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.
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.
yep, only when swooping. gliding FMCs get cover as normal
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 18:00:55
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..
Stop that right now. That is not how the internet works. You must argue your original point with blatant disregard for other people's opinions, interpretations, and feelings!
mhelm01 wrote: Stop that right now. That is not how the internet works. You must argue your original point with blatant disregard for other people's opinions, interpretations, and feelings!
Stop that right now. That is not how the internet works. You must argue your original point with blatant disregard for other people's opinions, interpretations, and feelings!
oni wrote: Seriously... This FAQ is making my head hurt.
IMO there is so mush wrong with this FAQ that it destroys its credibility. We have people liking and agreeing with certain answers. We have people vehemently disagreeing with other answers and even proving that some FAQ answers are out to lunch - myself included.
We're all arguing this steaming hot mess of a FAQ in exactly the same manner as we argue the actual rules. We're no further along then where we started without a FAQ.
WTFGW? Is this an attempt to muddy the waters so badly that we all feel compelled to purchase the new 7.5 ed. rules in August?
Relax, this is a rough draft. GW is doing exactly what they said they would.. answer the 2000+ replies as best they could in a relatively short time. Put them out for the community to hash out.. and then will take those comments and write the final rules.
I get what you're saying, but a few of the answers are horribly erroneous and if put into a final FAQ could be a bit of a catastrophe. I'm a little on edge about having core game mechanics change because of a FAQ (that will ultimately be taken as sacrosanct) that contradicts irrefutable RAW.
I cannot break through the wall of a crumbling ruin, but I can scale a 20 ft. wall to assault you on the battlements of your fortification?
Would someone please post in the FB page if they are going to reopen GW Fulchester?
No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k - DOW III
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything).
Templates in ruins are still limited by the requirement to touch the small end of the template to the firing model's base. Unless he's standing on the top floor of the ruin, that drastically limits how many different floors you can hit.
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.
Not quite. It makes it a clarification of how whoever wrote this FAQ thinks it is meant to be.
Whether that's RAI, different to RAI but how they've decided it should be played instead, or simply how that guy reads the rule without having any idea what the guy who wrote the rulebook actually intended, we have no way of knowing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 19:37:25
That said they are so amazingly good now, Maleceptor is an amazing sniper, weird boy powers are all useful, so happy
Maleceptor didn't really change. Or were you rolling to hit before?
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything).
Templates in ruins are still limited by the requirement to touch the small end of the template to the firing model's base. Unless he's standing on the top floor of the ruin, that drastically limits how many different floors you can hit.
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.
Not quite. It makes it a clarification of how whoever wrote this FAQ thinks it is meant to be.
Whether that's RAI, different to RAI but how they've decided it should be played instead, or simply how that guy reads the rule without having any idea what the guy who wrote the rulebook actually intended, we have no way of knowing.
i never seen anyone refuse to believe they where wrong so badly in my life lol. I am not wrong the guy who wrote the faq is wrong . The guy who wrote the rules thinks like me lol.
On a side note these all make perfect sence to me. I never seen anyone say everyone can punch as many gernades into people they want in assault before seems dumb. I punch someone with a gernade best I can hope for is to hurt them and blow me up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 19:52:01
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
Actually grenades shouldn't be allowed in assault at all since you would absolutely hurt your own guys - especially if everyone in the squad used one at the same time while in a hand to hand fight.
OgreChubbs wrote: i never seen anyone refuse to believe they where wrong so badly in my life lol. I am not wrong the guy who wrote the faq is wrong . The guy who wrote the rules thinks like me lol.
What on earth are you talking about?
On a side note these all make perfect sence to me. I never seen anyone say everyone can punch as many gernades into people they want in assault before seems dumb. I punch someone with a gernade best I can hope for is to hurt them and blow me up.
Nobody is suggesting that you can punch people with grenades. Grenades are only used against MCs and vehicles in assault.
on reading the BRB and the FAQ ruling, I don't think the current thought on the distance 'travelled' while pivoting counts for the "no model may move more than X inches" part of the FAQ.
Here's why, from BRB ("VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE"):
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot
even pivot on the spot).
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
There is a handful of people stubbornly holding onto thier opinion and saying the rules team, (who were the people who wrote all these books because the same rules team has been writing all the rules books together the last 8+ years.) are wrong and they changed the rule even though nearly every one of these arguments have been cited in ymdc on this board already. But these people just refuse to admit they were wrong in anyway. It's kinda sad. These are faqs not errata. They added a page with two errata that makes this separation abundantly clear. It's ok to admit your wrong. I was wrong with PE and blasts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 20:01:18
chaosmarauder wrote: Actually grenades shouldn't be allowed in assault at all since you would absolutely hurt your own guys - especially if everyone in the squad used one at the same time while in a hand to hand fight.
Marines and Sisters would drop frag granades in amongst a melee especially if the oppoent was Cultists, renegade guard etc..............its unlikely to hurt them but will kill the enemy
Orks would do it coz its a larf aint it
Imperial Guard would sacrice themselves and their comrades for the Emperor
Chaos woud because they can....
Dark Eldar would - especially if a rival was in the melee - plus they grow back so who cares
Eldar probably not
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
on reading the BRB and the FAQ ruling, I don't think the current thought on the distance 'travelled' while pivoting counts for the "no model may move more than X inches" part of the FAQ.
Here's why, from BRB ("VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE"):
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot
even pivot on the spot).
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
Thoughts?
I kinda figure they threw this in for the purposes of "only" pivoting, as the example makes abundantly clear.
-clearing up how templates work (although my poor orks filling up ruins on multiple levels are now terrified of my buddies salamander army - he puts dual heavy flamers on everything).
Templates in ruins are still limited by the requirement to touch the small end of the template to the firing model's base. Unless he's standing on the top floor of the ruin, that drastically limits how many different floors you can hit.
ing.
They're also limited by the fact that you need to see a model to allocate wounds to it, so while technically you could hit several levels of a ruin, realistically you'll only be able to hit the people just below and just above you... Just like most people think it should work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 20:10:57
Can I ask a really nooby question about this one...
Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
Does this only count if they are a different faction, or if they are in different detachments?
Let's say I take something like this...
Inquisitorial Detachment
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
including units like
5 sternguard in a drop pod
9 man squad in a rhino
Space Marines Formation Detachment (Librarius Conclave)
including librarians who want to go with the above units - one in the pod, one in the rhino.
I understand that now the inquisitor & warband (battle brothers with Space Marines) can't go in the marine vehicles and vice versa... but are the librarians now forbidden from going with the vets etc, because they are in a different detachment? Or are they fine to do this because they are the exact same faction?
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.
Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.
In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
Silentz wrote: Can I ask a really nooby question about this one...
Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
Does this only count if they are a different faction, or if they are in different detachments?
Let's say I take something like this...
Inquisitorial Detachment
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
including units like
5 sternguard in a drop pod
9 man squad in a rhino
Space Marines Formation Detachment (Librarius Conclave)
including librarians who want to go with the above units - one in the pod, one in the rhino.
I understand that now the inquisitor & warband (battle brothers with Space Marines) can't go in the marine vehicles and vice versa... but are the librarians now forbidden from going with the vets etc, because they are in a different detachment? Or are they fine to do this because they are the exact same faction?
I do not believe we have enough information to answer this definitively, at the current time. The FAQ question is written in such a way that the answer only applies RAW (FAQAW?) to units that are of different factions to each other, and the BRB is contradictory on this issue. The Matrix shows factions as Battle Brothers to themselves, however the preceding sentences states that the Matrix shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions (which two detachments that both have the Faction Codex: Space Marines, for example, would not). I believe this is a case where RAI each detachment is meant to be its own Faction (and thus is Battle Brothers with other detachments from its Faction), but RAW it is unclear.
chaosmarauder wrote: Actually grenades shouldn't be allowed in assault at all since you would absolutely hurt your own guys - especially if everyone in the squad used one at the same time while in a hand to hand fight.
there are 2 basic types of grenade
'assault' types relying mainly on blast shock to kill (like wwii german stick grenades) which can be thrown much further than their lethal radius so the are useful in assault (but not while standing right in front of somebody hitting them with a sword obviously)
'defensive' types relying on both blast shock and shrapnel to kill (like the wwii british mills bomb) which have a much lethal radius so are much more throw and duck back into a foxhole, no following up until the bang has happened (some this type are an assault type with an extra fragmenting shell added to them too)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 20:55:54
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
Thoughts?
That's how it's worked for the last 15 years or so, but 7th edition has tried to do away with it to close down the 'loophole' where long vehicles can gain extra movement distance through free pivots. So they're trying to say that you have to factor any extra distance gained by the pivot into your total movement distance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: There is a handful of people stubbornly holding onto thier opinion and saying the rules team, (who were the people who wrote all these books because the same rules team has been writing all the rules books together the last 8+ years.) are wrong and they changed the rule even though nearly every one of these arguments have been cited in ymdc on this board already. But these people just refuse to admit they were wrong in anyway. It's kinda sad. These are faqs not errata. They added a page with two errata that makes this separation abundantly clear. It's ok to admit your wrong. I was wrong with PE and blasts.
Which might be a valid argument if there weren'tFAQ responses here that contradict very, very clear rules as written, like the single-model multi-assault, or the walls on ruins.
The rules guys at GW aren't perfect. As evidenced by the fact that they've just released a draft FAQ that has 40 pages of entries...
There are rulings here that I agree with. There are rulings that I don't personally agree with, but that make sense. And there are rulings that I think are either a mistake or a deliberate change to the rules (we have no way of knowing which without further clarification from the guy who wrote them). I'm not really sure why this is such a big deal. Disagreeing with an FAQ response doesn't change its validity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/05 21:08:44
gungo wrote: There is a handful of people stubbornly holding onto thier opinion and saying the rules team, (who were the people who wrote all these books because the same rules team has been writing all the rules books together the last 8+ years.) are wrong and they changed the rule even though nearly every one of these arguments have been cited in ymdc on this board already. But these people just refuse to admit they were wrong in anyway. It's kinda sad. These are faqs not errata. They added a page with two errata that makes this separation abundantly clear. It's ok to admit your wrong. I was wrong with PE and blasts.
Ok, I admit it. I was wrong. I was wrong about literally every single question in the FAQ (even the ones that contradict each other). Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?
/ BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union
No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester 
The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k 
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts