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.
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???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Cheers!
You are blatently ignoring this line I highlighted for you. If arriving from reserves count as deployment, and you are not allowed to deploy inside a BB transport, then you cannot arrive from reserve embarked on a BB transport. It's very clear.
chaosmarauder wrote: Couple things I really like with this FAQ: (or find interesting) -MCs get 'toe in cover' but FMCs dont - this is interesting, could make summoning a daemon prince with no wings more worth it if you need to put him in cover. Also LOVE that GMCs don't get toe in cover anymore.
I like this change.. I question the FMC portion. Maybe no toe in cover if he is swooping? I mean if the guy is on the ground (and a normal MC can get cover) why couldn't he?
-a single jump pack IC can give a whole unit reroll on the charge? - this is interesting...surprised noone is talking about this (gonna try this in my Daemonkin army) Jumpack Lord with Axe of Korlath
I asked for clarification on their page.. this makes no sense at all to me.
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???
So I think everyone is freaking out ... HOWEVER... my group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our arguement.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment? A: No.
On another page...
Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’? A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.
Note the bold.. and refrence back to the BB rule. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise deploy units in shared tranports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if coming from reserves.
Cheers!
You are blatently ignoring this line I highlighted for you. If arriving from reserves count as deployment, and you are not allowed to deploy inside a BB transport, then you cannot arrive from reserve embarked on a BB transport. It's very clear.
Actually that red highlight is not under "Deployment" it is under "Deploy" which is it's own thing..
Its like "eating" it happens at "lunch" and "dinner" but it itself is not "lunch" nor "dinner" => "Deploy" happens during "Deployment" and "Reserves and so on", but it itself is neither those things.
*EDIT* to clarify as I don't want to get in an argument, I agree with points made here that I am actually wrong..
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/05/05 15:10:53
@grizz-You are arguing tenses of the same thing though. Which I think is a stretch at best. Your basically arguing over timing. Both are deployments, but you are suggesting that because one tense is used at the start and another later, that they must different stipulations.
Edit: Either way the best route here is asking for further clarification. I am 99% sure what the intent and outcome will be however.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 15:14:29
Kap'n Krump wrote: Call this wishful thinking, at the extreme, but.......
Are melta bombs grenades? They aren't called grenades, though they are in the grenade section of the book.
A few pages back. They're in the grenade section. They're grenades, IMHO, HIWPI, YMMV, OMG, BBQ.
I think looking at the grenade listings is instructive, though. Note that those listings use consistent "throw a grenade" language only under the SHOOTING headers. There is no reference to "throwing" under the ASSAULTS headers. It seems fairly clear that "throwing" is a shooting action based on the individual grenade listings.
But I guess we'll see the final ruling in a week or so.
Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
Thought of the day - you know they aren't lawyers writing these rules right? There is a reason that legal documents are written the way they are. They have to be horribly long and detailed aka 'lawyer speak' to actually be ironclad. There is a way to think yourself around every rule especially with how complicated 40k is. I think some of us need to not look too far into a rule sometimes and just see it for what it is. Because none of us want the BRB to be rewritten by a lawyer to make it 'ironclad'.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
commander dante wrote: The Debate over relics rages on
Does it mean 1 relic in total?
or 1 relic of each type? (weapon, armour, misc)
A necron overlord on a Barge with Solar Thermasite, Nightmare Shroud and Edge of Eternity is always fun to use
well its clear enough at present - question is do the 7.5 / Power Codexes yet again get an exception................not according to the FAQ
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 16:02:12
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
But how could they possibly intend for models to purchase wargear that was mathematically impossible for them to ever use?
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
But how could they possibly intend for models to purchase wargear that was mathematically impossible for them to ever use?
Ask them haha, they're the ones saying that's what they meant. But that question is part of why nobody thought it worked the way they're now saying it does.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 17:15:47
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
I don't really get all the fuss. BRB says very specifically that only one grenade can be thrown by a unit per phase. Personally, I have always though that it's a dumb rule for all sorts of reasons (why is it a 10 man squad can throw twice as many grenades if you split the squad into two 5's? Why can't a commander throw his own grenade if he ponies up? If 5 people have 5 grenades, why can't 4 of them huck theirs?) -- but it's not like this is new.
Im stunned people actually played the grenade rule differently then in the BRB. I agree it doesn't make sense though.
So glad they clarified the drop pods. I don't know how anyone would of played it differently. I thought it said you could only embark on BB transports at the start of the game anyway. All in all a good faq.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
I don't really get all the fuss. BRB says very specifically that only one grenade can be thrown by a unit per phase. Personally, I have always though that it's a dumb rule for all sorts of reasons (why is it a 10 man squad can throw twice as many grenades if you split the squad into two 5's? Why can't a commander throw his own grenade if he ponies up? If 5 people have 5 grenades, why can't 4 of them huck theirs?) -- but it's not like this is new.
Have you seen how to throw a grenade? Imagine trying to do that without covering fire to keep the enemy's heads down while you're winding you for the throw
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, no. The rules may be ambiguous, but the draft FAQ is not. It simply says one grenade per unit per phase - and it specifically includes assault in that. So, one grenade in assault.
But that makes it a rules change and not something that's been RAW all along as some have said. In fact, the second sentence in that answer doesn't support the first sentence. Throwing is clearly a shooting phase action based on the language in the grenade profiles.
Actually it makes it RAI, clarifying RAW where RAW was not worded to mean what they intended. Not a rules change, a clarification of what they meant it to be.
I realize assault phase makes people think it's all melee, but no matter when you use a frag grenade, you're throwing it. You're not pulling the pin and punching a guy with it. Yes the rules as written seem like throwing was just meant to be a shooting phase thing, but the intended meaning makes sense.
And this isn't like a "how dumb are people for believing we could use all the grenades in assault," because we all thought that. I'm just saying now that it's clarified it makes sense, and it makes sense that's how they intended it, even if that's not how they wrote it.
But how could they possibly intend for models to purchase wargear that was mathematically impossible for them to ever use?
Because they didn't. This is either an intentional rules change (my bet) or the FAQ team getting spun around on a line that didn't really apply. The fact remains that the word "throwing" is only used in one context (and consistently so) in the grenade profiles -- shooting attacks. And if we're going to create fluff around what's "really happening" during an assault, then where does that leave melta bombs?
The likely reason that "per Shooting Phase" became "per phase" in the transition from 6th to 7th was to account for the possibility of using grenades as overwatch shooting.
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.
Specific trumps general. If they say "a single model can only hit one unit at a time, except SHVs", then it's clear that it's supposed to be able to charge multiple targets by itself.
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.
Because Knights and other SHVs were never brought, constantly citing "those darn Tankbustas and Tacticals killing them all the time with grenades in assault, why even bother"
~4100
~1660
(building)
This is either an intentional rules change (my bet) or the 
