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.

Na control F doesn't work you can't load all 800+ replies at the same time.

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

And the trolls have started.

"What would you rather fight, one Titan-sized Squig or 100 Squig-sized Titans?"

"How does a bolter work?"

 Ravenous D wrote:
And the trolls have started.

"What would you rather fight, one Titan-sized Squig or 100 Squig-sized Titans?"

"How does a bolter work?"

Goddamn trolls, they should rather ask the really important questions like
"What would you rather fight, one Titan-sized Squat or 100 Squat-sized Titans?

 Happyjew wrote:
Ghaz, if I may make a request - since your question was already asked, would you mind changing it to something about non-slot units and formations, such as dedicated transports, or Primaris Psykers?

Sorry, but someone already tried to 'answer' my question

Another good one to ask is if you benefit from the special rules for the Harlequin's Kiss and Embrace if you're not actively using those weapons. The same goes for any of the other countless weapons that give the model a bonus or effect that occurs outside of close combat.

EDIT: Here's an idea Maybe we should accumulate all of these questions here and let Yakface or Lego submit them as a single post from the Dakka Facebook account. Just a thought...

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

Here is questions o haven't seen.
Is it meant for shrike of the Raven guards to not be able to join units because he is forced to infiltrate?
Is Sgt Chronus allowed to be a passanger on another tank. the ambiguity of Sgt. Chronus needing to be taken in an Army with a tank. It doesn't say it counts as being part of his HQ slot... but it also doesn't say that it has to be in the same detachment, OR of the same faction.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Ghaz, if I may make a request - since your question was already asked, would you mind changing it to something about non-slot units and formations, such as dedicated transports, or Primaris Psykers?

Sorry, but someone already tried to 'answer' my question

Another good one to ask is if you benefit from the special rules for the Harlequin's Kiss and Embrace if you're not actively using those weapons. The same goes for any of the other countless weapons that give the model a bonus or effect that occurs outside of close combat.

EDIT: Here's an idea Maybe we should accumulate all of these questions here and let Yakface or Lego submit them as a single post from the Dakka Facebook account. Just a thought...

That question was also asked.

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

I just checked my paper version, and it does not say ANYTHING about effecting units, it states it's a 12" bubble and that's it, so with the words I have in front of me, no the ITC ruling IS not RAW, but HIWPI. I've also checked the FAQ, which has not over ruled the wording, so this is another example of ITC changing the rules for no obvious reason.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Wow I am starting to like this whole facebook experiment.

Too bad it is going to be ruined by morons just like everything else.

I don't think it will be ruined. If anything, Games Workshop will get an earful from people who are so used to being ignored that they don't email GW anymore.

GW management obviously is involved in this, and if they are really trying to respond to the community they would have go to through the list (1000 comments after 4 hours...probably many, many thousands by the end of the week) and sort them out.

Maybe they will finally realize how much of a mess they have on their hands.

More questions to ask:

1. Destroyer weapons do not roll To Wound, so how do you allocate Destroyer hits within a unit?

2. The number of psychic powers a psyker can attempt to manifest 'depends' on its mastery level. What, if any, is the actual correlation between the two?

3. Is Overwatch treated like the Shooting Phase for all purposes (e.g. Number of weapons a model can fire, etc.)?

4. Do Formation special rules apply to Independent Characters that are attached to one of its units but are not purchased as part of the Formation?

I don't think anyone has that first one yet, cheex. The rest have been asked iirc

Chexsta, 2-4 have already been asked.

I haven't checked recently so I don't know if D hits has been asked.

To bad about half of the questions are moron who can't read whining about rules, or asking for massive rules change. Apparently now FAQ means "revert and rewrite"

I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

I just checked my paper version, and it does not say ANYTHING about effecting units, it states it's a 12" bubble and that's it, so with the words I have in front of me, no the ITC ruling IS not RAW, but HIWPI. I've also checked the FAQ, which has not over ruled the wording, so this is another example of ITC changing the rules for no obvious reason.

I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to lying but here is the excerpt. No where does it say models only target/units and this is from the most recent up to date digital codex. Take your false arguments somewhere else. This is rules faqs not about bashing ITC because you don't agree with thier RAW interpretation. I don't know what ganky stolen print out for the void shield you are using, but this is the GW official rule.
“Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault (eBook Edition).” Games Workshop Ltd, 2013-11-27. iBooks.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/gGGVT.l

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
A couple people already asked GW to address everything in the ITC FAQ.

Which is not a rules question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 goblinzz wrote:
How ITC responds will be interesting. They've already ignored some official GW FAQs (see VSG rulings...). I doubt they will actually up date their document though.

I've never seen GW faqs mention vsg? Which are you talking about?

OK, I had made a mistake there, I thought GW had FAQ'd the VSG to be a 12" bubble only, but it's actually that way in the book. For no obvious reason ITC changed it to cover the entire unit even if only part of the unit is under the bubble, so a favoured tactic of green tides under ITC was simply to daisy chain across the board, always keeping a coupl of guys under the shield.

As a person who had the rulebook on my phone. The rule states units not models. This is the one example ITC is following RAW.
If you want to complain that ITC rules the void shield as not a vehicle or building and thus none of the effects such as haywire or tankhunter or grav work on void shields you'd have more of a debate since the rules don't list what type of unit the shield is. But the unit vs model debate is clear raw even if it's dumb.

I just checked my paper version, and it does not say ANYTHING about effecting units, it states it's a 12" bubble and that's it, so with the words I have in front of me, no the ITC ruling IS not RAW, but HIWPI. I've also checked the FAQ, which has not over ruled the wording, so this is another example of ITC changing the rules for no obvious reason.

I'm not going to argue with someone who resorts to lying but here is the excerpt. No where does it say models only target/units and this is from the most recent up to date digital codex. Take your false arguments somewhere else. This is rules faqs not about bashing ITC because you don't agree with thier RAW interpretation. I don't know what ganky stolen print out for the void shield you are using, but this is the GW official rule.
“Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield. If a unit is within 12" of more than one Void Shield Generator, and so within more than one Void Shield Zone when it is hit, randomly determine which of the buildings’ projected void shields is hit.”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000: Stronghold Assault (eBook Edition).” Games Workshop Ltd, 2013-11-27. iBooks.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/gGGVT.l

OK, after this I'm dropping it, as your right, we are wandering off topic. However, I suggest since this is a public forum you keep your tone civil, and try to avoid throwing accusations that are false at people you don't know. I read the exact same sentence as you, but obviously don't read it at the same way. "Hits a target within the void shield" is from what you've quoted above. The rest of the void shield rules make it a 12" bubble. To me, the way those two rules interact is that if part of a unit is outside the VSG, they aren't protected, but the models within it are.

 Galef wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

That's easy. They belong to no detachment.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

That's easy. They belong to no detachment.

Which is the point to having a FAQ about it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:
I dont use FB nor do I intend to use it for this purpose, has anyone asked for a FAQ for Scoring units yet? Such as Inquisitor Coatez special rule, making henchmen "scoring" does that now mean ObSec?

Similar to that question: Do units that have been manifested during the course of the game (via Daemon Summoning, Tervigon Spawning Guants, etc) count as part of the detachment that they were manifested from, an thus would receive bonuses like ObSec or Daemonic Corruption?

--

That's easy. They belong to no detachment.

FAQs aren't necessarily about stuff that is unclear, it's also supposed to answer stuff that feels odd or unintentional. Like the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics - RAW they clearly never affect e.g. a Rhino, but it seems really odd regardles.

If GW answers this question by saying "oh, well we meant that those summoned units are part of their origin detachment", then that's that.

Except it's not in contention. A unit belonging to no Detavhment is simple. Trivial. It's like asking how far can an infantry model move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it's not in contention. A unit belonging to no Detavhment is simple. Trivial. It's like asking how far can an infantry model move.

So is the Iron Hands CT. It's 100% clear what is the RAW , but the FAQ allows us to ask for the RAI.

I put in a question on Quantum Shielding vs Lance precedence to try and lay that one to rest, even though I haven't seen it for a while.

gungo wrote:
Is it meant for shrike of the Raven guards to not be able to join units because he is forced to infiltrate?

Mostly reasonable, but I find that most having questions on this think "deploy" and "deployment" are synonymous.

For example, Shrike can be deployed in to and join a Scout Squad on the table during deployment, but not deployed Outflanking from Reserves with that unit.

Swampmist wrote:I don't think anyone has that first one yet, cheex. The rest have been asked iirc

Happyjew wrote:Chexsta, 2-4 have already been asked.

I haven't checked recently so I don't know if D hits has been asked.

Thanks guys, must have missed those

I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Does PE grant re-rolls on blast gets hot?
Can passengers disembark from zooming Stormraven and Valkyrie？

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

I can't wait. That's the entire reason I'm even following this occurrence.

I am kind of a jerk.

 Swampmist wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling that after these FAQs are released, YMDC will be covered by an insufferable cloud of smug from those who interpreted the rules correctly.

We shall await the coming storm with the flames borne of how fed up we are with the insufferable bs. PURGE THE SMUGNESS IN A WAVE OF FLAMING IRRITATION!

Especially regarding IC joining a unit and gaining the formation rules. My goodness it's like the same 5 guy arguing the same point on every thread that is remotely related to the topic until Each and every one of those topics get shut down. I'll be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums.

Yes, because passive aggression is not also insufferable....

PE and blasts was asked already.