine which Sergeant benefits from “The Sanguinor's Blessing”?

"How so" should presumably read "How do"




That's all I could spot.

#1) Ya know, now that I read it with you pointing it out, I agree xD I'll change that methinks.

#2) Yeah, it's a Duplicate, but I'd rather not have "See xyz for the answer". GW do enough of that pissing about with their codexes and since it's not gonna make any difference in the length of the document, I'd rather keep it there to look nice

#3) Nice catch. I was concentrating on the Furious Charge Aspect, but I shall clean this up. Perhaps I should change it to "when is the range checked to see if unit's are affected by the “Blood Chalice” in the assault phase?" and add another question about the other phases (with the very simple RaW answer of "Check whenever models in a unit take a wound".

#4) Yes, it should

Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

KillMaimBurn wrote:Possibly awkward
p49 codex blood angels Corbulo once per game.. ”any roll you have made”

1) Can Corbulo's rule reroll the dice for the roll off of who goes first (codex gives only the example of seizing the initiative)
2) Can the owner of Corbulo, if he is the one rolling the dice to see if there is another turn (p90 BRB) doesn't like the result (and hasn’t used his power all game, and is still alive)..can he reroll that,increasing the chances of cutting short or dragging a game on. (We're getting messy on that one elsewhere)

it does say any roll you have made

I have read through the posts and the FAQ and I think my questions aren't answered specifically.

DC Tycho. On page 41, after the fluff it gives stats. One line for Captain Tycho and one for Death Company Tycho. Then it has a note on the stats where in it states the line for DC Tycho is, "…following his induction into the Death Company." Because this note clarifies his stat line would this be considered a clarification and not fluff. In other words, is DC Tycho in the Death Company? Is he part of the Death Company like Lemartes? He is no longer Independent Character and he has rage and relentless so it would make sense that he rolls with the Death Company. Is GW being lazy and not placing his DC info in the DC section.

He is no longer a Captain…it does not say DC Captain Tycho. Does he fill the HQ FOC? I am thinking the answer is yes but my gut is telling me the restrictions on the graphic design/layout and copy count issues are why this is not made explicit as opposed to intent.

Blood Talons. Can I construe, "…follows the same rules as lightning claws." to mean they are Strength 6 LCs? It isn't clear to me that they are Power Weapons. It isn't explicit.

And thanks for the FAQ efforts. At least your FAQ provides ANSWERS. I can highlight anything I don't agree with and hash it out with my opponent before the game regardless but is an awesome starting point. I wish GW would get a clue about what an answer is. Can you imagine a poker rule that said, "…if you and your opponent cannot agree on whether a full house beats two pair, draw a card, and the high card chooses." GW acts as if clarity ruins a game. To me arguing ruins a game.