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.

 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."

From a purely Fluff stand point it could work. Some times they are with the main army and some times they are with the sneaky guys. From a gaming stand point it sucks.

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.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

dkellyj 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.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

One should always strive to read a thread to the end before posting.

They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet... or say Deep Strike doesn't count as movement even though units who Deep Strike count as having moved...

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet...

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

Doesn't the skimmer rules give the skimmer permission to move over enemy units?

 Thaylen wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

How about flying over 1 unit to tank shock the unit behind it. The unit being tank shocked immobilizes the skimmer with Death or Glory.

Please quote the page in the rulebook where it says you can do this.

Afaik you can no longer do this as skimmers have no special rules for tank shocking, they use the exact same rules as normal tanks.

Doesn't the skimmer rules give the skimmer permission to move over enemy units?

It doesn't give them the ability to hopshock

dkellyj 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.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

Desubot wrote:

At least GW is consistent in raising prices.

Only if you ignore inflation. Zing!

pretre wrote:

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.

They're trying to establish that now before the CHS case is settled. Double-zing!

Alright, the Dark Angels one was actually pretty good.

Ravenwing Command Squads can now beef up a bit (only five guys, but that is not too shabby), Asmodai has his pistol back, DWA works exactly like I thought it did (glad I wasn't playing it wrong so I wont have to re-adjust), it ends those thrice forsaken "but what does Boltgun really mean?" threads for all eternity. Some will be sad that the LRC+PFG+SoDev combo no longer works... I am not one of those people. But the PFG is still a great addition to bike squads fearing AP3 ignores cover, among other things. Oh and Stasis Bombs no longer break the logic of the game over their knee.

Overall, a good FAQ from my perspective. I think that nailed most of the major issues with the codex at this point.

 reds8n wrote:
Hooray ! a 40k demon FAQ !
Boo as it's pretty pointless and doesn't solve or answer anything at all.

 Sasori wrote:
Well, they didn't answer any of the important questions in the Chaos Daemons FAQ.

 Goat wrote:
WoW the GK FAQ gets 2 additions for stuff no one cares about, while still dodging the DtW for Cleansing flame or Heroic Sacrifice.

Quark wrote:
The Eldar change is only to mention that you can LoS Mind War. I'm surprised that mattered enough to FAQ at this point.

Good to see that nothing has changed in rules design/rules question resolution in 25 years...

T

 puma713 wrote:

dkellyj 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.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

They really did.

And now that both irrelevant viewpoints are out there we can drop that tangent. Yay!

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dkellyj 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.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

They really did.

Mmmm, no, they didn't. And GW took a stance to clarify the point for those that needed clarification (those that thought that just because you suffered an immobilized result, meant you lost a hull point, so you lost two hull points on each roll of immobilized, which is idiotic.)

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

dkellyj 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.

So drop pods no longer lose a HP upon landing?

They never did.

They really did.

Mmmm, no, they didn't. And GW took a stance to clarify the point for those that needed clarification (those that thought that just because you suffered an immobilized result, meant you lost a hull point, so you lost two hull points on each roll of immobilized, which is idiotic.)

... And wasn't the actual stance I took at all. Way to misrepresent an irrelevant point! Do you feel complete now? How about this - you won.

Disappointed on the Deathwing Assault units counting towards the reserves. Oh well, it was fun to use them old school at Adepticon.

Wow the IG one makes no sense.

Scout was removed from fliers (already happened)

Camo Cloaks only add +1 to cover save (already happened)

PBS is mastery one (pretty sure that already happened)

And then the Al'Rahem vs Chenkov on respawning conscripts bit, which was ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE CODEX! Seriously! It tells you to respawn them from your board edge. How can people, especially GW, not see that? And then they tell you to just roll off, in the FAQ? Isn't the purpose of a FAQ to, you know, answer these questions so we DONT need to roll off?

The blast weapons being able to officially kill things out of site does more for us than our entire codex FAQ does for petes sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 White Ninja wrote:

 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."

From a purely Fluff stand point it could work. Some times they are with the main army and some times they are with the sneaky guys. From a gaming stand point it sucks.

So you're telling me Al'Rahem is such a master of scouting that he can sneak hundreds of unruly conscripts around enemy lines to attack their flank, when most barely understand which end of the lasgun goes bang?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

So you're telling me Al'Rahem is such a master of scouting that he can sneak hundreds of unruly conscripts around enemy lines to attack their flank, when most barely understand which end of the lasgun goes bang?

If their lasguns are going bang, you're going to need new conscripts. I think they're supposed to go zzzot.

At least they sort of admitted that going Daemon Prince is usually a big loss for your HQs, though they limited the change to Abbie.

Ideally they'd emulate the Fantasy version of the rule in which you can try and resist Spawndom and Princedom with a LD roll. Hell, I'd even accept a LD roll on 3d6 for the chance to keep my Lord on a bike the way I set him up instead of a dumb slow solo beatstick without grenades.

But that's dreaming too high.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet... or say Deep Strike doesn't count as movement even though units who Deep Strike count as having moved...

Does anyone have any clarification of this? Because I've always been 'mishapping' my Monolith when it ends up over another unit, which is pretty common with a footprint that big. If I can just move it a bit and then use the portal of exile, well thats a lot more fun (for me).

No, Skimmers don't protect from Deep Strikes - there's multiple threads in YMDC talking about it.

 Sephyr wrote:
At least they sort of admitted that going Daemon Prince is usually a big loss for your HQs, though they limited the change to Abbie.

Ideally they'd emulate the Fantasy version of the rule in which you can try and resist Spawndom and Princedom with a LD roll. Hell, I'd even accept a LD roll on 3d6 for the chance to keep my Lord on a bike the way I set him up instead of a dumb slow solo beatstick without grenades.

But that's dreaming too high.

That's dreaming to low, my dream was that they get the they got when they roll it on the chart, and keep the wargear they started with! The chaos daemon one in fantasy is at least an upgrade because you KEPT everything should you have succeeded on that LD test.

Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.

Me Likey !

Bloodhorror wrote:
Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.

Me Likey !

Even less reasons to field Imotekh

I'll be fair.

I play Nids. Allies of Convinience...

da fuq's that ?

 shamikebab wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
The Errata letting Ravenwing Command Squads buy 2 extra models is huge, I never expected to see something like that.

One of the strangest FAQS I've seen, makes you wonder how much they tested the original codex to suddenly allow a bigger squad like that.

What is annoying about it more so is that they can freely change point values and core rules on things, which makes you wonder why there are units that suck total ass for being over pointed.

Page 95 – Herald of Tzeentch, Options
Change the second sub-point of the final bullet point to
“Burning Chariot of Tzeentch as a Dedicated Transport (pg40
– the Herald replaces the Exalted Flamer)”.

SOOOO totally the answer i needed for the burning chariot!!! THANK YOU GW!!! I now know that I STILL DONT WANT TO BUY THIS RULE BROKEN MODEL!!!

 keltikhoa wrote:
Page 95 – Herald of Tzeentch, Options
Change the second sub-point of the final bullet point to
“Burning Chariot of Tzeentch as a Dedicated Transport (pg40
– the Herald replaces the Exalted Flamer)”.

SOOOO totally the answer i needed for the burning chariot!!! THANK YOU GW!!! I now know that I STILL DONT WANT TO BUY THIS RULE BROKEN MODEL!!!

What was the question you did need answering?

Bloodhorror wrote:
Q: Do attacks, wargear and special rules that automatically affect
enemy units, such as Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ special rule,
affect Allies of Convenience? (p112).
A: Yes.

Me Likey !

2 steps can be taken to mitigate losses from friendly hits.

#1 Ally with orks.

#2 Laugh with evil glee every time you fry greenskins.

 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+ (Everytime the question is asked!)it to see who gets to write that answer.

You missed a bit - Fix'd...