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.

 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?

Coteaz doesn't have that rule anymore, 99% sure. They removed it in the last Codex: Inquisition update.

Indeed, there is no such rule any longer

gungo wrote:

 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.

I'd say both sides were pretty insufferable at times.

To be honest I really don't care if the FAQ says I'm wrong or right about it. I've never fielded a list where the whole IC+Formation thing was an issue, if there's an official answer to that I'll just adhere to that one and that's that. Same goes for all the other open questions, e.g. Scatter / Prefered Enemy and so on. Just give us a clear ruling, that's all I've ever wanted.

Indeed - fro scatter and PE all that was needded was to repeat the examples of an "abiilty" from Gets Hot. That would have stymied many attempted arguments,

I asked about IC librarians and brotherhood of pyschers -- the whole "how many warp charges debate"

I read through nearly 1000 comments and didnt see it.. (there were 3k at the time)... so I also apologized lol.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The biggest issue.. They need an active rep to be reading through all these comments and deleting all the ones that: Don't follow the instructions, and are not questions.

Tey started off monitoring. I'm not sure they realised how many resposnes there would be...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tey started off monitoring. I'm not sure they realised how many resposnes there would be...

It definitely escalated quickly. As most have stated already, I hope that they don't run away scared by all this.

The bigger question that me and my local group have is.... will this cause a massive FAQ / errata or .. will they realize their are some core faults and write an 8th ed. instead ?

 Grizzyzz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tey started off monitoring. I'm not sure they realised how many resposnes there would be...

It definitely escalated quickly. As most have stated already, I hope that they don't run away scared by all this.

The bigger question that me and my local group have is.... will this cause a massive FAQ / errata or .. will they realize their are some core faults and write an 8th ed. instead ?

They should be working on 8th anyway. That said whatever they write from now on needs to pass through a competent editorial process - which alsoincludescontinual fact checking through an editions lifecycle with regards to codex and new unit rules interactions.

OK a rough cut stripping out what I can easily

here are the first 1600 in a text file

it doesn't contain anything after the "show more" but should give a reasonable list.

Can you deepstrike a monolith, and then use the eternity gate?
It feels like that ruling keeps changing.

If a Skimmer Deepstrikes and scatters over enemy/friendly models, does it mishap OR does the "if forced to move over models" clause reduce the scatter to prevent the Skimmer from landing on (or 1'' of) the enemy/friendly models?

Has that been asked?

It's been asked.

Also answer known, as mishap happens before the move has ended, so it mishaps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also answer known, as mishap happens before the move has ended, so it mishaps.

The issue is because nothing I am aware of in the core rules can "force" a Skimmer to involuntarily move, so the implication is that it applies to Deep Strike. So I am glad it was asked already. I would love for GW to errata that to apply to the only logical time it would matter (or just to ignore the clause entirely)

--

gungo wrote:

 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.

So you expect it to go nowhere?

Or where you inferring the same 5 guys all said an answer you didn't like?

Which oddly enough, for some the reason they offer the same points in every thread is because nothing has actually changed. Why would a different point be brought up?

Mine will always be about Psychic units:
Is a psychic unit in the Psychic phase rules referring to the unit entry on a datasheet, or the tabletop unit?

 Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

 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.

So you expect it to go nowhere?

Or where you inferring the same 5 guys all said an answer you didn't like?

Which oddly enough, for some the reason they offer the same points in every thread is because nothing has actually changed. Why would a different point be brought up?

no my point was the same 5 guys hijack every thread that remotely had anything to do with IC and formation just to continue thier argument until that thread was locked. Then they look for the next thread to hijack and rinse and repeat. I'm not saying I agreed with you or others but I certainly didn't jump into every thread that remotely had any discussion that touched upon it. There were enough people who agreed with my view I never needed too. Buy it was obvious a few individuals felt the need to force thier view on anyone who would engage them. Over and over. There is a reason why IC and formations were a running joke on this forum. Maybe you were on the wrong end of the joke and couldn't see it. But there were plenty of people who claimed oh no not this again every time you hi jacked a thread. It's funny how defensive you got knowing Who I was talking about even though. I never stated my point of view in this thread or which individuals I was talking about but you automatically got defensive. That alone should prove my point.

gungo wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

 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.

So you expect it to go nowhere?

Or where you inferring the same 5 guys all said an answer you didn't like?

Which oddly enough, for some the reason they offer the same points in every thread is because nothing has actually changed. Why would a different point be brought up?

no my point was the same 5 guys hijack every thread that remotely had anything to do with IC and formation just to continue thier argument until that thread was locked. Then they look for the next thread to hijack and rinse and repeat. I'm not saying I agreed with you or others but I certainly didn't jump into every thread that remotely had any discussion that touched upon it. There were enough people who agreed with my view I never needed too. Buy it was obvious a few individuals felt the need to force thier view on anyone who would engage them. Over and over. There is a reason why IC and formations were a running joke on this forum. Maybe you were on the wrong end of the joke and couldn't see it. But there were plenty of people who claimed oh no not this again every time you hi jacked a thread. It's funny how defensive you got knowing Who I was talking about even though. I never stated my point of view in this thread or which individuals I was talking about but you automatically got defensive. That alone should prove my point.

Who is being defensive?

I was merely pointing out that there are people who bring up the same points on both sides, so there was no way this could be fulfilled that you will "be happy to see it go anyway but obviously hoping it goes against these people because they were insufferable on these forums."

And there has been one person who always intrudes on several forums just to yell at the same people for bringing up the same points, sometimes before an opposing thought is presented,. I was trying to remember if that was you or not. Could you be the one who is defensive, then?

As to hijacking a thread, I do not recall doing so, personally. I may post a lot in them, but that is not the same thing. I do not take them hostage nor override the OP. If you don't like those threads, don't visit them.

It's a bit to late for you to play coy, lol, but nice try.

And I have no idea which person you're implying about if such a person even exists but I've only responded a handful of times on the topic there were plenty of people who engaged In your constant debate to be heard but it's cute you are trying to flip the target.

Try harder next time... In the end it doesn't matter which way GW rules this topic I am quite certain you will still be here arguing regardless.

Is it ironic that you guys are arguing about people hijacking threads in this thread about FAQs, which has nothing to do with people hijacking threads, or is it just dumb?

Insert meme about hey dawg, I heard that you like hijacking threads...

Any interesting tidbits from faq request posters? I kinda stopped reading when people started making requests for miniatures to come back or changing units to something else...not really faq questions.

gungo wrote:It's a bit to late for you to play coy, lol, but nice try.

And I have no idea which person you're implying about if such a person even exists but I've only responded a handful of times on the topic there were plenty of people who engaged In your constant debate to be heard but it's cute you are trying to flip the target.

Try harder next time... In the end it doesn't matter which way GW rules this topic I am quite certain you will still be here arguing regardless.

Ah, so you are one so filled with malice you just assume everyone else's actions is based on malice, hidden or explicit. That explains much. To put it bluntly, in most cases, I really do not care enough, but I do care when I get misrepresented and I do not care for liars.

If you honestly do not know who that is then it isn't you. I have seen that person pop in to a thread just to complain about the same people saying the same thing and apparently very offended by it. They offer no content and just try to bully others in to shutting up. I have seen this here, Warseer, and Bolter and Chainsword. They may have shown up to do that on Bell of Lost Souls, too, but I cannot recall. It has been a while since I seen someone make that post, admittedly.

Honestly, I found your original post regarding this train of thought rather belligerent and more intended to hijack this thread than anything I may have posted in one of those IC vs Special Rules debates. I do know that you were meaning me as one of the five, and I was not discounting that (now nor earlier). It is one of the reasons I tried to respond with levity at first, i.e. the fact that nothing was done, to indicate that there is more than one side of this debate who could have been insufferable. If both were dissatisfied, than that would require both sides to be wrong. An interesting take on such a concept and I would find it very fascinating to discover how that would be accomplished. Would you rather I considered it an indirect attack at me personally?

Elric Greywolf wrote:Is it ironic that you guys are arguing about people hijacking threads in this thread about FAQs, which has nothing to do with people hijacking threads, or is it just dumb?

I find it ironic, yes, even while participating in it. Thank you for trying to bring some levity in this thought train.

I do hope we get some positive results from this. Many of those questions were ridiculous, and some have no place in an FAQ (though some were directed at getting a good errata going for the Marines left behind, and those are presented in the same documents).

RULE #2 is STAY ON TOPIC.

On topic - here is a spread sheet with the first 1950 responses. If you put in a word in cell A1 eg "wraith" column A will show whether or not the text includes that word. It could be handy for those who still want to ask something

Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

That is exactly the debate, whether it does that or not.

Fragile wrote:

That is exactly the debate, whether it does that or not.

Ha! Fair enough, I guess my local group has just assumed the way I explained and was ignorant otherwise

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Anyone ask about Superheavy targeting sequence? One at a time or all at once?

Maybe it is different for SHV... but i was under the impression that a unit (split fire, target locks, GMCs etc) need to select all their targets before resolving the shooting attacks.

^ preventing the player from saying.. ok this gun didnt kill that unit.. so i am going to use the next gun.. etc

Split Fire is a bit different. The single model's sequencing is completed and the rest of the unit's target is afterward. It is the only one that actually spells it out.

I have a quick question. When assulting does the initial charger need to get into base contact? or just within 1 inch? It maybe be stupid but the rule book doesn't give certain clarification from what i can find. Thanks.

Explicitly covered, page 46, move initial charger.