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.

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it. It only see:

Allies wrote:
You can include models from any number of different Factions in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other.

Levels of Alliance wrote:
To represent this, we have several categories of alliance, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army.

The allies rules seem, based on what I quoted, to only refer to how different Factions interact, not multiple detachments of the same Faction.

Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?
A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.

So... if a unit is inside of a transport, and it doesn't interact with anything on the battlefield, does that mean that units inside of transports can't control objectives? Particularly in regards to obj sec units inside non-obj sec transports? This question has come up several times in YMDC, and has been pretty much been beaten into the ground. Yes, I realize the question above isn't talking about objectives, but the answer is very general and could be interpreted in different ways.

I feel like a guardsman, who, after a long siege of Tyranids can finally at least see the last wave of bugs.

Hallelujah! 40k might just turn into a clean game after all.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it.

Seriously? Look at the Allies chart and cross reference the same faction with the same faction. What symbol do you see and what does it mean?

 pretre wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

No more Drop pod fun then???

That's HUGE

This made my War Convo really sad

This made everyone sad. Sharing transports was VERY common.

Doesn't make me sad.

From a purely narrative aspect, the Drop Pods were always supposed to be a Space Marine thing. it's like boarding torpedoes. A method of troop insertion so violent and so insane you'd have to be crazy (and biologically engineered) to do it.

Having other factions suddenly hijacking Space Marine drop pods was silly.

Feel bad for the people who bought the models they can't use, but they were always breaking the game immersion by exploiting a rule oversight. That said, maybe there will be some cheap drop pods on Ebay soon. Always an upside to everything.

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it.

Seriously? Look at the Allies chart and cross reference the same faction with the same faction. What symbol do you see and what does it mean?

It means nothing (except in the case of Forces of the Imperium where the symbol is shorthand for several different factions) because it only tells you how different Factions interact, as the preceding paragraphs state.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Doesn't make me sad.

From a purely narrative aspect, the Drop Pods were always supposed to be a Space Marine thing. it's like boarding torpedoes. A method of troop insertion so violent and so insane you'd have to be crazy (and biologically engineered) to do it.

Having other factions suddenly hijacking Space Marine drop pods was silly.

Feel bad for the people who bought the models they can't use, but they were always breaking the game immersion by exploiting a rule oversight. That said, maybe there will be some cheap drop pods on Ebay soon. Always an upside to everything.

Except there were rules for it in previous editions. Sisters used to have drop pods and I'm sure there are other examples.

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it.

Seriously? Look at the Allies chart and cross reference the same faction with the same faction. What symbol do you see and what does it mean?

But same-faction detachments aren't allies to begin with. You're over-reading the intent of the chart. The allies chart works like that for the instances where the same book can have multiple factions in it (Space Marines, Eldar, Tau, etc) through their supplements or Successor rules.

Well thats my dark eldar screwed. Av10 open topped wasnt enough now i cant even shoot straight. Otherwise not a bad collection.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it.

Seriously? Look at the Allies chart and cross reference the same faction with the same faction. What symbol do you see and what does it mean?

It means nothing (except in the case of Forces of the Imperium where the symbol is shorthand for several different factions) because it only tells you how different Factions interact, as the preceding paragraphs state.

So you just hand-wave away something that proves you're wrong. Yeah, I think we're done here.

 Cleatus wrote:

Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?
A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.

So... if a unit is inside of a transport, and it doesn't interact with anything on the battlefield, does that mean that units inside of transports can't control objectives? Particularly in regards to obj sec units inside non-obj sec transports? This question has come up several times in YMDC, and has been pretty much been beaten into the ground. Yes, I realize the question above isn't talking about objectives, but the answer is very general and could be interpreted in different ways.

Go to the facebook page and ask them (on the relivent image).

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it.

Seriously? Look at the Allies chart and cross reference the same faction with the same faction. What symbol do you see and what does it mean?

It means nothing (except in the case of Forces of the Imperium where the symbol is shorthand for several different factions) because it only tells you how different Factions interact, as the preceding paragraphs state.

So you just hand-wave away something that proves you're wrong. Yeah, I think we're done here.

I quoted from the rules that said it only applies to how different Factions in the army work. I'm not handwaving, I literally quoted two paragraphs from the book.

I'm very happy with the majority of these changes. It seems repeatedly across the FAQ, they sided with the ruling that reduced the power-level of rules combinations (e.g., no formation benefits for IC's), went with the more restrictive ruling (e.g., can only cast number of powers equal to mastery level), or added additional penalties to exisiting abilities (e.g., jinking forces passengers to snap shot). I think this is good for the health of the game, where the ridiculous combinatorics of their release schedule has forced the power creep to insane levels.

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Pythius Primus wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

You're confused. Same faction detachments aren't battle brothers, they're the same faction.

The Allies chart (pg 126, main rulebook) disagrees with you.

I'm looking for it, but I don't see it.

Seriously? Look at the Allies chart and cross reference the same faction with the same faction. What symbol do you see and what does it mean?

It means nothing (except in the case of Forces of the Imperium where the symbol is shorthand for several different factions) because it only tells you how different Factions interact, as the preceding paragraphs state.

So you just hand-wave away something that proves you're wrong. Yeah, I think we're done here.

I quoted from the rules that said it only applies to how different Factions in the army work. I'm not handwaving, I literally quoted two paragraphs from the book.

Lol, #denial

And I quoted where it says their Battle Brothers and you chose to ignore it. Case closed.

FMCs cannot vector strike if they jinked... that's nice!

 Ghaz wrote:
And I quoted where it says their Battle Brothers and you chose to ignore it. Case closed.

I respectfully disagree based on my reading of the text preceding the allies matrix, which I quoted above, but I concede the point to you.

The BB transport change is the best of them all. Was dumb to beginwith.

 Ghaz wrote:
And I quoted where it says their Battle Brothers and you chose to ignore it. Case closed.

Instead of being snotty, why not submit this as an FAQ question.

it's painfully obvious that your point is based entirely on how you interpret a picture, and not based on language from the book. The picture is worth a thousand words. Ask them for a few words so you can figure out which thousand they are.

 Vankraken wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

No more Drop pod fun then???

That's HUGE

This made my War Convo really sad

This made everyone sad. Sharing transports was VERY common.

Not only that but every vehicle formation like the land raider formation or blitz brigade formation can't have passengers inside on turn 1 because same faction detachments are battle brothers with each other. I hope I'm wrong on this because if not GW made a horrible rules decision.

ASK about it, it's a draft, they may not have thought about that specific case.

 pretre wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Doesn't make me sad.

From a purely narrative aspect, the Drop Pods were always supposed to be a Space Marine thing. it's like boarding torpedoes. A method of troop insertion so violent and so insane you'd have to be crazy (and biologically engineered) to do it.

Having other factions suddenly hijacking Space Marine drop pods was silly.

Bit like all those brand new and stupid looking Space Marine flyers and Centurions and.........now that WAS silly.

Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Also, Thank you! I hate that gak!

If all of these dreams and wishes come true, and we actually get to play 2016 style 40k - do we need another 7.5 update?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And I quoted where it says their Battle Brothers and you chose to ignore it. Case closed.

Instead of being snotty, why not submit this as an FAQ question.

it's painfully obvious that your point is based entirely on how you interpret a picture, and not based on language from the book. The picture is worth a thousand words. Ask them for a few words so you can figure out which thousand they are.

First of all, I wasn't being 'snotty' thank you. He is clearly ignoring where it states they are Battle Brothers and I'm not going to drag this thread off topic. Hence 'case closed'. If he wants to open a thread in the appropriate forum, he's more than welcome to. Secondly, I have already posted asking for a clarification on GW's Facebook page.

 kronk wrote:

Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Also, Thank you! I hate that gak!

Agreed. But this means if your vehicle does ANY pivoting, it cannot move it's full movement, as measured from center to center, unless it pivots twice and these cancel each other out.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:
Wonder what the codexes(?) will look like.

Codex Chaos Space Marines: just stop playing guys, we're sorry, but you suck too much at this point to be fixed!

HA! Maybe we'll be surprised yet.
@angelofveng - They are indeed due. Saw them so often at codex release then shifted to bikes and sadly don't see them often.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
My group has been playing the grenade rules wrong this whole time then- this is great news for me because it increases the survivability of MC's and walkers by quite a bit.

Like, an armored sentinel goes from getting destroyed by a 10-man marine squad in two turns to tarpitting them for the entire game, statistically.

You weren't playing it wrong until just now. It's a very clear rules change.

 kronk wrote:

Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Also, Thank you! I hate that gak!

This means that a rhino doing a 180 before it moves has already moved 4 inches or so before it even moves... While I get that people dislike the 'pivot trick' that has been a part of the rules since 3rd edition, I'm not sure that this is a best solution for it.



In other news, 'Within' only means 'completely within' if it explicitly says so... but the void shield only applies to units completely within range, because... reasons, or something.


They've only indirectly clarified the 'psyker unit' issue, by pointing out that a ML2 and a ML1 character in the same unit generate 3 Warp Charges... a clearer response on that issue would have been nice.


And they've clarified that, no, really, Shrike can't join non-infiltrating units during deployment, the scallywag!



There's a lot of good in there, but also the usual scattering of questions that really didn't need to be answered (a pistol and a CCW grants 1 bonus attack? Say it isn't so!) and rulings seemingly made off the cuff without actually looking at the rules - If you're going to deliberately change a rule in an FAQ, it's best to be really clear that this is what you are doing, to avoid creating further confusion.

Left a FB post in the appropriate image asking for them to decide one way or another for the colossal keyword. Either the Bloodthirster's way or the Kinght's way. Not hamstringing the 'thirster and benefitting the knight. One or the other. Not two different ways. Other than that...quite satisfied overall.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Doesn't make me sad.

From a purely narrative aspect, the Drop Pods were always supposed to be a Space Marine thing. it's like boarding torpedoes. A method of troop insertion so violent and so insane you'd have to be crazy (and biologically engineered) to do it.

Having other factions suddenly hijacking Space Marine drop pods was silly.

Bit like all those brand new and stupid looking Space Marine flyers and Centurions and.........now that WAS silly.

I was one of the first people to express my profound and undying hatred of Centurions, and I've never been a fan of the Stormchicken or Stormturkey.

Games Workshop has had a lot of misses in the last four or five years. The drop pod fix just happens to be one of the hits.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
My group has been playing the grenade rules wrong this whole time then- this is great news for me because it increases the survivability of MC's and walkers by quite a bit.

Like, an armored sentinel goes from getting destroyed by a 10-man marine squad in two turns to tarpitting them for the entire game, statistically.

You weren't playing it wrong until just now. It's a very clear rules change.

Really? BRB looks like it says one grenade per unit per phase.