New FAQs

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.

**40k-noob**

yakface wrote:
copper.talos wrote:
Akar wrote:
Still waiting, but this does kinda open the door for 'Entropic Strike' to still work regardless of the FnP result.

You can use that faq as a precedent. Both ES and Force happen "immediately" after an unsaved wound. So essentially their timing is the same.

I agree with your logic, however there is one major difference:

In the case of a Force Weapon vs. FNP, if the Force Weapon is activated first, the model is then nuked so the FNP result cannot possibly be enacted (as FNP cannot be taken against unsaved wounds that cause ID and at that point the unsaved wound now has ID).

In the case of Entropic Strike, even if you say that it is resolved before FNP, the effect of FNP then changes the unsaved wound into a saved result (thereby retroactively negating any thing else generated by it being an unsaved wound). Now, there is certainly all sorts of arguments to made either way on this matter (and they have been in the past), but I don't think that even using the precedent of resolving Entropic Strike before FNP necessarily gives a clear edict like it does with the Force Weapon.

[Just for academic purposes]
Why would the FNP negate the Entropic Strike effect? Is there anything in the game that lets you negate previous effect without explicitly saying so in its rules?
I can see the wound being returned by the FNP roll but the effects of Entropic Strike should still be in place.

**coredump**

jegsar wrote:
But after the reserve roll. the FAQ specifically says reserve roll.

The FAQ *also* specifically says "outflanking roll" is in the same time frame (beginning of movement phase) as the Psy Powers and Reserve rolls.)

The issue is not which happens first,the issue is what is everything that happens in the nebulous "beginning of Movement phase"

According to the FAQ, Outflanking rolls (and thus arriving from reserves) is still within the 'beginning of Movement phase"

No where does it say that the arrival of the reserves is directly after the reserve roll but it does say that the normal movement is directly after the arrival move.

It doesn't have to say that, as long as everything that is happening is part of the 'beginning of Movement phase"

Start of movement phase is the start, not sometime kinda around the start. If it's said, before the psyker moves then i would agree.

Now you are creating rules.... the FAQ has defined *at least* three things as happening in the 'beginning of the Movement phase"
Reserve Rolls, Outflanking rolls (which only happens upon arriving from reserves, and includes actually moving onto the board), and casting Blessings. The FAQ also states that there are other things ("etc.") also occuring 'simultaneously'.

**Mannahnin**

On the more general topic of the new FAQs, here's the email I just sent to gamefaqs@gwplc.com .

I encourage everyone who has further questions (especially items for the codices whose FAQs haven't been updated yet, like IG), so send them in as well.

Hello!

I have a few questions and concerns regarding several of the codices. I was very happy to see the FAQs get updated this week, but there are a few outstanding questions I still have (including about IG, which didn't get updated yet), and I think one or two errors have crept in which I was hoping to flag for you.

Main rulebook questions:
Can you move over/through friendly models' bases or hulls? Multiple later parts of the rules, such as the assault rules on page 30, say "remember that you cannot move over friendly models' bases", but there's no statement to that effect in the main movement rules.

Can invulnerable saves be taken by vehicles against glances and pens like cover saves can? This one seems obvious, but there's no explicit statement in the rules saying so, like there is with cover saves.

If a swarm unit suffers a wound from a Blast which has sufficient strength to inflict Instant Death, does this kill two bases, or just one?

Walkers- Do they draw LOS from their weapons like other vehicles? As in, pick a target in firing arc of at least one weapon and THEN "pivot to face the target" and fire at it? Or can they actually pick a target behind them to which they have no LOS, then pivot to face it and fire? I remember the old Chaos Codex FAQ said that chaos dreadnoughts when frenzying could only pick a target within their front arc; that they couldn't target something behind them, so would not spin completely around. But obvously that FAQ is gone now, since the new codex came out.

Allies: What counts as being "your army"? Do allies count? For example, can a Grey Knight Grand Master's Grand Strategy be used to give Unyielding Anvil to an allied unit of Death Company, thus making them a scoring unit? And can Mad Dok Grotsniks be used to grant allied units a 5+ invulnerable save? Both of these say they can be used on any unit in your army; they are not limited to friendly units (so Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies wouldn't be ruled out), and they haven't been errata'd or amended to say "units from Codex: GK or codex: Orks", respectively. I'd like to see a general ruling about these kind of "any unit in your army" abilities and whether they apply to allies.

Codex: Space Marines
Do Drop Pods lose a hull point on landing? The FAQ says they are treated as suffering an immobilized damage result. The main rulebook FAQ says that vehicles which Immobilize themselves moving through dangerous terrain count as suffering an immobilized damage result, and notes that this includes the loss of a hull point. So it would seem like Drop Pods would follow the same logic, but I'm not sure.

Codex: Imperial Guard
The current ruling on the Valkyrie/Vendetta and Scout appears to be an error. It says that their Scout rule does nothing, which makes sense for the main part of the Scout USR, that is, the after-deployment redeploy, since these vehicles have to start in Reserve, being flyers. However the Scout rule is also what gives them the ability to Outflank. By saying that their Scout rule does nothing, the FAQ currently means they can't Outflank either. Is that the intent? I would think that the proper fix would have been to just replace the Scout rule for these units with the Outflank rule.

Codex: Necrons
Can Imotekh's lightning hit flyers on a 6, like it hits other units?

Is being "removed from play" (like by Jaws of the World Wolf) the same as being removed as a casualty, for purposes of Ressurection Protocols/Everling? The ruling for Saint Celestine in the Sisters FAQ seems to equate them, but I keep seeing people argue that Removed From Play is categorically different from being Removed As a Casualty. Some folks are even arguing that "removed from play" doesn't qualify for First Blood, as First Blood triggers on removing a unit as a casualty!

Codex: Tau Empire
The new FAQ says that Seeker Missiles still need a 6 to hit a Zooming Flyer, despite the fact that the Marker Light needed a 6 to hit it just for the Seeker Missile to even be able to fire. This means that Seeker Missiles are literally the least-able to hit a flyer vehicle in the game, needing two 6s to hit. Which makes the Skyray being the Tau's anti-aircraft tank a sick joke. This can't be right, surely? That tank is bad enough as it is.

Codex: Eldar
The new FAQ rules that a psyker in a transport cannot cast any kind of psychic powers. This seems crazy. The main rulebook psychic rules state that being in a transport restricts your line of sight, and that therefore psykers in transports are only able to target powers which require LOS on themeselves, another unit in the transport, or the transport itself. Even if you're changing the rules for Doom, Fortune, and Guide to require LOS now, they should still be able to target the psyker, his unit, or the transport. Why on Earth is this ruling saying that they can't be cast at all?

Codex: Dark Angels
This one may be a bit optimistic, but it seems very strange to me that the Nephilim flyer was errata'd to lose Missile Lock, rather than errata'd for Blacksword Missiles to be Blast weapons. The missiles, being only S6 AP4, seem like they're clearly meant to be useful anti-infantry weapons. Compare them to the Blood Strike missiles on a Blood Angel Storm Raven. Those are S8 AP1, on a vehicle which is only 20pts more, is a 12 model capacity Assault Transport, has better armor and ceremite plating. With Blast on the missiles and Missile Lock, the Nephilim seems like a decent shooty flyer. Still probably not as good as a Storm Raven, but certainly playable. If they're not blast, it's just a terrible unit.

**pretre**

I always hold out hope that someone reads that e-mail box.

**Mannahnin**

A bunch of things DID get fixed and clarified in this round of FAQs.

**pretre**

Mannahnin wrote:
A bunch of things DID get fixed and clarified in this round of FAQs.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I love the work they are doing on FAQs and think they are definitely a good thing. I just don't know how much of that is intentional or how much comes from the FAQ e-mail box or how much is infinite monkeys typing on keyboards.

Do you think that someone has really been flooding the box asking for an answer to 'If the character makes my elites troops and he dies do they get reclassified?'

Of course, I may just be a bit grumpy today.

**puma713**

pretre wrote:
I always hold out hope that someone reads that e-mail box.

I always assumed I would get a return email:

"Thank you for contacting Games Workshop! We appreciate your comments! We are concerned about your questions, so please be aware that this inbox is not monitered and that all emails will be forwarded directly to the recycle bin! Thanks and happy gaming!"

**Akar**

40k-noob wrote:

[Just for academic purposes]
Why would the FNP negate the Entropic Strike effect? Is there anything in the game that lets you negate previous effect without explicitly saying so in its rules?
I can see the wound being returned by the FNP roll but the effects of Entropic Strike should still be in place.

There are THREADS on this debate, and don't need to be reposted here. The SHORT of it is that while FnP is NOT a save it treats the wound as being saved. You then have a situation where you have an unsaved effect still attempting to be triggered off a saved wound. This is something that the majority of players feel is the case, and I strongly feel it was the core of why weapons that might cause ID didn't override FnP in the first place. Regardless of how I feel on the subject, the issue wasn't the timing, it was the 'override' effect of the last line under FnP. The FAQ about ID weapons ends that debate, but we all know players that need FAQ's for every individual rule, so to many players, ES is still on the fence.

I think that covers anything that's relevant, and I don't want to re-start that debate here. The Horse has been flogged, killed, sent to the glue factory, then distributed and recalled for being defective at this point, even with this FAQ opening the door. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it further. For now I just always ask my opp. if it's okay that I play ES>FnP like a responsible player. When Im a TO, then I unfortunately have to rule against how I prefer to play it because the generally accepted method still hasn't been individually changed.

**rigeld2**

jegsar wrote:
So i am deep striking warp talons and termis. I make my reserve roll, both get 3+. Where is the sentence that says they come in right then? That is rai not raw, next i cast powers but lets say i have no psykers so we don't care. Then i select my warp talons to come in and don't scatter, they then get to try and blind the unit before i select my next unit, the terms. Notice how many actions and interruptions have taken place.

Pay power is after the ROLL for reserves as stated in the faq, read the other thread for more quotes and rules. Even Yak agrees.

Yak agreeing doesn't mean anything more than anyone else agreeing (no offense intended yakface).
When X happens, do Y. X happened, why are you not doing Y?

**jegsar**

Rigeld, till we solve this lets just sort this out on one of the two threads? Lets do the other one since that is where I have actually been quoting rules.

**Happyjew**

Agreed, the main point of this thread was to bring attention to the release of the FAQs and get some closure on the threads that have been answered.

**Neorealist**

My theory is they have someone who lurks on forums much like this one to pick up on items that are brought up and recieve a lot of attention.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

Neorealist wrote:
My theory is they have someone who lurks on forums much like this one to pick up on items that are brought up and recieve a lot of attention.

It certainly seems that way, maybe they cut a whole department and replaced it with Dakka

**jegsar**

I wonder if they realize that Dakka would do their faqs for them on 99% of issues without needing to make a call. Now erratas are actual changes so someone needs to decide but still.

**Eldercaveman**

jegsar wrote:
I wonder if they realize that Dakka would do their faqs for them on 99% of issues without needing to make a call. Now erratas are actual changes so someone needs to decide but still.

No because if Dakka did the FAQ's they'd go round in circles.

**jegsar**

On some stuff, other then like eldar psychic powers we would just word it the right way so it works the same as blessings.
Either that or have GW tell us what they want the change to be and let us do the wording.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

Eldercaveman wrote:
jegsar wrote:
I wonder if they realize that Dakka would do their faqs for them on 99% of issues without needing to make a call. Now erratas are actual changes so someone needs to decide but still.

No because if Dakka did the FAQ's they'd go round in circles.

Not true, we'd have a HIWPI poll.

**pretre**

It isn't like Dakka hasn't done FAQs before, both the Gwar FAQ and the INAT. It also isn't like GW hasn't borrowed wholesale from those FAQs both with and without acknowledgement.

**Macok**

pretre wrote:
It also isn't like GW hasn't borrowed wholesale from those FAQs both with and without acknowledgement.

As I recall, in both those situations part of our community made sure it was a 'bad idea' and probably won't happen again (or at least not too soon).

jegsar wrote:
On some stuff, other then like eldar psychic powers we would just word it the right way so it works the same as blessings.
Either that or have GW tell us what they want the change to be and let us do the wording.

Or alternatively made the power with half range, not working in CC have some benefit over the similar power, when used by race who is supposed to be master at it. But that would be a dumb idea, let's make it plain worse.

Wow, I'm kinda negative lately.. Guess I have to take a kitten bath or something..