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.

"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!

Glad that Thunderdome is dead, since SW/WS/DA lose their rules when combined.

Just a shame that SW can still pull off T1 charges from the Start Collecting Box and Wulfen so no particular need for psychic powers..

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

Kriswall, I promise not to nerd rage, as long as no one nerd rages about the majority save value for graviton vs mixed armour ruling.

How to Graviton weapons work against a unit with mixed armor saves.

Use the armor save that is in majority within the target unit. In the case of a tie the controlling player can choose.

Does this mean that if my unit with both a normal and an Invulnerable save is shot at I can choose the grav weapon to wound against my Inv save?

That long FAQ had some obvious questions in it.

Wonder if they'll answer my question about the KFF when the Ork FAQ comes out.

 Capamaru wrote:
How to Graviton weapons work against a unit with mixed armor saves.

Use the armor save that is in majority within the target unit. In the case of a tie the controlling player can choose.

Does this mean that if my unit with both a normal and an Invulnerable save is shot at I can choose the grav weapon to wound against my Inv save?

Is an invulnerable save an armour save?

You gotta love the inconsistencies in this one when compared to the Rulebook one.

And interestingly enough, Angels, Wolves, and Knights are considered to have Chapter Tactics now.

 Capamaru wrote:
How to Graviton weapons work against a unit with mixed armor saves.

Use the armor save that is in majority within the target unit. In the case of a tie the controlling player can choose.

Does this mean that if my unit with both a normal and an Invulnerable save is shot at I can choose the grav weapon to wound against my Inv save?

An invulnerable save is not an armour save.

But suddenly, a wild MA Warboss in 30 Slugga Boyz appeared!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
You gotta love the inconsistencies in this one when compared to the Rulebook one.

And interestingly enough, Angels, Wolves, and Knights are considered to have Chapter Tactics now.

Yeah, I imagine it will be clarified. I'm kinda upset that BA 'Chapter Tactics' are Furious Charge (and Fast vehicles, which I will take). It's underwhelming.

I sometimes wonder if GW is using a Magic 8-Ball to answer these questions.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!

Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.

The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.

But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.

A single model may only be armed with a one Chapter Relic

well its not ideal but at least its in line with non Power Codexes.

So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.

--

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!

Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.

The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.

But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.

Actually they can take the tankhamma (or whatever its called) then upgrade to a nob who can the trade the hammer for a klaw

 Ghaz wrote:
I sometimes wonder if GW is using a Magic 8-Ball to answer these questions.

Please... That is way too accurate. Drunken monkey interns throwing darts are more consistent than some of these first draft FAQs.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!

Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.

The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.

But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.

Only if you believe GW is going to be consistent. Magic 8-Ball says "Don't count on it"

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!

Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.

The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.

But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.

Actually they can take the tankhamma (or whatever its called) then upgrade to a nob who can the trade the hammer for a klaw

Agreed. They just can't take one without buying one weapon, throwing it away and buying another.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I was just about to point this out, and it allows several other armies to do similar things. Tankbusta nobs can now take a powerklaw!

Unfortunately, this is a completely different case. The Veteran is the starting model, and can upgrade. Tankbusta BOYZ can't take a powerklaw.

The Nob can't take the powerklaw because he doesn't have a melee weapon to trade. This is not the same thing as what the FAQ ruled.

But, it DOES mean that a commando Nob can take a burna.

Actually they can take the tankhamma (or whatever its called) then upgrade to a nob who can the trade the hammer for a klaw

Agreed. They just can't take one without buying one weapon, throwing it away and buying another.

Not efficient at all, but sadly that seems to be the theme of the ork codex

 Kriswall wrote:
"Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: Yes."

Oh man. I predict lots of nerd rage over this one. Glad to see it turned out exactly as I (and many others) thought.

I'll try not to nerd rage but as someone whose command squad apothecaries come pre-upgraded and therfore have no access to extras I am a little miffed!

So... do we have to glue Drop Pod doors now? It looks like we have to glue Drop Pod doors.

 Galef wrote:
So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.

Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.

 Galef wrote:
So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.

--

I was wondering the same thing. This faq makes them functionally bigger than even a kharybdis no? They now need like a 12 inch hole to avoid mishaps and create an 18 inch deployment bubble XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.

Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.

Well you place the model at an access point. What are the access points on the Drop pod?

I think Drop Pods got a boost...I think myself and many others have the doors modelled so that they move.

So you can deny area with open doors and block line of sight with the closed doors.

Fun times for all.

I think you would have to use the doors as the Access points since they ARE the hull in the case of Drop Pods. There would not be enough room in between the doors and 6" for the hull otherwise. You cannot place models on the doors, nor could many 32mm bases fit between.

Just think about a Dreadnought on a 60mm base. If measuring from the Hull (not the doors in this example), it would be impossible to fit the base between the doors AND wholly within 6" of the hull without placing the Dread on top of the doors (which we cannot do)

 Frozocrone wrote:
I think Drop Pods got a boost...I think myself and many others have the doors modelled so that they move.

So you can deny area with open doors and block line of sight with the closed doors.

Fun times for all.

I think this is just asking for someone to call "shenanigans". Either you glued the doors, or you have to drop them

 Frozocrone wrote:
I think Drop Pods got a boost...I think myself and many others have the doors modelled so that they move.

So you can deny area with open doors and block line of sight with the closed doors.

Fun times for all.

Well, in that case, whatever position they're in when you land them initially will have to remain the case throughout the game. I pity you if a door is partially opened at first, but then the drop pod scatters, since it'll need to maintain that partially opened state.

Roknar wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.

Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.

Well you place the model at an access point. What are the access points on the Drop pod?

Trick question. Drop Pods are Open-Topped, so the entire hull is an access point.

 Charistoph wrote:
You gotta love the inconsistencies in this one when compared to the Rulebook one.

And interestingly enough, Angels, Wolves, and Knights are considered to have Chapter Tactics now.

Where was that? I didn't catch it. I saw that units with CT will lose CT if mixed with BA, etc. Is that what you mean or did they go into more detail?

I really wish the FAQ questions were numbered for easy reference...there's a lot

 Charistoph wrote:

Roknar wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So I can't tell if Drop Pods got better or nerfed. On the one hand, you can model them closed and block LoS. You can also let them open and since the doors count as part of the model, you can disembark 6" from the tips of any door.
On the other hand, modeling them closed can be considered modeling for advantage since A) they block LoS and B) if the doors are part of the model, then they will mishap more. An opened Drop Pod has a HUGE foot print, making it impossible to fit them since they have to stop 1" away, including the doors.
So if you are planning on using the pods to get behind enemies, that just became much harder. And not you have to worry about the door dropping off the table causing a mishap.

Not quite. For things like movement, either to or from the model, Vehicles go by the Hull. Doors are not usually considered part of the Hull.

Well you place the model at an access point. What are the access points on the Drop pod?

Trick question. Drop Pods are Open-Topped, so the entire hull is an access point.

Ah I see. Isn't it like Galef said then? that the doors would be considered hull in this case? Open topped says that all of the vehicle is an access point. It doesn't refer to the hull as such.
To clarify: They say that the opened doors are part of the model, sooo... part of the vehicle? And as such an access point.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
You gotta love the inconsistencies in this one when compared to the Rulebook one.

And interestingly enough, Angels, Wolves, and Knights are considered to have Chapter Tactics now.

Where was that? I didn't catch it. I saw that units with CT will lose CT if mixed with BA, etc. Is that what you mean or did they go into more detail?

Pretty much that. If Dante joins a Raven Guard Vanguard Assault Squad with Shrike, Dante keeps his Blood Angel rules, but Shrike and the Veterans cannot use the Raven Guard rules.

Another interesting point, apparently Shrike can ignore the rules regarding Infiltrators joining/being joined non-Infiltrators.

Roknar wrote:Ah I see. Isn't it like Galef said then? that the doors would be considered hull in this case? Open topped says that all of the vehicle is an access point. It doesn't refer to the hull as such.
To clarify: They say that the opened doors are part of the model, sooo... part of the vehicle? And as such an access point.

A Gun is part of the model as are numerous other bits, but not part of the hull. Part of why it is a pertinent question.

It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...