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.

A long time back I was trying to write up a comprehensive rulebook for 40k (edit: note, this was fan-based, so was trying to modify the rules as written as little as possible, only modifying when something that wasn't specified had to be covered). Part of that was being ridiculously specific about what parts of a model were considered body/hull, and what parts were weapons/decorations. The best and most complete description I could give was that something was part of the hull if the removal or adjustment of that part resulted in an incomplete or different model. As such, the wings of a Heldrake were Hull, but the Doors of a Drop Pod would not be hull. Weapons were the weapons. Everything else was decorations.

That said, in my comprehensive version, decorations were completely ignored (hence why you could stand on and see through drop pod doors).

If GW is saying you can't see through the doors, that means they're no decorations. If they're not decorations, and they're not weapons, then they must be part of the hull.

If BA/DA/SW joins with SM to form one unit - they ALL lose their 'chapter tacitcs like' special rules.
There is absolutelly no rule that support that.
GW does that, I know.
Since this is SM FAQ still BA/DA/SW without SM in unit will not lose their rules?

 danyboy wrote:
If BA/DA/SW joins with SM to form one unit - they ALL lose their 'chapter tacitcs like' special rules.
There is absolutelly no rule that support that.
GW does that, I know.
Since this is SM FAQ still BA/DA/SW without SM in unit will not lose their rules?

BA/DASW do not have Chapter Tactics and there is absolutely no definitive way to define "chapter tactic like" rules, so BA/DA/SW don't lose anything. The FAQ just says that SM ICs lost Chapter tactics when joined to non-SM units and vice versa (non-SM IC's joining SM units will lose Chapter tactics)

Presumably, the BA/DA/GK/SW FAQs will errata the units to have "Chapter Tactics (X)"?

If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!

 JimOnMars wrote:
If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!

Boarding planks are not drop pod doors.

 insaniak wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!

Boarding planks are not drop pod doors.

The funny thing is the rule for boarding planks already includes the extra distance however the planks themselves are just decorations on the model.

So all drop pods have to be glued shut now unless you want to be restricted by the huge footprint of them. Lol there is just no way that you can ever drop pod with doors open inside the enemies deployment zone.

gungo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
If the drop pod door disembarkation bonus rule stays, then I'm putting boarding planks back on my trukks! Orks can now get 3 additional inches of disembarkation!

Boarding planks are not drop pod doors.

The funny thing is the rule for boarding planks already includes the extra distance however the planks themselves are just decorations on the model.

Not really. It's Extra distance unless it goes over 12", in which case it's not.

It's probably moot anyway, as GW seems to be trying to curb abuse with these rulings, not create it. Look at their response to tank shock...pretty snarky, actually. Presumably when the finals come out they will clarify and specify measuring from the opening, not the tip.

Well who says you have to open all the doors? Couldn't one just open some of the doors and keep others closed?

Oberron wrote:
Well who says you have to open all the doors? Couldn't one just open some of the doors and keep others closed?

This is the correct answer.

This also limits the bs when space marine pods deploy.

Oberron wrote:
Well who says you have to open all the doors? Couldn't one just open some of the doors and keep others closed?

That is perfectly legal. However you can not open or close the doors after it has deployed. (I.E. Once the model is in play you can not change its configuration unless you have a rule stating you can, like pointing a gun at a target).

AHA! Apothecaries can have special weapons! My question from a year ago has finally been answered.

 Quickjager wrote:
AHA! Apothecaries can have special weapons! My question from a year ago has finally been answered.

You weren't the only one who had that question. I can finally reconfigure all my lists.

I also liked how they said you COULD upgrade a Captain to a CM, but you shouldn't because it was un-fluffy. Like I care about that after all they have done to my Iron Hands. At least I got my vehicle rules back (not that they were very good to begin with) and my tech marines can autopass on 1s (If my vehicles can get the chance to live long enough to use it). I liked all the clarifications on grav.

So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Deleted.

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

 Yarium wrote:
A long time back I was trying to write up a comprehensive rulebook for 40k (edit: note, this was fan-based, so was trying to modify the rules as written as little as possible, only modifying when something that wasn't specified had to be covered). Part of that was being ridiculously specific about what parts of a model were considered body/hull, and what parts were weapons/decorations. The best and most complete description I could give was that something was part of the hull if the removal or adjustment of that part resulted in an incomplete or different model. As such, the wings of a Heldrake were Hull, but the Doors of a Drop Pod would not be hull. Weapons were the weapons. Everything else was decorations.

That said, in my comprehensive version, decorations were completely ignored (hence why you could stand on and see through drop pod doors).

If GW is saying you can't see through the doors, that means they're no decorations. If they're not decorations, and they're not weapons, then they must be part of the hull.

Keep in mind that "decorations" can still block line of sight THROUGH a model, but they cannot be used to gain Line of Sight TO the model or be used as a measurement to the model.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

I think he is talking about grav, so yes, majority, I also think he is getting mixed up with choosing which save to use, the windriders that jink, he can choose to use the 4+ if he wants (if its the best save) but that has no effect on grav, as you don't get to choose what save your opponent is targeting, neither does he.

 Formosa wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

I think he is talking about grav, so yes, majority, I also think he is getting mixed up with choosing which save to use, the windriders that jink, he can choose to use the 4+ if he wants (if its the best save) but that has no effect on grav, as you don't get to choose what save your opponent is targeting, neither does he.

That's what I was thinking. Wasn't sure if I had missed some other grav change in the tenative faq like somehow the chance of grav to hit is inexplicably determined by which save the "defending" player is using. Honestly, I think the clarifications to grav are good for no other reason it goes a long ways to clear up some of the mess from their ambiguity.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.

 Yarium wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.

Similarly, does this mean that you can choose to use the 5+ save if it (for whatever reason) you thought it was better?

 Yarium wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.

Is the 3+ save an armor save?

Yup, both their mesh/guardian armour is listed as giving a 5+ save, and the jetbike gives a 3+ armour save. So, they have both, and FAQ for whether to be required to jink or not said that players can choose whichever save they think is better. In this situation, your 5+ save is... well.. significantly better.

Now Imperial Fists can twin-link Primarch's Wrath in a Sternhammer and Pedro Kantor only misses with Dorn's Arrow 1/36 of the time per shot. Yes! It softens the blow of him not being able to be taken as part of a Sternhammer (something I am trying really hard to get GW to fix). Also, my three Drop Pods are looking pretty sweet right now.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Oberron wrote:
Well who says you have to open all the doors? Couldn't one just open some of the doors and keep others closed?

That is perfectly legal. However you can not open or close the doors after it has deployed. (I.E. Once the model is in play you can not change its configuration unless you have a rule stating you can, like pointing a gun at a target).

Of course. I mean when it comes from deepstrike one could have some doors open/closed, I'm not saying to change them during the game. Just to clarify what I was saying

 Galef wrote:
BA/DASW do not have Chapter Tactics and there is absolutely no definitive way to define "chapter tactic like" rules, so BA/DA/SW don't lose anything. The FAQ just says that SM ICs lost Chapter tactics when joined to non-SM units and vice versa (non-SM IC's joining SM units will lose Chapter tactics)

Yea, thanks, I did not read correctly.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So does this mean that if I have a unit with multiple armour saves I choose which one is used to wound? For example Windrider bikes have 3+ and 5+ armour saves so can I choose to force SM players to wound on a 5+ with Grav weapons?

Ummm... yes? Great catch! I can't think of anything that would nullify this.

Unless I am mistaken, it is whatever is majority isn't it?

That's his point; according to the Eldar Codex, WIndriders have both Guardian Armour, which is a 5+ save, and Windrider Jetbikes, which confers a 3+ save. That means you have an equal number of models with a 3+ save as you do models with a 5+ save. According to the FAQ, if there's a tie, the person whose squad is being targeted gets to choose which is in effect, and in this situation, there is always going to be a tie.

Is the 3+ save an armor save?

Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

Yes, the Eldar Jetbike gives a 3+ armor save. For this matter, it exists no matter how grav weapons are ruled / FAQ, it is the previously unnoticed hole that wether a single model could have 2 different armor save. Similar things goes to Daemon Prince as well, it has a natural Sv -, but buying power armor gives 3+ while does not saying replace his/her Sv-, and he can get both 3+ armor save and a - armor save, So that means grav weapons have to wound a power armored DP on 6s.

However a "-" means "no ability", so in the case of an armour save "no save". If you have a 3+ armour save and a "no" save, you only have one valid save to choose from, don't you?

But RAW getting to "use" the 5+ armour instead of the 3+ armour is correct. However it's probably not the situation they thought of when they made that ruling. Again.