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.

@Mortetvie

Yes! We will have them there to sell and you can order one and we can bring it for you there.

We will also be debuting a new product at the event, too!

Mortetvie, will you be going to the BAO after all? It would be cool to see you there again.

did the new BAO faq come out? I'm a little confused if 2.9 is the latest or not.

 Julnlecs wrote:
Mortetvie, will you be going to the BAO after all? It would be cool to see you there again.

Yes, I am going! Things worked out for me to be able to go. Will be my first time at BAO so looking forward to it.

Largo39 wrote:
did the new BAO faq come out? I'm a little confused if 2.9 is the latest or not.

That is not the FAQ since that was the 6th edition FAQ.

I want to see the FAQ as well because it is important for army building.

The rule I want to know about is if my Grey Knight Strike Squads can use Hammerhand, Force, and Banishment in the same psychic phase.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/599772.page

The new FAQs are up.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new FAQs are up.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

Man, some of those FAQs are odd.

Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.

Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.

The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...


A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.

 Zagman wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new FAQs are up.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

Man, some of those FAQs are odd.

Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.

Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.

The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...


A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.

Yeah I am pretty disappointed with the seemingly random rule changes as well. I am incredibly baffled by the Psyker Unit thing. So a unit of Gaurdians with an attached Farseer, Spiritseer, and Warlock is a single Psyker Unit. What is the mastery level of that Psyker Unit? Is it 3? If so, is that unit only generating 3 Warp Dice? The book tells us to add up all the mastery levels of our Psyker units...so do I get 3 or 6 dice for that unit? Or does the FAQ's redefinition of "Psyker Unit" only apply when manifesting powers and not for the rest of the phase?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new FAQs are up.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

Man, some of those FAQs are odd.

Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.

Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.

The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...


A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.

Yeah I am pretty disappointed with the seemingly random rule changes as well. I am incredibly baffled by the Psyker Unit thing. So a unit of Gaurdians with an attached Farseer, Spiritseer, and Warlock is a single Psyker Unit. What is the mastery level of that Psyker Unit? Is it 3? If so, is that unit only generating 3 Warp Dice? The book tells us to add up all the mastery levels of our Psyker units...so do I get 3 or 6 dice for that unit? Or does the FAQ's redefinition of "Psyker Unit" only apply when manifesting powers and not for the rest of the phase?

The unit should get 6 warp charges. The only restriction is that it won't be able to manifest the same power more than once. So say both the farseer and spiritseer gets Summoning from the Malefic Daemon powers. They both can't attempt to Summon as long as they are in the same unit with the guardians.

IMO, it really isn't that big a deal. One of our best Eldar players here in the bay area, Grant Theft Auto, runs a full-blown seer council with 2x farseers and 8-9 jetlocks. He's been running with these restrictions and he is still kicking a$$ in our area. 1 farseer goes for Fortune and if he gets it, the other goes for Invisibility or something like that. Then about half of his warlocks go for the codex powers whereas the other half go for Santic or Malefic powers. Both can be very useful with Sanctuary, Hammerhand and any of the Daemon summoning powers.

 Zagman wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new FAQs are up.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

Man, some of those FAQs are odd.

Psyker Unit is being ruled very different than NOVA.

Unyielding Anvil, seriously, doesn't grant Objective Secured, but Scores as Troops has zero value now. It's an absolutely pointless choice as everything is scoring already.

The BAO flat out rule change to allow ICs with Infiltrate to grant Infiltrate to noninfiltrating units persists...


A lot of this is good, but some are just plain rule changes that weren't necessary.

I was also perplexed by that ruling. Maybe it's just continued prejudice against GK for ruining the end of 5th edition for everyone

For an FAQ who is asking some of these questions?


Unyielding Anvil
Page 22 of the Grey Knight Codex: The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.
40K Rulebook page 123: Objective Secured: All Troops units from the Detachment have the Objective Secured special Rule.

It seems pretty clear to me.

BAO FAQ: The Unyielding Anvil option of the Grand Strategy special rule never grants the Objective Secured special rule.

 Blackmoor wrote:
For an FAQ who is asking some of these questions?


Unyielding Anvil
Page 22 of the Grey Knight Codex: The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.
40K Rulebook page 123: Objective Secured: All Troops units from the Detachment have the Objective Secured special Rule.

It seems pretty clear to me.

BAO FAQ: The Unyielding Anvil option of the Grand Strategy special rule never grants the Objective Secured special rule.

Erm, it doesn't say Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives. It says "Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives AS IF THEY WERE TROOPS."

Is the unit in a Detachment that grants Troops the ObSec Rule? No? Then no ObSec. Yes? OK so ..

How do Troops capture objectives? Do they have ObSec? Yes? OH, well ...

Then they claim them like units that have ObSec. You can't very well claim as if you're a troop if you don't claim as if you're a troop. The rule is almost tautologically clear.

IIRC, The IBook version of Unyielding Anvil says nothing about claiming as if they were troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, it's not correct to assume that all Troops automatically have OS. There are numerous instances in the game where Troops units do not have the rule. To say something scores like Troops is not in and of itself conference of the OS special rule.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
IIRC, The IBook version of Unyielding Anvil says nothing about claiming as if they were troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, it's not correct to assume that all Troops automatically have OS. There are numerous instances in the game where Troops units do not have the rule. To say something scores like Troops is not in and of itself conference of the OS special rule.

This is a permissive rule set. If it says you can do something you can do it unless it says that you can't. If it tells you that Troop are Objective Secured then they are unless there is a rule that says they can't.

Hey everyone,

Ah yes, the post FAQ update blues.

First of, you all are welcome for the thankless, hard work that goes into producing an FAQ by a large number of people that put hours of their free time into this for everyone's mutual benefit. 4 hours on a conference call into the wee hours of the night on our free time is as crappy as it sounds.

I understand that not everyone likes all the rulings, they never do. I DON'T LIKE ALL OF THE RULINGS! But, in the name of trying to make all the various events as close to one another as possible, we have to compromise as different TOs from different regions read the rules differently and have STRONG opinions as to how things should be done. We don't all get it all our way.

We used the ATC and NOVA FAQs to help guide our decisions and while their are some divergent rules calls, you will see that the various documents are 90% the same, if not more.

As a few of you have noted, there is a discrepancy between the print and digital versions of rules. They often have contradictory rulings FOR THE SAME UNITS. It makes things rather complex. You can tell some of the other FAQs were going off of either the print or digital editions of the rules.

So try not to react to this emotionally, which is hard I know, and try to understand that a lot of rulings are made because of not just how they interpret that one rule, but also because of the ripple effect one ruling will have on other rulings in other books. It is a LOT more complex than it at first appears.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
IIRC, The IBook version of Unyielding Anvil says nothing about claiming as if they were troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, it's not correct to assume that all Troops automatically have OS. There are numerous instances in the game where Troops units do not have the rule. To say something scores like Troops is not in and of itself conference of the OS special rule.

This is a permissive rule set. If it says you can do something you can do it unless it says that you can't. If it tells you that Troop are Objective Secured then they are unless there is a rule that says they can't.

That's beside the point. The most recent version of the rules, the IBook, say nothing about scoring as Troops.

GW screwed the pooch on this one because there are TONS of differences between the IBooks and the printed codices. Most of the erratas that they dropped between editions didn't get removed from the IBooks. Again, IIRC, another good example is the DA power field generator. They took away the errata that said it doesn't work from inside tanks but the IBooks still have the errated language.

But back to your point, the rules DO NOT say Troops always have OS. OS is a Command Benefit for certain Detachments. So at the very minimum you need to add in a writer to the effect of if the unit was in a Detachment with the OS Command Benefit, etc. To blanket say that Troops get OS, or something that scores like Troops gets OS is incorrect.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
For an FAQ who is asking some of these questions?


Unyielding Anvil
Page 22 of the Grey Knight Codex: The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.
40K Rulebook page 123: Objective Secured: All Troops units from the Detachment have the Objective Secured special Rule.

It seems pretty clear to me.

BAO FAQ: The Unyielding Anvil option of the Grand Strategy special rule never grants the Objective Secured special rule.

Erm, it doesn't say Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives. It says "Nominated Unit may Claim Objectives AS IF THEY WERE TROOPS."

Is the unit in a Detachment that grants Troops the ObSec Rule? No? Then no ObSec. Yes? OK so ..

How do Troops capture objectives? Do they have ObSec? Yes? OH, well ...

Then they claim them like units that have ObSec. You can't very well claim as if you're a troop if you don't claim as if you're a troop. The rule is almost tautologically clear.

Maybe I am just being obtuse, or maybe I should have taken that logic elective in college. To me it seems like if your Troops have Objective Secured, and if you have a unit that claims objectives as if they were Troops, then they would claim them as if they were Objective Secured.

The Grey Knight codex is a 5th edition codex and the Objective Secured rule is a 7th edition concept so of course there has to be some connecting of the dots. You can't go too far in parsing each word and use some common sense to discern what it should mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:



That's beside the point. The most recent version of the rules, the IBook, say nothing about scoring as Troops.

Can you quote the iBook rule? That might clear up some of the issues.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Maybe I am just being obtuse

You're not. It's a question of whether you go with the digital or printed version when they conflict, as they do in this case. There's no right answer, there are good and bad sides to both. In this case the digital was used.

And I harp on the language around OS and Command Benefits only because it has implications for other rulings in the FAQ. If you do assume that all Troops get OS some of the other rulings don't make sense. But because OS is tied to a Detachment, not just being a Troop, there are other instances where people might think they get OS but the ruling in the document is that they don't.

I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.

Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.

So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.

In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.

 whigwam wrote:
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful.

#1. It can only be placed on D3 units.
#2. It can only be placed on Infantry, Jump Infantry, and Walkers.

Pardon my exaggeration. Point remains the same.

Reece,

My guess is MVBrandt, you and ... Hulksmash? Others?

Thank you for your efforts on the FAQ. I am sleeping better for it.


CU Saturday.

-Casey

I have zero to do with anything. I just yell a lot online

Is there a ruling about superheavy walkers/gargantutan creatures moving on cover ? (I was hoping for some precedence to be taken for our games here)

From the ETC FAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.

Reece totally dropped the ball on the FAQ...he missed the following question:

"Q: What is the air speed velocity of a swallow?
A: that depends, is it an Afrcan or European swallow?"

 mortetvie wrote:
Reece totally dropped the ball on the FAQ...he missed the following question:

"Q: What is the air speed velocity of a swallow?
A: that depends, is it an Afrcan or European swallow?"

HAHAHAHHAHA good one Arthur

 mortetvie wrote:
Reece totally dropped the ball on the FAQ...he missed the following question:

"Q: What is the air speed velocity of a swallow?
A: that depends, is it an Afrcan or European swallow?"

Fail, man. If you're gonna go for Cred-establishing Nerd trivia, you gotta get it right. "What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

Tch, tch.

I wasn't making a Monty python reference. It was a perfectly legitimate scientific inquiry.

Anyone who bought the Stormclaw box want to trade their Space Wolves for my Orks at the BAO?