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.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Powerguy wrote:
I mean Eldar (particularly Mech Eldar) have been kicked pretty hard by 6th edition, this ruling just makes things worse and makes absolutely no sense.

That's kind of how psykers + transports work for all other units.

So noted, but keep in mind that Eldar have been able to do this even when other psykers since 4th edition.

 Janthkin wrote:

Yakface wrote:

I was not implying that the FAQ was saying this in the least.

And I was talking on-topic.

I like this ruling - it's easy enough to implement, does mesh with the line of sight rules, and adds some additional tactical elements to movement, without bogging us down in too many details. In essence, it remains a unit-based rule - the unit has a maximum kill range for ranged attacks.

Yeah, but we already have people in YMDC saying that the only 'sensible' way to play it is to resolve casualties in range groupings...so since this FAQ answer effectively changes the RAW without actually doing a full job of it (via an errata) people are left wondering about the 'intent' of the FAQ answer and therefore there are already splinters forming as to how to play this.

So if they did want to actually change the rule to this then they should have done it more thoroughly because it is a change. As they've done it now it leaves people wondering if this is just an answer based on ignorance surrounding what the rulebook actually says or even if the answer is supposedly implying that you resolve casualties using weapon range groupings.

The Dark Eldar one doesn't seem to have changed at all.

Except there might be an additional explanation, of how and when Lady Malys Precognisant ability works, from last time. I say might because I'm not sure if it was in the last one.

 pretre wrote:
As if Wolf Scouts weren't bad enough:

Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character join a
squad of Wolf Scouts and benefit from the Outflank special rule
because at least one model has the ability? (p27)
A: Yes.
Q: If so, do they roll to see where they enter play using the Wolf Scouts’
Behind Enemy Lines special rule or the normal Outflank special rule?
(p27).
A: The normal Outflank special rule.

They still have Acute Senses.

TBH I don't get the big hoo-hah about how Wolf Scouts are "bad" because they can't assault from reserves anymore. They're still outflanking meltaguns that'll almost certainly end up where you want them; they're only bad compared to how ludicrous they were in 5th IMO.

 yakface wrote:
Yeah, but we already have people in YMDC saying that the only 'sensible' way to play it is to resolve casualties in range groupings...so since this FAQ answer effectively changes the RAW without actually doing a full job of it (via an errata) people are left wondering about the 'intent' of the FAQ answer and therefore there are already splinters forming as to how to play this.

So if they did want to actually change the rule to this then they should have done it more thoroughly because it is a change. As they've done it now it leaves people wondering if this is just an answer based on ignorance surrounding what the rulebook actually says or even if the answer is supposedly implying that you resolve casualties using weapon range groupings.

People in YMDC reading too much into an FAQ ruling? You don't say!

It's possible it's just too early in the morning for me, but I don't see any ambiguity here - models which are not in range of any firing model cannot be allocated to, period. The existing rules for wound allocation pooling cover how wounds get into the pool for allocation; that part didn't change..

@Almightywalrus: They are bad in 6th because they are basically one shot meltaguns. You outflank, shoot something and get shot off the board. At least before, you could be protected in assault or destroy a second target.

Acute senses is a benefit from 5th, but not being able to bring an IC along on Behind ENemy Lines is another nerf.

I haven't run them since 6th dropped anyways, so it doesn't matter if they continue to nerf them.

Big one for Nid players like me: Mycetic Spores can now disembark units 6", which makes massed devourers, the Doom, etc far deadlier.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Big one for Nid players like me: Mycetic Spores can now disembark units 6", which makes massed devourers, the Doom, etc far deadlier.

Please release the model.

 pretre wrote:
@Almightywalrus: They are bad in 6th because they are basically one shot meltaguns. You outflank, shoot something and get shot off the board. At least before, you could be protected in assault or destroy a second target.

Acute senses is a benefit from 5th, but not being able to bring an IC along on Behind ENemy Lines is another nerf.

I haven't run them since 6th dropped anyways, so it doesn't matter if they continue to nerf them.

And I agree with this - Wolf Scouts are sub-par in 6th because they're relying on a lot of luck to cause any damage before they die.

 Malthor wrote:
Eldar changes:

Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

Ouch. I gave up playing Eldar to swith to Daemons over a year ago, but this still hurts. I used the vehicle's hull to extend the pitiful range of Guide and Fortune.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if anyone posted this yet but from the first page of the BRB FAQ, the section on Vector Strike:

Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

 Swissivy wrote:
Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

There is only one wound pool. Different AP, etc, weapons get split into groups within the wound pool, but everything is still in one wound pool.

The ONLY thing this ruling does is put a max range on a firing unit's ability to cause damage equal to the max range of any weapon in the unit being fired.

 yakface wrote:

 Swissivy wrote:
Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

There is only one wound pool. Different AP, etc, weapons get split into groups within the wound pool, but everything is still in one wound pool.

The ONLY thing this ruling does is put a max range on a firing unit's ability to cause damage equal to the max range of any weapon in the unit being fired.

so to use the flamer example, if I have a squad with 4 flamers in it and 1 pistol and the squad fires at a 10 man squad but the flamer template can only reach 4 of the 10 models, since the remaining 6 models would be in range of the pistol...the flamer wounds would bleed into the rest of the squad?

 yakface wrote:

 Swissivy wrote:
Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

There is only one wound pool. Different AP weapons get split into groups within the wound pool, but everything is still in one wound pool.

The ONLY thing this ruling does is put a max range on a firing unit's ability to cause damage equal to the max range of any weapon in the unit being fired.

Then this means that I can allocate bolter wounds to the whole targeted unit which has only one model in 24' range just because I have a missile launcher... Right?

Yes, that is how the FAQ question/answer is written.

I was really hoping to see a clarification on if Imotek's lightning strikes from Lord of the Storm affected Swooping FMCs and Zooming Flyers.

Hmmm, what if I LOS a wound to the closest model but said model happens to be out of range of the firing unit?
o.Ô

Player not found wrote:
Hmmm, what if I LOS a wound to the closest model but said model happens to be out of range of the firing unit?
o.Ô

The same thing that happens if you LoS a wound onto a model that is completely out of line of sight...it still affects that model as the LoS rule is a more specific rule regarding how wounds get reallocated (its not following the normal rules for allocation).

Workblock.......so all BT got was BS5 on Dreads?!?

Q: Can a model with the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Zooming Flyers? (p80)
A: No.

Well that makes sense, unless the model with the repair ability is inside a zooming transport in need of repair.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Workblock.......so all BT got was BS5 on Dreads?!?

No. WS5 as well.



They removed the possibility to benefit from more than one Vow at 2k+ points games though.

Or have to buy more than 1 EC.

 pretre wrote:
Or have to buy more than 1 EC.

True.

"There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes"

20 points? yes please!

"Page 36 – Deathmarks, Hunters from Hyperspace.
Also add “Note that each unit of Deathmarks may only mark a
single enemy unit during the course of a game”."

Bah, dang it.

"Q: If a unit of Deathmarks deploys via a Veil of Darkness, do they get
to place another Hunters from Hyperspace counter? (p36)
A: No."

Ok ok I get it, you don't like Deathmarks being useful.
Seriously, is anyone going to take Deathmarks now?

They still can drop and wipe something out. Same as most alpha strike units.

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes,
do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash
and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)

A: No.

Take that, Necron haters!

 Blackgaze wrote:
"There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes"

20 points? yes please!

"Page 36 – Deathmarks, Hunters from Hyperspace.
Also add “Note that each unit of Deathmarks may only mark a
single enemy unit during the course of a game”."

Bah, dang it.

"Q: If a unit of Deathmarks deploys via a Veil of Darkness, do they get
to place another Hunters from Hyperspace counter? (p36)
A: No."

Ok ok I get it, you don't like Deathmarks being useful.
Seriously, is anyone going to take Deathmarks now?

Yes.

They are still are very good at eliminating or severally weakening enemy units.

 Blackgaze wrote:
"There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes"

20 points? yes please!

"Page 36 – Deathmarks, Hunters from Hyperspace.
Also add “Note that each unit of Deathmarks may only mark a
single enemy unit during the course of a game”."

Bah, dang it.

"Q: If a unit of Deathmarks deploys via a Veil of Darkness, do they get
to place another Hunters from Hyperspace counter? (p36)
A: No."

Ok ok I get it, you don't like Deathmarks being useful.
Seriously, is anyone going to take Deathmarks now?

I'm actually super-ok with this change. Having played several games where literally everything in my army was marked by turn 2, it was not particularly fun to play against when abused, and it's hard to see that it was intended to allow Deathmarks to mark multiple units in the first place. This is one FAQ I was looking forward to.


That said, some of the other changes are interesting as well, and oddly out of character for GW, like the Blastmaster changes allowing two in a unit and the Heldrake turret thingy.

 Herr Dexter wrote:

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes,
do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash
and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)

A: No.

Take that, Necron haters!

*bangs head against desk*

Also, gotta love that the only ork change is

Q: If Old Zogwort rolls on the Weirdboy psychic power chart and gets a
psychic power that is resolved as a Shooting attack (specifically Frazzle
or Zzap) may he re-roll this power? If not then can he ignore the power
for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points? (p61)
A: No to both questions.

They must really hate the old git for some reason

Q: How many points is Interrogator-Chaplain Seraphicus, from the special edition Dark Vengeance boxed game?

Who even cares? Who asks this when its quite easy to use him as a standard Interrogator?

A: 125 points. Seraphicus is an HQ choice in a Dark Angels army, and a special character. He is an Interrogator-Chaplain armed with a plasma pistol, as listed in Codex: Dark Angels. He replaces the Interrogator-Chaplain’s Zealot special rule with his own Litanies of the Dark Angels special rule.

Your fething joking! What a load of bull. If he was supposed to be a Character he'd BE IN THE FETHING CODEX NUMBNUTS. Who writes these?