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.

 Ministry wrote:

This sucks as it was the only competitive build for DA that I really enjoyed playing. It should be like the damn KFF! The bikes and terminator builds are too expensive and too few models.

I agree.

I'm glad this FAQ came out before my birthday next week. I was planning on starting DA, but this kinda kills the army I wanted to play.

I bet they have the same ruling for the banner right before the next SM codex comes out.

 Dysartes wrote:

What was the question you did need answering?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/522757.page#5537122

That link talks about why the burning chariot is broken. but the basics are its a 10/10/10 open topped charriot with a rider that shoots heavy weapons (and lacks relentless) which means if the chariot moves you cannot shoot with it.

It is a brand new model... it was not in the old codex... I would imagine they would like to sell some... but as is they are useless in game.

It's not that the rules are flawed, it might just have been intended. There's no obvious error in the rules, it's just that it's an extremely bad model.

It's like you'd say that FO were forgotten to have Fearless in their rules and that it should be added in a FAQ...they are terrible models and the same applies to the chariot.

 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."

Ugh... why bother even putting this in the FAQ. They should have just decided one way or the other, rather than saying "D6 it". Since that's the default for any unclear rule, anyway, this was totally unecessary.

Yeah, kind of astonishing that they didn't address the Burning Chariot move-and-fire issue.

But overall, besides the few 'roll a D6 for it' rulings, I have to say that this was a very good update.

Thank the LORD they finally cleared up the whole issue about models getting 'removed from play' still counting as casualties. I have been arguing that point for years, and it is so nice to not have to try to explain my reasoning anymore.

Imotekh's lightning hitting flyers is kind of a crazy ruling too, because it seemed like GW had focused in on exactly what they wanted to be able to affect and not affect zooming flyers, and now with this ruling, that question re-opens for a bunch of other abilities.

Also kind of strange is that the iBook versions have not been updated yet to incorporate these changes (usually it happens simultaneously).

 yakface wrote:
Imotekh's lightning hitting flyers is kind of a crazy ruling too, because it seemed like GW had focused in on exactly what they wanted to be able to affect and not affect zooming flyers, and now with this ruling, that question re-opens for a bunch of other abilities.

It makes me think vehicle explosions really do effect flying mc's.

I wish they were morre specific with the imotekh rulings, IE if models are in the bottom of a ruin they don't somehow still get hit by lightning. The vehicle explosions have the same problem though, as the effects of the external explosion make no mention of any mechanics akin to shooting attacks, so for now it seems they effect whatever model/unit is within the range of the explosion regardless of terrain.

I'd like it if imhotek was FAQ'd to not have lightning.

Laziest piece of game design I've seen in a long time.

At least until the Warp Storm chart appeared.

Making it more powerful seems odd; it's not like the Necrons need buffs at the moment.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 yakface wrote:
Imotekh's lightning hitting flyers is kind of a crazy ruling too, because it seemed like GW had focused in on exactly what they wanted to be able to affect and not affect zooming flyers, and now with this ruling, that question re-opens for a bunch of other abilities.

It makes me think vehicle explosions really do effect flying mc's.

I wish they were morre specific with the imotekh rulings, IE if models are in the bottom of a ruin they don't somehow still get hit by lightning. The vehicle explosions have the same problem though, as the effects of the external explosion make no mention of any mechanics akin to shooting attacks, so for now it seems they effect whatever model/unit is within the range of the explosion regardless of terrain.

I agree. If they were going to make this ruling, they needed to make it abundantly clear WHY the ruling was made this way so that we could understand when to apply this concept to similar effects.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that the roll to affect units (a 6 on a D6) is effectively equivalent to being a snap shot roll (1 in 6 chance) and therefore is allowed. Remember, the ruling is still in the FAQ that any attack which is not resolved as a snap shot or automatically hits does not affect flyers...so the correct thing to do for now is to assume this is a one-off exception ONLY for Imotekh (given that Necrons get everything good, why not?).

If I were to personally step out on a limb and try to apply this ruling to other things, I'd only feel comfortable doing it with other affects that randomly target units on a D6 roll of '6' personally (so the two Warp Storm results that generate hits but don't use a blast, for example).

 yakface wrote:
I agree. If they were going to make this ruling, they needed to make it abundantly clear WHY the ruling was made this way so that we could understand when to apply this concept to similar effects.

Yeah, it reminds me of the helldrake ruling. It would have been one thing if it was an errata and they added a few lines of rules to explain the 360 vision thing, Instead they just make it a special case with no real reason given.

To be fair when it comes to imotekh I was on the side that it did hit flyers, just because I felt it was like explosions but definitely would have liked them to clean things up a bit instead of just make arbitrary rulings.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, Skimmers don't protect from Deep Strikes - there's multiple threads in YMDC talking about it.

That's your opinion. There is no situation you can point to where this rule applies in regular 40K other than deep striking, and deepstriking is and counts as movement, stating otherwise is neither RAI or RAW as it's clear that deepstriking is the same thing as having moved.

It's obvious they had something in mind with the rule and the only RAI and RAW conclusion one can come to is that Deep Striking Skimmers can NOT mishap from landing on friendly or enemy units. There is no other scenario in regular 40K where a skimmers can be forced to end it's movement over friendly or enemy models.

If you can think of one please quote the page and rule that would allow for this to happen.

Saying this rule never applies is something win at all cost players would claim to deny an opponent with skimmers any advantage skimmers would have.
What gives you the right to say a rule in the rulebook doesn't apply because you dont like it?

The rule is very clear on what it does:

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.

If I deepstrike with a unit and it scatters on top of friendly or enemy models, do I have a choice if I want to place the skimmer on top of them or not? DO I HAVE A CHOICE OR AM I FORCED TO PUT THE MODEL THERE?

But deepstriking doesn't count as movement...

P.36 BRB
In the Movernent phase during which they arrive, deep
striking units may not move any further, other than to
disembark frorn a deep striking Transporr vehicle if they
are in one.

So a unit that has deepstruck/deepstriked may not move any further, but if it didn't move to begin with how could it move any further? Shouldn't it have said "may not move" indicating that it has been static?

P.36 BRB
In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run)
as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the
previous Movernent phase.

To me it's obvious what the rule does but for some people they can't accept that they are wrong and that their opponents units might have some slight benefit over their Spheeezee Meehreeenez...

Then again I'm probably biased and the rule never applies to any part of the game as a skimmer can never actually be forced to end it's move over a friendly or enemy model. Heck even with the Lifta Droppa it's technically in your opponents phase and not your own movement phase. So there is probably no point at all for the rule being there, they just added it as a joke and are having a good laugh right now... ha....ha....haaa

Could everyone just email the FAQ department asking about this question, I'm tired or arguing about it. So could everyone here who has any opinion about it just send in the below message?

Copy paste this message and send it to them, they might consider answering if enough people email them about it.

Email: Gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Topic: Do skimmers mishap from deepstriking onto friendly or enemy models?
Message:

This question has caused allot of heated arguments and anger. Do skimmers mishap if they deepstrike scatter onto friendly or enemy models?

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.

The Big Rule Book suggests that they do not with this rule for skimmers, some people do not agree claiming that deepstriking is not movement even though the deepstriking rules say:

P.36 BRB
In the Movernent phase during which they arrive, deep
striking units may not move any further, other than to
disembark frorn a deep striking Transporr vehicle if they
are in one.

P.36 BRB
In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run)
as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the
previous Movernent phase.
This question that is REALLY important for allot of armies. Especially Necrons with their huge Monoliths that used to not mishap from deepstriking onto units but now allot of people claim they do and simply state that the rule on page 83 is never applied to the game as there is no occurrence in the game where it can actually happen.

Please answer this question. What is the point of the rule on page 83? When does it take effect and can you give an example of when it does?

 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.

This rule was added to the rulebook because in 5th edition, it was pointed out (by the INAT) that, while making a tank chock movement, a skimmer could choose to move OVER a friendly or enemy unit to tank shock an enemy unit beyond. Then because of Death or Glory stunning or immobilizing the vehicle, the skimmer could be forced to end its movement over the friendly or enemy unit, leaving the players in an unsolvable quandary.

So they added this into the FAQ in 5th edition and then it made its way into the 6th edition rulebook. If you would like, I can provide you with the old INAT document where I first wrote the question (and our answer at the time), if that helps you put the puzzle pieces together as to why this rule is in the game.

But yeah, page 63 of the current rulebook states that skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models. The rules for tank shocking on page 85 state that units which the tank 'comes into contact with' are tank shocked. Therefore, a skimmer tank that is making a tank shock move can choose to move 'over' or 'through' enemy models in the way (and always must move over friendly models in the way). This can lead to situations where a skimmer is 'forced' to end its move over friendly or enemy models.

This rule has absolutely nothing to do with Deep Striking. If they wanted that, they just would have given them the same rules as Drop Pods. While models that Deep Strike count as moving, the model itself does not count as having Deep Struck until the process is finished, and therefore does not count as having moved until it has finished completely resolving the Deep Strike, including scatter and mishaps.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, Skimmers don't protect from Deep Strikes - there's multiple threads in YMDC talking about it.

That's your opinion. There is no situation you can point to where this rule applies in regular 40K other than deep striking, and deepstriking is and counts as movement, stating otherwise is neither RAI or RAW as it's clear that deepstriking is the same thing as having moved.

It's obvious they had something in mind with the rule and the only RAI and RAW conclusion one can come to is that Deep Striking Skimmers can NOT mishap from landing on friendly or enemy units. There is no other scenario in regular 40K where a skimmers can be forced to end it's movement over friendly or enemy models.

If you can think of one please quote the page and rule that would allow for this to happen.

Tank Shocking and suffering an Immobilize result.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you expecting no response?

Hmmm... time to rethink my Ravenwing army. Taking two 5 man ravenwing command squads is cheaper than taking the equivalent black knight squad and you can buy an apothecary to help with the cover ignoring damage.

Bummer about the Deathwing ruling, kinda kills the pure DW force teleporting in.

 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.

From a fluff point of view it makes sense, but if that was the intention they could have worded it better. Referring to 'The Most Important Rule' just reads like "We've no idea! Decide amongst yourselves! This is great news!" instead of making the dice-off sound like an actual considered decision; "Not all conscripts are disciplined enough to use 'stalk the enemy', so can only deploy using outflank on a 4+"

Herzlos wrote:

From a fluff point of view it makes sense, but if that was the intention they could have worded it better. Referring to 'The Most Important Rule' just reads like "We've no idea! Decide amongst yourselves! This is great news!" instead of making the dice-off sound like an actual considered decision; "Not all conscripts are disciplined enough to use 'stalk the enemy', so can only deploy using outflank on a 4+"

They've done this kind of thing before, and frankly if we're talking about two rules that truly have no clear precedent then if they want these always to be resolved by a D6 roll, then as long as they're consistent then I'm okay with that (even if I personally believe it will always a terrible way to handle precedence issues).

HOWEVER, this isn't actually a case of two rules conflicting, which is why this particular ruling is baffling.

If Chenkov's special rule says that the unit arrives as normal like a unit arriving from Reserve then their *might* possibly be an argument that some conflict exists. But in this case the unit is NEVER in Reserve...it NEVER can be declared to be outflanking in the first place. Chenkov's rule just says that the unit moves on from the player's table edge, so the possibility of this unit ever outflanking is null, because it is never in reserve and therefore cannot by definition magically outflank.

The only thing his rule says is that the unit counts as a unit that has just arrived from reserve...meaning once the unit arrives, it THEN counts as having arrived from reserve (not that it actually was in reserve, because it wasn't...you didn't roll for it and certainly if the game ends before that unit is created you'd never say it was still in reserve and award the opponent with a Victory Point for it in a 'Purge the Alien' mission, for example).


Frankly, IMHO this never should have been included in a FAQ, and if they were going to include it then the answer should not be that neither of the two rules take precedence when one so clearly does. Kind of the worst of all worlds as far as I'm concerned.

Page 42 – Obliterators, Obliterator Weapons
Change the final sentence to:
“An Obliterator unit cannot choose to fire the same weapon in two consecutive shooting attacks”.

Previously:
"An Obliterator unit cannot choose to fire the same weapon in two of your consecutive shooting phases”.

Dafuq is the difference. Was there a way people were getting more than one shooting attack per shooting phase?

Artanis wrote:
Dafuq is the difference. Was there a way people were getting more than one shooting attack per shooting phase?

Overwatch or interceptor fire.

Oh cool, so you can fire a TL Plasma Gun at the opponent, fail to kill them and when they turn around and charge at you angrily, hit 'em with the TL Plasma again.


Sweet!

Bloodhorror wrote:
Oh cool, so you can fire a TL Plasma Gun at the opponent, fail to kill them and when they turn around and charge at you angrily, hit 'em with the TL Plasma again.


Sweet!

That's precisely what the FAQ says you cannot do.

Oblits can`t fire OW, can they? (SnP)

Might have something to do with one of the rulebook psychic powers. There on in there that let's you take control of an enemy model and shot with it. Puppet master I think.

 Verd_Warr wrote:
Oblits can`t fire OW, can they? (SnP)

They cannot. The ruling was probably motivated by someone asking the question not realizing that, though.

It also covers stuff like Puppet Master as well, though.

Edit: Ninja'd!

I'll really wish the GW higher ups will just retire already and sell the company to Hasbro, this way at least a good company will put money into thier product instead of just expect money from it. I know it's a dead horse, but the lack of playtesting and an editorial team really hurts this product.

The lazy gloss over of an FAQ that was released is truly pathetic.

 yakface 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.

This rule was added to the rulebook because in 5th edition, it was pointed out (by the INAT) that, while making a tank chock movement, a skimmer could choose to move OVER a friendly or enemy unit to tank shock an enemy unit beyond. Then because of Death or Glory stunning or immobilizing the vehicle, the skimmer could be forced to end its movement over the friendly or enemy unit, leaving the players in an unsolvable quandary.

So they added this into the FAQ in 5th edition and then it made its way into the 6th edition rulebook. If you would like, I can provide you with the old INAT document where I first wrote the question (and our answer at the time), if that helps you put the puzzle pieces together as to why this rule is in the game.

But yeah, page 63 of the current rulebook states that skimmers can move over friendly and enemy models. The rules for tank shocking on page 85 state that units which the tank 'comes into contact with' are tank shocked. Therefore, a skimmer tank that is making a tank shock move can choose to move 'over' or 'through' enemy models in the way (and always must move over friendly models in the way). This can lead to situations where a skimmer is 'forced' to end its move over friendly or enemy models.

This rule has absolutely nothing to do with Deep Striking. If they wanted that, they just would have given them the same rules as Drop Pods. While models that Deep Strike count as moving, the model itself does not count as having Deep Struck until the process is finished, and therefore does not count as having moved until it has finished completely resolving the Deep Strike, including scatter and mishaps.

Rules for tank shocking, nowhere does it say skimmers use any special rules for tank shocking. Not under the skimmer rules or the tank shock rules. If skimmers could jump over a unit to tank shock one on the other side it should have been mentioned somewhere in the rulebook. As you say you brought up the problem in the INAT and GW added the rule on page 83 because of it but nowhere in the rulebook does it actually say you can jump over a unit to tank shock one on the other side. It might have been in an FAQ for 5E but that doesn't mean you can do it in 6E.

The rules clearly state that if your tank shocking vehicle comes into contact with a friendly model it immediately stops. Doesn't matter if it could jump over them, it immediately stops.
It's easy to say a skimmer never comes into contact with a friendly unit as it simply moves over them but the rules for tank shocking doesn't suggest skimmers get any special treatment.

P.85 BRB
To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the
spot to face the direction you intend to move it and
declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move,
up to its maximum speed. The vehicle must move at least
Combat Speed. Note that, because pivoting on the spot does not
count as moving, this is not enough for a Tank Shock.
Once the Tank has been 'aimed' and the intended distance
declared, move the Tank straight forwards until it comes
into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance
declared - no other changes of direction are allowed in a Tank
Shock. If no enemy unit is reached just move the Tank straight
ahead for the distance declared and nothing special takes place.

If the Tank would move into contact with a friendly
model, enemy vehicle, impassable terrain or a board edge, it
immediately stops moving 1" away.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tank Shocking and suffering an Immobilize result.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you expecting no response?

So? If you tank shock someone and suffer immobilize you stop in front of them. If you passed through an enemy unit that passed it's morale check and the second unit immobilises them then here is how you resolve that.

If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up
underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it
makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not))
these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest
distance, leaving at least I " between thern and the vehicle whilst
maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board

But what if you jump over a vehicle to tank shock a unit behind it and get immobilized?
Nowhere in the rules does it say you can do that? There might have been a FAQ for 5E saying you could do that but if they intended it that way why isn't the rules incorporated into 6E? Why isn't there a Tank Shock Exceptions section where it says skimmers can jump over units to tank shock units on the other side?

Both of you, just email GW.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Both of you, just email GW.

This made me laugh. Might as well ask a magic eight ball. Same quality of response.

Ah, NVM.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Tank Shocking and suffering an Immobilize result.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you expecting no response?

So? If you tank shock someone and suffer immobilize you stop in front of them. If you passed through an enemy unit that passed it's morale check and the second unit immobilises them then here is how you resolve that.

But what if you jump over a vehicle to tank shock a unit behind it and get immobilized?
Nowhere in the rules does it say you can do that? There might have been a FAQ for 5E saying you could do that but if they intended it that way why isn't the rules incorporated into 6E? Why isn't there a Tank Shock Exceptions section where it says skimmers can jump over units to tank shock units on the other side?

Tank Shock requires you do make a normal move with instructions on what happens when you have to do things you normally can't (move through friendly/enemy units).
Skimmers are allowed to move over friendly/enemy units.
Find a rule denying this permission.

Both of you, just email GW.

Oh, I have. It doesn't mean anything, but frankly this argument doesn't have any actual rules standing.

Can you use Grand Strategy on Dreadknights with a Shunt Pack, which makes it a Jump MC?