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.

nobody wrote:


Looks like Swarms also got a bit of a buff, in that they don't get two bases removed if they suffer damage from a blast weapon that's instant death.

Yeah this and the RfP ruling made me do a happy dance as they were my two of my biggest pet peeves with the rules.

So I can take two separate missile pods instead of the classic twin-linker? Neat

 pretre wrote:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point? (p74)

A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost

It means that if you get shaken from something else you don't suffer a HP.

So yes, this fixes the drop pod issue.

I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...


I like that they clarified the 'two wychfires for having dual pistols' thing as well.

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

rigeld2 wrote:
GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

They are consistent. Consistently inconsistent. ba-dum ching.

 pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

They are consistent. Consistently inconsistent. ba-dum ching.

If I ever wanted to venture up north there are things I would do...

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

Isn't the consistent? Now only Glancing and Penetrating hits take Hull Points. Damage chart results don't.

Where's the inconsistency?

anybody else unable to get on gw site to get faq's temporarily unavailable and all?

edit: nvm, forgot the daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaash

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Where's the inconsistency?

Just with the flip-flopping between FAQ revisions. We started off with vehicles only losing a HP from glances and pens. They added in a lost HP from terrain immobilisation... and then they took it away again and we are back to just glances and pens. It would be nice if they made up their minds. Preferably at some point in the couple of years that they have the book before it is published... you know, when they're supposedly playtesting it...

 DarknessEternal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

Isn't the consistent? Now only Glancing and Penetrating hits take Hull Points. Damage chart results don't.

Where's the inconsistency?

What insaniak said. Flip/flopping FAQ answers helps no one. Between this, the Ork Weirdboy flip, the SitW flip...
It's crazy. And none of these were tiny things - they're all pretty important overall.

Could we rename the title to "New GW FAQS" please? I keep misreading "faqs" :/

 Sigvatr wrote:
Could we rename the title to "New GW FAQS" please? I keep misreading "faqs" :/

That would be "new Gw Cigarettes" because of the profanity filter.

As what?

 insaniak wrote:

So yes, this fixes the drop pod issue.

I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Actually - the rule for the loss of a Hull Point on failed dangerous terrain tests is still in there on page 2, right side, middle of page.

 Alpharius wrote:
As what?

I think he wants the title to show faq in caps






At least GW is consistent in raising prices.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Actually - the rule for the loss of a Hull Point on failed dangerous terrain tests is still in there on page 2, right side, middle of page.

Must have missed it in my early morning pre-coffee haze.

Excellent... so non-damage roll damage doesn't take a HP... except were we arbitrarily decide it does, for no apparent reason.

 Desubot wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
As what?

I think he wants the title to show faq in caps

Yeah, the title format makes it look like a non-so-nice-word (PM me if you want to know it Alpharius, I can't let the poor innocent souls see it ).

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I was about to complain about the inconsistency of this ruling considering the lost Hull Point on a failed dangerous terrain test... but that entry appears to have been removed from the FAQ. So no more lost HP when you crash into a tree...

Really? Damn. I missed that.
<sigh>

GW I wish you'd at least be consistent.

No it it still there.

"Page 71 – Vehicles, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain.
Change the final sentence to “A vehicle that fails a Dangerous
Terrain test immediately suffers an Immobilised result from
the Vehicle Damage table, including losing one Hull Point”."

Darn you for lying to me insaniak!

Thanks for being consistent across FAQs this time GW.
But your method of "whenever we say to" doesn't help people like your rules any better.

rigeld2 wrote:
Darn you for lying to me insaniak!

It's all part of my secret plot to... I dunno. Stuff.

Thanks for being consistent across FAQs this time GW.
But your method of "whenever we say to" doesn't help people like your rules any better.

This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ it to see who gets to write that answer.

 pretre wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ it to see who gets to write that answer.

Which would make me stab someone in the face.
I don't know who, but someone.

rigeld2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
This. Would have made much more sense to just pick a direction on this and stick with it back when they FAQd the dangerous terrain thing in the first place. Surely someone in the studio must have thought 'Hey, what about other situations where vehicles are immobilised without a roll?'

You missed the obvious answer to why GW is sometimes inconsistent in FAQ rulings. Two design guys each argue the case for each FAQ question, are unable to come to an agreement so then 4+ it to see who gets to write that answer.

Which would make me stab someone in the face.
I don't know who, but someone.

Tell me I'm wrong. It would make complete sense for GW to do that.

And luckily, I am not within stabbing distance.

No, but you're 2 hours from my mother-in-law and I might be making a trip up there this year...

And you're probably right - that's how they resolve issues like this. Unfortunately, they don't take the first roll-off and determine from that how to handle similar issues...

rigeld2 wrote:
No, but you're 2 hours from my mother-in-law and I might be making a trip up there this year...

And you're probably right - that's how they resolve issues like this. Unfortunately, they don't take the first roll-off and determine from that how to handle similar issues...

Precedence is a silly concept.

nobody wrote:

 erewego86 wrote:
Shaken, stunned, and weapon destroyed don't strip a hull point? Am I reading that right?

And immobilized as well, looks like Drop Pods are back to not losing that HP when they come in:

Q. If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses a Hull Point?

A. No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is lost

Looks like Swarms also got a bit of a buff, in that they don't get two bases removed if they suffer damage from a blast weapon that's instant death.

Swarms never should have had 2 bases removed from that in 6th edition anyway. It was just finally cleared up by GW for those that debated the other side.

I love how they once again do an FAQ for Zogwort.

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: As a Warphead, he may re-roll, but may not ignore the power for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points if his re-roll also comes up as Frazzle or Zzap.

While still happily side stepping the issue of him not being able to use half his psychic powers.

 spectreoneone wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 jlong05 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Q: Can I take three of the same (not Twin-linked) weapons on my
Crisis suit? (p100)
A: Yes..

Why on earth would anyone ever even want to do this? you cannot use 3 weapons in the same shooting phase and having them auto twin-link makes way more sense. although I could see a benefit for 2 single weapons of the same type, I cant understand why anyone would want 3.

Overwatch Flamers, or just for another option.

Or, in the case of the Commander (who must take 4 weapon/wargear options), this could be interpreted as allowing for two twin-linked weapons loadouts. TL Fireknife Commanders, anyone?

Double twin-linked makes sense to me, as does a TL and regular suit. Its the 3 single or 4 single(of the same type) that makes no sense to me. I guess for Overwatch and Interceptor, but hell, that's a lot of wasted options for a very minute opportunity of use.

Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

 Happygrunt wrote:
Why the feth is this in an FAQ?

Q: If an Imperial Guard army includes both Captain Al’Rahem and
Commander Chenkov, and a unit of Conscripts that is part of
Al’Rahem’s Infantry Platoon has purchased Commander Chenkov’s
‘Send in the Next Wave’ upgrade, does it re-enter play using Outflank
as per Captain Al’Rahem’s ‘Stalk the Enemy’ or move on from the
player’s board edge, as per Commander Chenkov’s ‘Send in the Next
Wave’? (p64/65).
A: In this instance, neitherrule takes precedence – therefore
simply roll a dice for which rule applies as per‘The Most
Important Rule’ on page 4 of the Warhammer 40,000
Rulebook.

Translation:
"Thanks for asking, you tell us."

Jervis was bored and couldn't think up a random chart to shove down our throats.