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.

Please don't be that guy. Charistoph is right in that it will affect many rules that were supposed to work that way.

I assume it got changed because they realised that some overpowered gak could be done with it. They may change it again when they realise the other effects the new ruling has

Zimko wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Q : The coverage range of the Void Shield Generator's void shields is 12". If a unit is not entirely within the 12" range, does it still benefit form the Projected Void Shield special rule?
A : No

Oh snap. Does that mean if one guy is out of 12" the entire unit does not get the VSG or just that guy? It seems that the entire unit.

That is indeed what it says. If one guy is outside 12", then the unit isn't covered.

The vsg is already killed by several rulings however that answer doesn't make sense either. I would assume the shield would trigger once all models outside of the shield died however that's not how it's written.

Regardless void shields are also now effected by gauz, haywire, etc.
So the vsg took a massive hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
Please don't be that guy. Charistoph is right in that it will affect many rules that were supposed to work that way.

I assume it got changed because they realised that some overpowered gak could be done with it. They may change it again when they realise the other effects the new ruling has

Nothing got changed
This is not an errata it's a faq.
The formation rules were always clear.
Some people just wanted to read what they want to read about it.
I have no problem with people having a different opinion.
There however is a difference when the person feels the need to force thier opinion on others.
the ic rules arguing has been one of the biggest jokes on this board and it specifically because of a handful of people arguing constantly. Those same people posted constantly on not just this board but nearly every other 40k board. Trying to force and argue thier opinion. All the time. It was insane the amount of posting these people had on the same topic.

I've made my own bad calls with this faq such as blasts and PE. I was wrong on that. Who cares.

Just glad the thirster got nailed.
No taking the huge axe and picking between that and another weapon to play initiative games

I skimmed through the rules errata sheets, didn't find the question I asked about the KFF. (I asked whether or not it affected friendly and enemy models or just friendly models).

I might have missed it. Did anyone else see it?

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
I skimmed through the rules errata sheets, didn't find the question I asked about the KFF. (I asked whether or not it affected friendly and enemy models or just friendly models).

I might have missed it. Did anyone else see it?

Codex-specific answers will come at a later date.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
I skimmed through the rules errata sheets, didn't find the question I asked about the KFF. (I asked whether or not it affected friendly and enemy models or just friendly models).

I might have missed it. Did anyone else see it?

they didn't answer that one, it might come out in the ork faq.

Forgot to say in my last post.

Kudos to GW for this one.
They have done a pretty damn good job covering alot of the age old issues here aswell as the new ones.

Also means the patriarch can psychic scream

It has literally been changed from them saying ICs are affected (the graphic) to them changing their minds and calling it a "glitch"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Just glad the thirster got nailed.
No taking the huge axe and picking between that and another weapon to play initiative games

I wouldn't call being allowed to glide when summoned getting "nailed"

True, but taking the D axe and a gift then swapping as needed was broken as it made the others redundant.

They have done a bloody good job IMO though and this was the start.
Seems they are turning themselves around nicely now.

The IC joining a unit and getting first round deployment like with GK or DA in the picture says yes. But in the text explanation says no. Anyone want to clarify that?

Yes, GW said the image was wrong and to follow the text.

Great job GW.

I'm excited to see that removing units from the table and then Deep Striking doesn't put them in Reserve, eg. when using GoI. SOME people can no longer make that argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also really looks like they are pushing this idea that ICs are somehow still a separate unit from the unit they have joined on the tabletop.

Killing an IC but not his unit gives up First Blood.
An IC with a different Faction than the joined unit means the unit has two Factions.
etc.

...and yet they are somehow they are also the same unit? Two ICs in the same tabletop unit can't cast the same power eg. two Hammerhands?
WtF this is inconsistent.

Wait what? What happens then? Which page was this on?

The only reference to this was if you mishapped and went into Ongoing reserves then you could only Deep Strike if all the models in the unit had it. Which was probably OK in Grey Knights, but the Overlord Veil of Darkness had issues.

That sucks and kinda ruins the "for all rules purposes" part of the IC rules.

I'm still going through all of it but for better for worse, this is another good move on their part. They're actually answering some of the tougher questions. Whether or not the actual answer helps game balance or is counter-intuitive is still up in the air, but at least they're trying now. I remember back when they would dodge simple "yes-no" questions just because they knew about the online gakstorm that would ensue if they gave an answer.

For helping game balance, they do note that these are the draft versions. Play-testing them will identify the good and bad FAQs.

I agree, this is another good move on their part. With the AoS stuff, saving money on box sets and the FAQ's, as well as interaction on media, it seems like they are turning things around. Tom Kelly should take notes, haha

gungo wrote:It was weekly because the same 5 people argued it constantly in every unrelated thread.

They were related at some point in the thread. Just because you didn't think they were is no support to this stance.

gungo wrote:
Holy hell man stop arguing about this.
It's ridiculous and sad at this point.
You lost
That ship has sailed
In the immortal words of frozen; let it go!!!

Sounds like YOU need to let it go. I answered when it came up with what knowledge I had. Are you the one who only posted to bemoan the fact that other people kept posting it, and the same people provided the same answers because nothing really changed?

gungo wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
Lets all just keep in mind that this is a draft. It can, has already, and probably will be changed again before it see official status

It's a draft for clarity not for arguing or opinion

They opened themselves up for it, really.

gungo wrote:
Nothing got changed
This is not an errata it's a faq.
The formation rules were always clear.
Some people just wanted to read what they want to read about it.
I have no problem with people having a different opinion.
There however is a difference when the person feels the need to force thier opinion on others.
the ic rules arguing has been one of the biggest jokes on this board and it specifically because of a handful of people arguing constantly. Those same people posted constantly on not just this board but nearly every other 40k board. Trying to force and argue thier opinion. All the time. It was insane the amount of posting these people had on the same topic.

Plenty of things have changed.

Formation rules were largely clear, but some people treated it like Fleet, when its rules were closer to Stubborn's format. This apparently is not how Detachment Special Rules are to be used.

As for trying to "force and argue my opinion", I supported my "opinion" with the facts of the case and no one could really gainsay it effectively with anything in the rules. They used their own opinions on how it should be, but nothing they stated worked properly when considering the full aspects and interactions of the situation.

And YOU are the one who are trying start taking this off-thread trying to attack people who were just commenting on the thread's topic. Keep that in mind.

Some of their rulings are counter intuitive, and a few are just as confusing as always. Like the Tau Seeker hitting at BS5 question, the answer is meaningless.

SJ

The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average

 jokerkd wrote:
The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average

How small can you make it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also:


Based off the new FAQ, if you attach an IC to a unit in reserve from a formation that has a reroll to arrive from reserve, what happens to the IC if the first reserve roll is failed?

You can take 3, but if one dies you go from 2+ to 3+ and then 3+ to 4+

Even with 3, being able to only cast 2 powers when using the rule is a huge difference

 jokerkd wrote:
You can take 3, but if one dies you go from 2+ to 3+ and then 3+ to 4+

Even with 3, being able to only cast 2 powers when using the rule is a huge difference

Well, I cast on 4+ all the time. So... doesn't affect me.

Martel732 wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average

How small can you make it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also:


Based off the new FAQ, if you attach an IC to a unit in reserve from a formation that has a reroll to arrive from reserve, what happens to the IC if the first reserve roll is failed?

Does the WHOLE unit have the "re-roll to reserve" rule? If not I would think based on the rulings so far that you would not get a reroll. Kind of like mixed movement units moving at the "slowest speed among models"

Wagz86 wrote:
That sucks and kinda ruins the "for all rules purposes" part of the IC rules.

Its becoming more clear that "for all rules purposes" is more like "cant target them separately"

Frozocrone wrote:Yeah Quantam Shielding or Lance was always a Codex/core rulebook issue.

At least Dark Eldar got a buff.

I would gladly trade back hitting armor 11 on ghost arks for deepstriking fire dragons in venoms and passengers not snapshooting when a vehicle jinks. My medusae weep for their inability to shoot anymore.

labmouse42 wrote:Psychic Shriek gets a buff

"However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon profile (such as the Telepathy power Psychic Shriek); where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required -- the weapon hits automatically.

This means that there is no price for jinking for your farseer. Jink away and still shriek all day.

Is that correct? They say you can't vector strike after jinking. I thought I remembered a rule about not being able to use attacks that autohit if you are snapshooting.

Its just their way of fixing the fact that psychic shriek should never have been witchfire

And I'm pretty sure vector strike isn't a shooting attack

My comment isn't about the type of attack it counts as. I'm saying I don't think you can jink and use psychic shriek because it autohits and I don't think any kind of autohitting attack can be used when you're snapshooting.

Sorry i thought you were using it as a comparison.

Like i said, psychic shriek should never have been a witchfire

Fragile wrote:

Wagz86 wrote:
That sucks and kinda ruins the "for all rules purposes" part of the IC rules.

Its becoming more clear that "for all rules purposes" is more like "cant target them separately"

i have always thought of it was all rule purposes for basic rules , movement/shooting/assault/targeting/wound otherwise you might as well go back to unit model count , composition , war gear since that would be included in "all rules" which is silly , so i'm sorta liking where this is headed

jeffersonian000 wrote:Some of their rulings are counter intuitive, and a few are just as confusing as always. Like the Tau Seeker hitting at BS5 question, the answer is meaningless.

It prevents it from being played as a Set Value Modifier. So, I can see a reason for it.

jokerkd wrote:Its just their way of fixing the fact that psychic shriek should never have been witchfire

Indeed.

jokerkd wrote:And I'm pretty sure vector strike isn't a shooting attack

No, but it does take away from using one of their Shooting Weapons, so I guess that is the correlation.

kambien wrote:i have always thought of it was all rule purposes for basic rules , movement/shooting/assault/targeting/wound otherwise you might as well go back to unit model count , composition , war gear since that would be included in "all rules" which is silly , so i'm sorta liking where this is headed

You may have thought so, but there is nothing in the rules to support this perspective. If it was so, then they would have stated, "counts as part of the unit for all basic rules purposes."

And just because they are considered part of the unit does not mean they get all their Wargear any more than a Sergeant's goes back to his unit's Wargear when the game starts.

Another odd part is, this still is supposed to work when the special rules are on the unit's datasheet, but not the detachments'.