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.

My poor Dark Eldar... I see no way for them to survive at this point. The whole lore is about lightning quick strikes and they can't shoot better than a jinking ork. It hurts so bad. This pretty much makes turn 1 a disaster unless I go first or deep strike all my raiders. Otherwise the opponent can just shoot at each individually and force a jink.

Folks can be in denial about the flyer supplement being optional for a while, but it states it replaces the rules for flyers.

Its rules will most likely be included in the updated rulebook, you'll see then if not before.

If a character is in a unit, can he use a grenade in assault in addition to a soldier from the unit?

 triplegrim wrote:
If a character is in a unit, can he use a grenade in assault in addition to a soldier from the unit?

No, because the Character becomes part of the unit.

 TedNugent wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Another yay!



This means my Knights can once more charge into squads of Fire Warriors without having to worry about being nuked by the little witches!

Actually, that's huge for regular walkers. You would no longer have to worry about getting blowed up by Krak grenades from regular Tacticool dudes.

aaaand ork tankbustas just became that much worse. thanks gw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilson 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

Ah SH....

I couldnt help but notice you play admech. I am also hopeing for our own dedicated transports in the future.

An army of buildings???
What the heck?

Trasvi wrote:

You cannot charge a second target unless the model cannot make it in to BTB with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target. The initial charger must move the closest distance to the primary target - if he can't reach the charge fails.
Therefore its impossible to be able to contact a secondary target with the initial charger.

Why is it impossible to move an Imperial Knight, for example, in base contact with the primary target so that the base also touches another unit?

It's not impossible at all.

 Imateria wrote:
I think the Hemlock Wraithfighter might have just become the best anti-flyer in the game, Strength D blasts can now be fired at other flyers with Skyfire (so long as your not using Death from the Skies, a supplement I expect to never see getting used).

Oh God I just saw that, you combine that with Psychic Screech not having to roll to hit, they suddenly got terrifying

 Imateria wrote:
I think the Hemlock Wraithfighter might have just become the best anti-flyer in the game, Strength D blasts can now be fired at other flyers with Skyfire (so long as your not using Death from the Skies, a supplement I expect to never see getting used).

And this is why GW's FAQs should be ignored when they are obviously stupid and contradict RAW.

 Runic wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

You cannot charge a second target unless the model cannot make it in to BTB with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target. The initial charger must move the closest distance to the primary target - if he can't reach the charge fails.
Therefore its impossible to be able to contact a secondary target with the initial charger.

Why is it impossible to move an Imperial Knight, for example, in base contact with the primary target so that the base also touches another unit?

It's not impossible at all.

The rules (in the rulebook, notwithstanding the FAQ) specifically prohibit it.

Rulebook wrote:...find the initial charger for the primary assault (the model in the charging unit closest to the primary target) and attempt to move it into base contact with the primary target, just as you would against a single target. If his charge fails, the charging unit doesn’t move at all.
...a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.

He MUST move in to btb with the closest enemy model in the primary target.
If he can move in to BTB with the closest model in the primary target, he's prohibited from moving in to BTB with a model in the secondary target.
If he can't move in to BTB with the closest enemy model, the charge fails.

Its possible to orient long bases so that you can contact multiple units... but it's prohibited.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Why do people keep saying a supplement which states it replaces actual rules as optional?

Uh, if people don't actually buy the book, then how exactly does it become rules? I don't know anyone in my group buying it, so we'll keep playing as we are now. We miss out on any flyer updates, but thems the breaks.

The same as if you all use the 5th or 6th edition rules or older Codexes - if its agreed with friends or as a club rule................

Trasvi wrote:
a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.

That would mean however, that it's allowed to move into base contact with a secondary target, if the primary target is engaged and has no unengaged models;

"unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target."

So say unit A is engaged, and unit B is not. They're really close to eachother. You roll enough charge distance to reach either. Your Imperial Knight is now allowed to multicharge, if A is his primary target, since he cannot possibly move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target, since that unit is engaged completely.

The prequisite of being unable to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target is therefore met, and the basecontact with a secondary target hence allowed according to that rule.

 MrFlutterPie wrote:
I think the grenade thing could be good as it ups vehicle and dred survivability quite a bit.

Specific units like like Tankbustas could be potentially addressed in codex to only buff certain units.

Great news. Knights and other superheavies certainly needed the buff. Tankbustas and Tactical squads needed the nerf. Gods be praised.

 TedNugent wrote:

 MrFlutterPie wrote:
I think the grenade thing could be good as it ups vehicle and dred survivability quite a bit.

Specific units like like Tankbustas could be potentially addressed in codex to only buff certain units.

Great news. Knights and other superheavies certainly needed the buff. Tankbustas and Tactical squads needed the nerf. Gods be praised.

Right, because everyone KNOWS that the game was broken, and the blame rested on the criminally overpriced Tactical Squad and Tankbustas...

Great news. Knights and other superheavies certainly needed the buff. Tankbustas and Tactical squads needed the nerf. Gods be praised.

Super odd, haven't seen Imperial Knights dominating the competitive scene after the first few months of their release years ago. Must be some new meta in dimension X.

It's not like they were mainly demolished with grenades anyway, so not a big difference. Personally on this one I'll say the good of vehicle survival outweighs the bad by a big margin.

Depends on what one wants to focus on, the negative or the positive ofcourse.

 TedNugent wrote:

 MrFlutterPie wrote:
I think the grenade thing could be good as it ups vehicle and dred survivability quite a bit.

Specific units like like Tankbustas could be potentially addressed in codex to only buff certain units.

<sarcasm>Great news. Knights and other superheavies certainly needed the buff. Tankbustas and Tactical squads needed the nerf. Gods be praised.</sarcasm>

There, fixed that for you.

 Runic wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.

That would mean however, that it's allowed to move into base contact with a secondary target, if the primary target is engaged and has no unengaged models;

"unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target."

So say unit A is engaged, and unit B is not. They're really close to eachother. You roll enough charge distance to reach either. Your Imperial Knight is now allowed to multicharge, if A is his primary target, since he cannot possibly move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target, since that unit is engaged completely.

The prequisite of being unable to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target is therefore met, and the basecontact with a secondary target hence allowed according to that rule.

That's an interesting interpretation, but
a) the FAQ applies to the situation with none of the very restrictive caveats above
b) You still need to move via the shortest path to the closest enemy model in the primary target. (which, given that pivoting a large base is counting as movement, means charging with the minimal amount of pivoting)

Given the very edge-case nature of the above, I highly doubt its the situation that GW was referring to.

 Jackal wrote:


Just glad I don't run my wych elves anymore.
Screwed is an understatement with how heavily I relied on haywire grenades back then lol.

Only the Hekatrix can take Haywire Grenades now anyway.

I guess this hits my Astra Militarum, whom I actually fielded in 6 groups of 20 with krak grenades (and meltas). On the other hand, it keeps my Leman Russes a little more safe. Not that they dont get blown off the table as it is, but I guess grenades were never ment to give 10+ attacks against WS2 rear armor in the first place.

Trasvi wrote:

 Runic wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.

That would mean however, that it's allowed to move into base contact with a secondary target, if the primary target is engaged and has no unengaged models;

"unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target."

So say unit A is engaged, and unit B is not. They're really close to eachother. You roll enough charge distance to reach either. Your Imperial Knight is now allowed to multicharge, if A is his primary target, since he cannot possibly move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target, since that unit is engaged completely.

The prequisite of being unable to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target is therefore met, and the basecontact with a secondary target hence allowed according to that rule.

That's an interesting interpretation, but
a) the FAQ applies to the situation with none of the very restrictive caveats above
b) You still need to move via the shortest path to the closest enemy model in the primary target. (which, given that pivoting a large base is counting as movement, means charging with the minimal amount of pivoting)

Given the very edge-case nature of the above, I highly doubt its the situation that GW was referring to.

Hope someone asks them to clarify in the comments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 triplegrim wrote:
I guess this hits my Astra Militarum, whom I actually fielded in 6 groups of 20 with krak grenades (and meltas). On the other hand, it keeps my Leman Russes a little more safe. Not that they dont get blown off the table as it is, but I guess grenades were never ment to give 10+ attacks against WS2 rear armor in the first place.

Vehicles are WS1 aren't they? And auto-hit if Immobilized.

Finally the malefactor becomes semi-usefull. Been dying to buy one, but it was way too gak.

Haven't seen it, but is there a ruling for the summoning of a flying monstrous creature ?

Where do you ask to clarify or modify the FAQ?
Somethings I would like to know -

1) Is the grenade ruling wrong? The reason the answer gives is that you can only throw one grenade, but you do not throw grenades in the assault phase

2) Are vehicles and MCs affected by the 25% obscured rule, like their larger cousins? If not, does that mean a vehicle or an MC can gain a cover save from just being in partial cover?

3) Not a rules query per se, but will we also be see some changes to rules and points costs? The wraithknight appears to be quite underpriced, and the vehicles are much more fragile now, as the HPs system effectively makes them MCs with no saves.

Vehicles are WS1 aren't they? And auto-hit if Immobilized.

As we played it, it was auto hit even if the vehicle didn't move. And 3+ if the vehicle moved.

I just couldn't resist, the comment made my day

"Q: Can a Fortification Scout?
A: No."


Seriously!?!?!?

 DalinCriid wrote:
"Q: Can a Fortification Scout?
A: No."


Seriously!?!?!?

Imagine if they'd said "Yes".

 CragHack wrote:

Vehicles are WS1 aren't they? And auto-hit if Immobilized.

As we played it, it was auto hit even if the vehicle didn't move. And 3+ if the vehicle moved.

I just couldn't resist, the comment made my day

Camo netting isn't a character nor a unit type. Hardly the same thing

 Runic wrote:
Folks can be in denial about the flyer supplement being optional for a while, but it states it replaces the rules for flyers.

Its rules will most likely be included in the updated rulebook, you'll see then if not before.

Even fw reply to people regarding the dfts supplement and thier flyers was if you and your opponent DECiDE to use the dfts rules basically they didn't update thier flyers in the last book but they'll pass the questions to designers.

That sounds optional to me when you can decide to use the new rules.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Where do you ask to clarify or modify the FAQ?
Somethings I would like to know -

1) Is the grenade ruling wrong? The reason the answer gives is that you can only throw one grenade, but you do not throw grenades in the assault phase

2) Are vehicles and MCs affected by the 25% obscured rule, like their larger cousins? If not, does that mean a vehicle or an MC can gain a cover save from just being in partial cover?

3) Not a rules query per se, but will we also be season some changes to rules and points costs? The wraithknight appears to be quite underpriced, and the vehicles are much more fragile now, as the HPs system effectively makes them MCs with no saves.

You apparently have to ask on Facebook... meh.

On grenades:
I think a sizable portion of the player base read the rules the same way: you don't throw grenades in the assault phase. We thought that this was a shooting attack (which it is in the Shooting phase). The following paragraph that talks about clamping grenades to buildings, vehicles, MC's, etc seemed to reinforce this idea that grenades were different in the assault phase, but in fact that was incorrect. The section was only meant to clarify that you can use grenades on buildings etc. The bold sentence after that about "A model can use such a grenade..." further muddled the issue, because we all read that as model = any model with a grenade that can be used in the assault phase, rather than 'a model can use a grenade, but no more than one per unit per phase'. If the rule didn't say "throw", and instead was worded as, 'Only one grenade (of any type) can be used by a unit per phase', that would have removed any possible ambiguity. The FAQ clarifies this point. We were reading it wrong, but it was poorly written. It should have been FAQ'd within a few months of 7th ed coming out. Instead, many people have been playing it this way for YEARS. YEARS!

I think the grenade change is good for the meta a bit. Things like dreads get ambit better. I know this screws over a handful of units. But those units tended to be the stronger units in thier codex.

Still waiting to hear the new codex rulings too.
Good stuff all around

 Gamerely wrote:
My poor Dark Eldar... I see no way for them to survive at this point. The whole lore is about lightning quick strikes and they can't shoot better than a jinking ork. It hurts so bad. This pretty much makes turn 1 a disaster unless I go first or deep strike all my raiders. Otherwise the opponent can just shoot at each individually and force a jink.

Hey, look on the bright side: Dark Eldar like it rough, and it doesnt get rougher than after this FAQ!

Well, I suppose invalidating Quantum Shielding is a slight buff against a specific army. Of course, we can also spam Darklight weapons, or Haywire/Melta with Scourges so the Grenade change doesn't affect us as much.