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.

I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

If you're not wearing a loyalist power armour you're not worth spending too much time on.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

Flakk Missiles have not had Interceptor ever.

The problem with Hydras isn't the lack of Interceptor and the fact that it only has Skyfire. The problem with Hydras is that they didn't retain the Auto-Targeting System and that for a weapon system that is supposed to "fill the air with flak", it sure as heck does not.
The problem with Hydras is that the things it is supposed to be good against(fast moving targets that aren't ground based), they just don't care about something which has no Ignores Cover.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Oh please. There was no "Steel Host nerf", there was a FAQ of a question that has popped up because of people doing what I like to refer to as "selective reading".

To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

gungo wrote:
To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

I can kinda see why Pask is not allowed though, even if I do not agree with it.

While the unit upgrade options are the same("Tank Commander upgraded to Knight-Commander Pask" and "Captain to Chapter Master"), the unit composition actually does change("1 Tank Commander" becomes "1(Unique)" while it just remains as "1 Captain" for the Captain option).

Additionally, it's not unreasonable there needs to be a specific caveat that a Special Character has to be allowed to replace a part of a formation.

The ruling I was the most upset with was the one regarding PE and re-rolling 1's for Gets Hot on our plasma tanks. My whole army at 1850 was based on the Steel Host and rolling an Executioner tank squadron that wouldn't easily blow itself up. What's even the post of using Executioner tanks now that they basically kill themselves so easily?

Sorry wanted to rant. But yeah IG always seem to getting the short end of the stick lately. I don't get why Reece keeps denying that they're bad or harder to play, yeah I get it reece you have vultures and FW artillery not all of us do.

I really wish they would update IG already. Our 6th ed codex was okay when it came out, now it's utter gak.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Looks like the GW practice of over powered/unpowered codices still work. Not saying that the poster will do this but it does seem to be working though. Someone so upset they will shelf/get rid of their army and give GW even more money with their bad practices. Nothing tells GW please stop nerving codices when people just keep giving GW more money because of it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

What the feth..?

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

Every unit suffers a hit for each (of its) models within d6"

So yeah it affects all units on the table... just that most of them won't have models in those units within d6" of the Pyrovores. So the rest will take 0 S3 hits.

Requizen wrote:
Every unit suffers a hit for each (of its) models within d6"

So yeah it affects all units on the table... just that most of them won't have models in those units within d6" of the Pyrovores. So the rest will take 0 S3 hits.

Problem is you are inserting (in those units) into the phrase. RAW it doesn't state so...

Lets be honest though, thats so blatantly not how you play it. On the wierd world that is the internet you can makr a funny thread about it but noone is ever going to actually think its played like that

 Wolfblade wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

Excellent point for YMDC. In the real world, it's units with models within D6".

 Wolfblade wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

I'm confused then, because it says "within d6" of the slain pyrovore." Even if you say that RAW it hits the whole table, you still only roll wounds for models within whatever you roll on the d6 for the range, coming out from the slain pyrovore.

Edit: OHHHHHH I'm seeing it now. The way it reads is basically:

1. You roll a d6 for range.
2. You count how many models are within that range.
3. You resolve that many hits against every unit on the table.

Yeah?

Yup. You know what they were going for but it's not what they wrote. Emblematic of the poor wording and proofing the releases sometimes have.

Wildly off topic though.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

I'm confused then, because it says "within d6" of the slain pyrovore." Even if you say that RAW it hits the whole table, you still only roll wounds for models within whatever you roll on the d6 for the range, coming out from the slain pyrovore.

Edit: OHHHHHH I'm seeing it now. The way it reads is basically:

1. You roll a d6 for range.
2. You count how many models are within that range.
3. You resolve that many hits against every unit on the table.

Yeah?

Correct. RAW, it's one of the stupidest things ever and I'm (sorta) surprised GW managed to miss it TWICE.

RAI, it's obvious that it's meant to only affect units in D6 range.

 Wolfblade wrote:

RAI, it's obvious that it's meant to only affect units in D6 range.

RAI a lot of things would be obvious but were answered with RAW in the FAQ because "the current sentence" count, otherwise it would have been an Errata and not a FAQ

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Hopefully interceptor dies in 8th.

BossJakadakk wrote:
Edit: OHHHHHH I'm seeing it now. The way it reads is basically:

1. You roll a d6 for range.
2. You count how many models are within that range.
3. You resolve that many hits against every unit on the table.

Yeah?

Yeah. Silly to the extreme. Luckily I have never heard of anybody REALLY trying to pull a stunt but has to wonder didn't anybody send it for GW and if not why it wasn't answered? Did they slap their face and go "that's too obvious for us to bother"

Right!?

It's not off topic. I mentioned that it blows my mind the nid faq didn't address this. Or how another poster put it, "they missed this... TWICE". The faq is for rules clarifications. This is one of the most rediculously worded rules in the game at the moment... maybe just flat out the most, and it has existed with no word from gw for YEARS. In fact, since 6th edition!

Granted, everyone knows what they meant. But raw, pyrovores explode tables.

Just surround a pyrovore with a horde of gaunt or spore mines or whatever and watch the table drown in 30 str 3ap- hits. A cataclysmic fire titans and c'tan wish they could dish out.

 Lance845 wrote:
Right!?

It's not off topic. I mentioned that it blows my mind the nid faq didn't address this. Or how another poster put it, "they missed this... TWICE". The faq is for rules clarifications. This is one of the most rediculously worded rules in the game at the moment... maybe just flat out the most, and it has existed with no word from gw for YEARS. In fact, since 6th edition!

Granted, everyone knows what they meant. But raw, pyrovores explode tables.

Remember that the FAQ questions were submitted by the community. If they missed it, it may be because nobody submitted it in the first place.

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

I can kinda see why Pask is not allowed though, even if I do not agree with it.

While the unit upgrade options are the same("Tank Commander upgraded to Knight-Commander Pask" and "Captain to Chapter Master"), the unit composition actually does change("1 Tank Commander" becomes "1(Unique)" while it just remains as "1 Captain" for the Captain option).

Additionally, it's not unreasonable there needs to be a specific caveat that a Special Character has to be allowed to replace a part of a formation.

Pask is about as unique as any specific chapter master.
How many chapter masters does a SM company have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Hopefully interceptor dies in 8th.

Interceptor is good, it's the only deferent to deepstrike reserve shenanigans.
Skyfire needs to go away.... It's redundant... Flyers have jink to protect them
I'd also like to see flyers to have the ability to begin the game on the table.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

Maybe no one asked a question about it.

There is still time to pop over to facebook and ask.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

Flakk Missiles have not had Interceptor ever.

The problem with Hydras isn't the lack of Interceptor and the fact that it only has Skyfire. The problem with Hydras is that they didn't retain the Auto-Targeting System and that for a weapon system that is supposed to "fill the air with flak", it sure as heck does not.
The problem with Hydras is that the things it is supposed to be good against(fast moving targets that aren't ground based), they just don't care about something which has no Ignores Cover.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Oh please. There was no "Steel Host nerf", there was a FAQ of a question that has popped up because of people doing what I like to refer to as "selective reading".

Uhhh... yes, there was. Losing Pask was rough and on top of that, the PE on Blast ruling that flies in the face of the wording in the rulebook. I basically have 3 tanks I can't use now our of my 5 for the Steel Host. Oh yea, and a crap Hydra.

So Steel Host is essentially dead now, which sucks because it isn't like IG had much going for it in the first place.

gungo wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

I can kinda see why Pask is not allowed though, even if I do not agree with it.

While the unit upgrade options are the same("Tank Commander upgraded to Knight-Commander Pask" and "Captain to Chapter Master"), the unit composition actually does change("1 Tank Commander" becomes "1(Unique)" while it just remains as "1 Captain" for the Captain option).

Additionally, it's not unreasonable there needs to be a specific caveat that a Special Character has to be allowed to replace a part of a formation.

Pask is about as unique as any specific chapter master.

There is a difference, however, between "Generic Chapter Master" and "Marneus Calgar".

Notice the wording for a Battle Demi-Company however. There are caveats allowing for the named Captains and Chaplains to replace the Captain or Chaplain.

How many chapter masters does a SM company have?

The question should have been "How many Chapter Masters does a SM Chapter have?" and "What makes a Chapter Master different from a Captain?".

Orbital Bombardment is the only noticeable difference aside from stats--and frankly, OB should not be tied to the Chapter Master profile.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Hopefully interceptor dies in 8th.

Interceptor is good, it's the only deferent to deepstrike reserve shenanigans.

Not really. Interceptor is not so widely available that it is a deterrent to DSR shenanigans. There's only one army which has Interceptor so widely spread that it is a genuine deterrent to DSR shenanigans, and that army pays like 5 points for Interceptor.

Skyfire needs to go away.... It's redundant... Flyers have jink to protect them
I'd also like to see flyers to have the ability to begin the game on the table.

Skyfire, as a concept, is okay. The issue is that Jink saves are considered Cover saves rather than their own classification of saves. There's a reason why the Imperial Armour Hydra is still viable while the C: AM one is garbage. Autotargeting System stripping saves granted by Jink is huge for dealing with Skimmers and Flyers.

So, hoping for Necron FAQ today?