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 two pence worth:

1) The ruling that preferred enemy doesn't allow re-rolls of "gets hot" for blast weapons is odd because the rulebook clearly says that BS6 allows you to do this even though it has the same effect.

2) I am, however, glad they cleared up the old debate about whether preferred enemy permitted re-rolls of scatter dice.

3) I can see the logic of the ruling that only one model in the unit can use a grenade in close combat due to the fact that the rulebook simply says "phase" as opposed to "shooting phase". However, like others I question the use of the word "thrown" in this context as a description of what the units are doing with the grenades in close combat. Mainly I'm just disappointed that my melta bomb units got nerfed, including tankbustas which were one of the few competitive Ork units.

Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.

If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was asked here more than once...

They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....

I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.

 jokerkd wrote:
Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.

If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer

Like what? Examples?

 jokerkd wrote:
Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.

If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer

What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.

The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.

gungo wrote:

What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.

6th Ed had a specific link between Mastery Level and number of powers that could be cast.

7th ed just says that their is some relationship between the two, without defining it. People coming from 6th ed often just assumed that it was the same as it was in that edition. People coming into the game fresh had less reason to make that link, based on the rules as written in 7th.

It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.

Tournament organisers making that call doesn't make it RAW.... It just makes it the way that those tournament organisers choose to rule out for their events.

gungo wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.

If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer

What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.

The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.

Insaniak covered the first part. Your second part is just plain false. The very next question after the formation specific one asks if rules that target a unit also affect ICs and the answer was no

and please stop suggesting i am biased. I dont play formations with attached ICs. What I do play is an army of units with Hit and Run. Which, if the new ruling makes it to the final draft, will no longer confer to my HQ because he doesn't have the rule

gungo wrote:
The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.

We have only stated that that they share like Stubborn shares. So, I guess if Stubborn is a Detachment rule, it doesn't work between ICs and units.

From last FAQ
ERRATA
Page 165- Hammer of Wrath, second paragraph
Add the following sentence:
‘If a model with this special rule charges a Walker，The hit is resolved against the Front Armour Facing unless the Walker is immobilised, In which case it is resolved against the Armour Value of the facing the charging model is touching.'



And from this FAQ
Q: Does a Hammer of Wrath attack always hit the front armour of a Walker?
A: No, it hits the armour the attacker is facing.


I guess they didn't read the last FAQ at all.

So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.

MIni MIehm wrote:
So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.

It was nearly impossible to do anyways, I doubt anyone really cares enough to worry about it.

 insaniak wrote:

gungo wrote:

What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.

6th Ed had a specific link between Mastery Level and number of powers that could be cast.

7th ed just says that their is some relationship between the two, without defining it. People coming from 6th ed often just assumed that it was the same as it was in that edition. People coming into the game fresh had less reason to make that link, based on the rules as written in 7th.

It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.

Tournament organisers making that call doesn't make it RAW.... It just makes it the way that those tournament organisers choose to rule out for their events.

No my point has little to do with what tournaments decide but the fact people actually read the rule as it was intended to be played and thus the rule was written in a way that some people understood how to play it as intended and thus they read the rule as it was written.

For you to claim it wasn't rules as written is obviously false because some people read it that way.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?

I think you are overlooking the fact that the main reason you might want to charge multiple enemy units with a single model is when those units are fleeing and you are trying to have them fail their morale checks.

Also, although entertaining to me, I feel the irony in some of the irony in your 'questions' may cause GW to skip over what you are posting (I particularly enjoyed the thrown chainswords part).

gungo wrote:

No my point has little to do with what tournaments decide but the fact people actually read the rule as it was intended to be played ...

Did they? Or did they simply choose to keep playing it the way it worked in 6th edition, because that seemed reasonable?

For you to claim it wasn't rules as written is obviously false because some people read it that way.

The fact that some people may have misread a piece of text doesn't mean that the text said something that it didn't. It simply means that some people misread it.

 jokerkd wrote:

gungo wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Only being able to cast up to your mastery level was absolutely not rules as written. Someone that has never played a previous edition had no reason to assume that was the case.

If you mean the IC/unit rules. I've asked them to specify that only formation rules be disallowed because, as charistoph has frequently pointed out, the blanket statement of "rules that specify unit do not benefit ICs" affects the rules we already had that did confer

What previous editions? The psyker rules in 6th/7th are completely changed and new.
It certainly was RaW because several tournaments read, ruled and played it that way already.
So they obviously read those rules as it was written in that context. And apparently the rules teamed confirmed that was the intention.

The only clarification in the faq was formations and detschment don't share rules.
The rulebook already states you can't give ics unit special rules unless they are specifically called out.
I understand you would like to play it your way but that is not what the rules state.

Insaniak covered the first part. Your second part is just plain false. The very next question after the formation specific one asks if rules that target a unit also affect ICs and the answer was no

and please stop suggesting i am biased. I dont play formations with attached ICs. What I do play is an army of units with Hit and Run. Which, if the new ruling makes it to the final draft, will no longer confer to my HQ because he doesn't have the rule

If the rule is part of a detachment rule it is not transferable.
If the special rule is a unit rule it is not transferable unless that rule calls out other models.
Hit and run specifically calls out other models.
"A unit with at least one model"
This is word for word the same as stubborn which is called out in the IC rules.
The fact you play a detschment that is effected by this rule is literally the definition of bias by the way. Regardless if your opinion is what is likely correct.

MIni MIehm wrote:
So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.

Tank Shock was never intended to kill enemy models in any edition of the game in which it has existed. It's supposed to force models to move and/or take leadership tests. It still 'works' just fine.

It was a good way to deal with deathstars, if you didn't have any way to effectively answer them. You could at least whittle the unit down by a model or two, or box them in and hope it sticks the Crunch!

nareik wrote:
I think you are overlooking the fact that the main reason you might want to charge multiple enemy units with a single model is when those units are fleeing and you are trying to have them fail their morale checks..

How does that make it any less impossible to actually pull off within the rules as they currently stand?

 insaniak wrote:

gungo wrote:

No my point has little to do with what tournaments decide but the fact people actually read the rule as it was intended to be played ...

Did they? Or did they simply choose to keep playing it the way it worked in 6th edition, because that seemed reasonable?

For you to claim it wasn't rules as written is obviously false because some people read it that way.

The fact that some people may have misread a piece of text doesn't mean that the text said something that it didn't. It simply means that some people misread it.

Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.

I'm honestly flabbergasted you are still arguing how the faq is wrong and the rules are written means something else. Seriously the team of people who wrote the rule litterally said your opinion is wrong this is what it means and yet you still argue it.

 insaniak wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
So, is no one going to bring up how Tank Shock simply no longer works at all, with the FAQ as it is phrased? You cannot ever kill a model with it any longer.

Tank Shock was never intended to kill enemy models in any edition of the game in which it has existed. It's supposed to force models to move and/or take leadership tests. It still 'works' just fine.

So, the fact that they have rules to explicitly govern the killing of models via tank shock is...what? A printing error? That's about the stupidest claim I've ever heard.

gungo wrote:

Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.

No, if people read a direct link between ML and number of powers you can cast in the 7th edition psychic rules, they misread them, as no such link existed in the written rules.

What the devs (or whoever wrote this FAQ) have said is that there is supposed to be such a link.


The original text in this case simply doesn't reflect what the FAQ says is how the game is currently supposed to be played. Whether or not this is how the game was intended to work by the guy who wrote the rulebook is anybody's guess.

gungo wrote:

I'm honestly flabbergasted you are still arguing how the faq is wrong and the rules are written means something else. Seriously the team of people who wrote the rule litterally said your opinion is wrong this is what it means and yet you still argue it.

I'm not arguing that the FAQ is wrong. I'm arguing that the rules as printed in the rulebook don't match what the FAQ says.

As of the publication of the FAQ, there is now a direct link between ML and the number of powers a psyker can cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MIni MIehm wrote:

So, the fact that they have rules to explicitly govern the killing of models via tank shock is...what? .

A rule added for the sake of certain specific situations that might otherwise be unresolvable, as happened occasionally in previous editions where this rule didn't exist.


The potential to kill enemy models is one of the possible outcomes of tank shock. It is not, however, the main purpose of it. So making it harder to kill models with it doesn't mean that tank shock 'no longer works'... it still works, it just won't kill as many models.

 insaniak wrote:

gungo wrote:

Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.

No, if people read a direct link between ML and number of powers you can cast in the 7th edition psychic rules, they misread them, as no such link existed in the written rules.

What the devs (or whoever wrote this FAQ) have said is that there is supposed to be such a link.


The original text in this case simply doesn't reflect what the FAQ says is how the game is currently supposed to be played. Whether or not this is how the game was intended to work by the guy who wrote the rulebook is anybody's guess.

gungo wrote:

I'm honestly flabbergasted you are still arguing how the faq is wrong and the rules are written means something else. Seriously the team of people who wrote the rule litterally said your opinion is wrong this is what it means and yet you still argue it.

I'm not arguing that the FAQ is wrong. I'm arguing that the rules as printed in the rulebook don't match what the FAQ says.

As of the publication of the FAQ, there is now a direct link between ML and the number of powers a psyker can cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MIni MIehm wrote:

So, the fact that they have rules to explicitly govern the killing of models via tank shock is...what? .

A rule added for the sake of certain specific situations that might otherwise be unresolvable, as happened occasionally in previous editions where this rule didn't exist.


The potential to kill enemy models is one of the possible outcomes of tank shock. It is not, however, the main purpose of it. So making it harder to kill models with it doesn't mean that tank shock 'no longer works'... it still works, it just won't kill as many models.

Well enough people read that rulebook and understood it enough to play it the way the faq stated it was intended.
(Btw 7th Ed is 3 years old the rules team who answered the questions are the same guys who wrote the book)
So either your opinion was wrong or a large portion of the community is psychic and knew exactly how to play ML and number of psychic powers. There is a large portion of the community who read this and played the rules the correct way as it was in the rulebook without any faq or any dev telling them. So they obviously came to this understanding somewhere when they read the rules.

The fact you keep claiming it never was written that way is obviously false because a lot of people played it the correct way by only reading the rules.
I'm not the only one with this opinion either the ITC never considered setting the amount of powers cast to ML a rules change. It was thier interpretation of how it was written.

Seriously you are just arguing at this point to say you always were right instead of admitting you didn't read it correctly.
It doesn't matter there was a bunch of rules people didn't play correctly such as grenades and PE and blast rerolls. Who cares.

No, it won't kill any models. The FAQ ruling says that you pick up the unit and move it the minimum distance required to get it out from under the tank and in coherency. This could conceivably force you to teleport a unit behind a tank, or six to eight inches away, depending on just how hard a player has tried to crush some models.

The entire Crunch! rule has been rendered completely unenforcable in any manner, and makes it literally impossible to kill any models with tank shock. Not harder, impossible. It was already hard enough, and there were still instances where tank shocking was worth it, now it's utterly pointless against most of the things that would even be worth tank shocking.

 insaniak wrote:

gungo wrote:

Apparently those people didn't misread it did they?
Because The devs basically said in the faq they read it correctly.

No, if people read a direct link between ML and number of powers you can cast in the 7th edition psychic rules, they misread them, as no such link existed in the written rules.

What the devs (or whoever wrote this FAQ) have said is that there is supposed to be such a link.


The original text in this case simply doesn't reflect what the FAQ says is how the game is currently supposed to be played. Whether or not this is how the game was intended to work by the guy who wrote the rulebook is anybody's guess.

To be fair, its a very easy and common mistake to make.
Most players (old or new) wouldn't expect a sentence which is specifically called out as important (by being written in bold) to have no rules effect.
You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point.

There were MUCH bigger changes in the FAQ that had absolutely no rules bearing before but are marked as 'FAQ' rather than errata. At least this was a justifiably contentious issue before.

Trasvi wrote:

You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..

The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.

We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1...


So no, I don't think it was at all 'rules lawyery' to make that argument. From my experience, most players assumed that the introduction was a copy-paste error from last edition and that GW had fully intended psykers to blast away as long as they had warp charges. This was consistent with the way the psychic rules were written, and fit with the '2nd edition-esque' vibe that GW seemed to be going for with 7th ed.

Sure, some people read the statement about one depending on the other and assumed a direct link... but frankly, I would find arguing for a rule based on an assumption that the rules mean something other than what they actually say to be far more 'rules lawyery' than just going with the actual printed rules, unless there's a really good reason for doing so.

gungo wrote:
Seriously you are just arguing at this point to say you always were right instead of admitting you didn't read it correctly. .

You vastly over-estimate how important I find being right about the rules of a game of toy soldiers. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong.


In this case, I claim that the rules said what they did because that's what the rules said. The fact that GW have clarified that they don't want the game to work that way anymore doesn't change what's been written in the book for the last 3 years. It simply means that from now until they change their minds again, the rules have changed.


You're welcome to disagree. Ultimately, it makes little difference at this point whether the rules were always supposed to work this way and people were just playing it wrong, or if it's a change to the rules... the rules from this point on will still be as per the FAQ.

Lord Perversor wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was asked here more than once...

They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....

I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.

Page 57, explicitly states you do NOT take 25% casualties in the assault phase. Absolutely unambiguous

Theyre making changes and calling them a FAQ, same as with mastery levels.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was asked here more than once...

They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....

I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.

Page 57, explicitly states you do NOT take 25% casualties in the assault phase. Absolutely unambiguous

Theyre making changes and calling them a FAQ, same as with mastery levels.

Maybe because until this latest proliferation of Stomp capable units the only way to cause casualties in Assault phase was pretty much being locked in melee and those moral checks had other rules?

 insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..

The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.

We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1....

I never read that section as explicitly contradicting the first section. The # of powers depends on ML was pretty clearly spelled out in the beginning and was not "state otherwise" in the later section, The later section was only referring to swapping back & forth between Psykers. No part of that section stated you could cast more than allowed, just that you could continue going back and forth until you ran out of WC, otherwise the first section was pointless.

--

 Galef wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

You're technically right that RAW there was no explicit link.... but its very rules-lawyery territory to bring up the point..

The problem was that we had an introduction to the psychic phase that was a direct copy-paste from 6th edition, that mentioned a link between the two without explaining what that link was.

We then had a set of psychic rules that told us that we could keep on casting until we ran out of warp charges, with no mention ever being made of this being limited by your mastery level. This same section mentioned that 'most' psykers are ML1....

I never read that section as explicitly contradicting the first section. The # of powers depends on ML was pretty clearly spelled out in the beginning and was not "state otherwise" in the later section, The later section was only referring to swapping back & forth between Psykers. No part of that section stated you could cast more than allowed, just that you could continue going back and forth until you ran out of WC, otherwise the first section was pointless.

--

I myself who just started as a new player, did indeed read it as though a psyker could cast until he was out of powers or WC, I figured the link to ML was just that it affected number of powers a psyker could have, which affected the number that could be cast. My two friends who also just started read it the same way, so to say it could only be read otherwise is false. Also I actually benefit from the change as I play Tau, so no psykers here, but I still kind of preferred the old way, I feel my friends' psykers are gonna be put away, or at least be much less useful.

Lord Perversor wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was asked here more than once...

They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....

I think this is more an aclaration, it seems (at least to me) it's meant to units stomped but not locked in combat if suffer a 25% casualty on the phase, if locked resolve as normal.

Page 57, explicitly states you do NOT take 25% casualties in the assault phase. Absolutely unambiguous

Theyre making changes and calling them a FAQ, same as with mastery levels.

Maybe because until this latest proliferation of Stomp capable units the only way to cause casualties in Assault phase was pretty much being locked in melee and those moral checks had other rules?

I've caused morale checks through vehicle explosions in every edition since 4th until 7th. They added this explicit, utterly unambiguous rule in 7th.