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.

nekooni wrote:

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.

Okok, maybe "can single model with wargear granting 2 different armor save values counts having both saves" a significant issue GW should clarify if some other obviously worthless questions could be incorporated in FAQ.
But then, good thing for the Garv is, if a Jetbike Farseer joins a Squad of windrider, they instantly will be wounded on 3+, no doubt on that.

They just FAQ'd the FAQ for the Apothecary stuff in the comments

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
The last questions on this page, the answer should be “no”.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms of your Apothecaries, they need them for their Nartheciums.

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: No.

nekooni wrote:
They just FAQ'd the FAQ for the Apothecary stuff in the comments

Spoiler:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
The last questions on this page, the answer should be “no”.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms of your Apothecaries, they need them for their Nartheciums.

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: No.

Do you think the codex writer ran in and slapped them?

beast_gts wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They just FAQ'd the FAQ for the Apothecary stuff in the comments

Spoiler:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
The last questions on this page, the answer should be “no”.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms of your Apothecaries, they need them for their Nartheciums.

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: No.

Do you think the codex writer ran in and slapped them?

Probably

So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say it's a template for any same situation, yes.
It's not hard to use and it puts the discussion to rest.

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.

 Yarium wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.

Let's agree on "it's possible" instead of "it's likely" - it's still GW we're talking about.

 Yarium wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.

Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.

The one word answer without explanation does not help.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.

Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.

The one word answer without explanation does not help.

It does, it just doesn't fix all the issues.

 oldzoggy wrote:
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.

That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.

Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.

The one word answer without explanation does not help.

They re-faqed the apothecary one to be 'no' so it works like before.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
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.

That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
So do we take the apothecary ruling in isolation or does it have knock on effects for other codices? The implication being that it is end result which needs to be valid rather than order of operations?

I'd say yes, and that it signifies that when a model is upgraded into another model, it loses all previous wargear and gains the wargear associated with its new name. Often-times this may be the same loadout, but it's possible that it isn't. We'll have to wait for the Ork codex to get the answer about the Nob's loadout, as it's likely to be fixed by errata rather than go opposite this ruling.

Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.

The one word answer without explanation does not help.

They re-faqed the apothecary one to be 'no' so it works like before.

Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

I can see this one hits a nerve for you Kriswall, why is that?

Admittedly, I'm curious how this one slipped through. It'd be a fun article to hear how GW came to some of these decisions. I'd buy that White Dwarf for sure!

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Alternatively, they are going from a top-down order of operations that doesn't replace anything they've gotten. Either of which would prevent the Apothecary from gaining the Special Weapons. However, a top-down order of operations would allow for the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader to keep a purchased camo cloak.

The one word answer without explanation does not help.

They re-faqed the apothecary one to be 'no' so it works like before.

Define "before". "Before" there was nothing one way or the other to properly define it. Realistically speaking, there still isn't for those who have a different method/timing of acquiring Wargear. The Apothecary and Champion are the first options after adding models to the unit. A situation like the Wolf Scout Guard Pack Leader is a little different in that they can get camo cloaks before the option to do so.

So, an answer for most cases, but not for all, sadly.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
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.

That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.

That's just ignoring the rules. If they're shut then they count as shut. You don't magically add doors to the footprint and equally you can't shoot the storm bolter.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
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.

That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.

You do not pretend like they are open for measuring distance at all.

You use the model as is on the table.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
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.

That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.

You do not pretend like they are open for measuring distance at all.

You use the model as is on the table.

After re-reading the FAQs I agree.

But if you glue your doors shut you cannot take advantage of opening/closing which doors you want. You might not want to block line of site to units behind the pod and might actually want to open all the doors.

Also it seems like there are no rules saying when you can open/close the doors - can you change it turn by turn or phase by phase, or never once deployed?

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Also it seems like there are no rules saying when you can open/close the doors - can you change it turn by turn or phase by phase, or never once deployed?

You are never given permission to alter any model except to turn weapons on their mountings. Whatever configuration the model is in when it is placed on the table, ie before rolling the Deep Strike scatter, is how it will remain for the rest of the game.

If your model's doors are hinged, you can have all, some, or none of them opened or closed, but that decision is made as soon as you put it on the table and can never change.

If all of them are closed, you don't get to shoot with it either.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
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.

That is the textbook definition of modeling for advantage - if they are glued shut you need to pretend like they are open for measuring distance.

You do not pretend like they are open for measuring distance at all.

You use the model as is on the table.

Also it seems like there are no rules saying when you can open/close the doors - can you change it turn by turn or phase by phase, or never once deployed?

Because you can not open or close the doors. How you deploy the model is how it has to stay. There are no rules allowing you to open/close the doors, so you can not open/close the doors.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

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.

Okok, maybe "can single model with wargear granting 2 different armor save values counts having both saves" a significant issue GW should clarify if some other obviously worthless questions could be incorporated in FAQ.
But then, good thing for the Garv is, if a Jetbike Farseer joins a Squad of windrider, they instantly will be wounded on 3+, no doubt on that.

Unlike cover and invul saves, the armor save is actually a characteristic in the model's profile. And unless you have a very specific rule, you only have one value for a given characteristic. The eldar jetbike is very clear about this characteristic value : a model on an eldar jetbike has a 3+ armor save. Period.

It doesnt have both a 5+ and a 3+.
If the jetbike rule was "a model on jetbike has a strengh of 5" you wouldn't argue that the farseer is both S3 and S5. You would say he's S5. Well it's exactly the same here, just a different characteristic.

 RabbitMaster wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

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.

Okok, maybe "can single model with wargear granting 2 different armor save values counts having both saves" a significant issue GW should clarify if some other obviously worthless questions could be incorporated in FAQ.
But then, good thing for the Garv is, if a Jetbike Farseer joins a Squad of windrider, they instantly will be wounded on 3+, no doubt on that.

Unlike cover and invul saves, the armor save is actually a characteristic in the model's profile. And unless you have a very specific rule, you only have one value for a given characteristic. The eldar jetbike is very clear about this characteristic value : a model on an eldar jetbike has a 3+ armor save. Period.

It doesnt have both a 5+ and a 3+.
If the jetbike rule was "a model on jetbike has a strengh of 5" you wouldn't argue that the farseer is both S3 and S5. You would say he's S5. Well it's exactly the same here, just a different characteristic.

It's equipment lists both a jetbike and mesh armour. The jetbike confers a 3+ save and the mesh armour a 5+ save. What you're saying would mean that armour upgrades don't work for example my Wolf Lord buys Terminator armour giving a 2+ armour save but his profile lists a 3+. With what your saying he would still only have a 3+ save but he doesn't. He gains a 2+ save from the Terminator armour.

The Eldar Jetbike has a stat of 3+ not 5+/3+ to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm incorrect - as I am sure this forum will) regardless of what his equipment list says. It is not a case of mixed armor values where there is a mix of 'separate' targets with 5+ and 3+ respectively. IN which case the owning player can say you hit tommy instead of johnny. This is a case of everybody has 3+ even though they are also wearing mesh armor, their bike UPS it to 3+

Else you could make the same argument that everyone has save '-' and choose not use their 3+ armor... when being shot by grav... imagine

Can you just model the drop pod with the storm bolter on the outside and the door closed?

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.

The anger is related to the fact that it should be possible. Who is to say Officer X can't buy gun Y? Why is it so important to the game that players be denied interesting combinations? As long as they pay points for both the character upgrade and the gun, why is it so damn critical they can't combine them?

This is not a case when a powerful unit gets a unit buff because one guy joins it. In this case, then benefit only extends to the one model who is carrying the gun.

Why is it so important that this be denied?

 6^ wrote:
Can you just model the drop pod with the storm bolter on the outside and the door closed?

Only in the same way as you can model all Wraithlords as crawling.

Funnily enough, my original drop pods (built in 4th edition before the GW model came out) were small Pringles cans with foamcore fins and a stormbolter mounted on the outside under the central compartment.

Nobody ever had an issue with them, either for the fact that they blocked LOS, or for doing so while still having a functional weapon... Even after the official model was released.

 Yarium wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

I can see this one hits a nerve for you Kriswall, why is that?

Admittedly, I'm curious how this one slipped through. It'd be a fun article to hear how GW came to some of these decisions. I'd buy that White Dwarf for sure!

It's the straw that broke the camel's back. The rules are written so poorly that we constantly bicker about what they mean. When we finally get an FAQ, there is no explanation and then we get a "Yes... or No? Yeah, go with No." No explanation, no Errata to fix the underlying ambiguous rules issues. This game is almost unplayable for a casual player at this point.

Anybody interested in Necrons, Tau Empire or Skitarii, PM me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait... they said yes and then they changed it to no with no explanation? I think I might be done with this game. It's like GW doesn't take the rules seriously at all.

Considering that all these are currently rough drafts and have not been finalized, why the anger over this? Particularly since it could have been a simple mistake when writing them up.

No anger. Just tired of feeling abused. The rule set is a joke. It's poorly written and it feels like this FAQ effort isn't being taken seriously. They seem more worried in making fancy layouts with background graphics than fixing the ambiguous wordings.

There are way too many good rule sets out there to continue to be in an abusive relationship with GW.

It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.

 Spacewolverine wrote:
It's called a draft for a reason. I would love to see people get things perfect first draft and release it to the world for input... I think it's silly to be over critical on something so irrelevant. Oh noes, I cannot get another melta gun! Seriously, if you don't like 40k or think GW is abusive, sell your armies and quit crying.

Pretty much this.

Keep in mind that this is a huge new thing for GW. It used to be that the FAQs were just released without feedback. Then they would get feedback and then turn around some of their responses.

If you don't like some of these FAQs, respond in the replies and ask for clarification.