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.

But since we don't know one way or another we can't be sure.

The grav vs eldar windriders actually involves this.

Following the precedent this faq set, windriders on a jetbike are 3+ armor saves, mesh armor confers 5+ so following the rules to modify a stat, the windriders are at a 3+ save the mesh armour is a set stat modifier so it overrides this 3+ and now windrider saves are effectively 5+ all the time.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
But since we don't know one way or another we can't be sure.

The grav vs eldar jetbike farseers actually involves this.

Following the precedent this faq set, farseers o a jetbike are 3+ armor saves, mesh armor confers 5+ so following the rules to modify a stat, the farseers are at a 3+ save the mesh armour is a set stat modifier so it overrides this 3+ and now farssers saves are effectively 5+ all the time.

I assume you mean Windriders. Farseers do not have Mesh Armour, then have Rune Armour (4++).

 Galef wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
But since we don't know one way or another we can't be sure.

The grav vs eldar jetbike farseers actually involves this.

Following the precedent this faq set, farseers o a jetbike are 3+ armor saves, mesh armor confers 5+ so following the rules to modify a stat, the farseers are at a 3+ save the mesh armour is a set stat modifier so it overrides this 3+ and now farssers saves are effectively 5+ all the time.

I assume you mean Windriders. Farseers do not have Mesh Armour, then have Rune Armour (4++).

Correct, apologies, trying to multitask at work


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fixed, thank you Galef. Also want to note I'd never play it that way (though its more of a nerf in reality) because its obviously not intended but I'm sure there are other cases affected too that won't be as clear.

 NightHowler wrote:
I see what you're saying about an errata, but it would only really be needed for characters who purchase a mount. The profile for Thunderwolf Cavalry has always been S5, and so they would only require an FAQ saying "stop trying to recalculate the profile".

Incorrect. It has always been a modified profile. The Thunderwolf Mount Wargear specifically states this as a modification. What has changed is how the game treats such modifications. Previously, any modifier not considered part of the base was noted in parenthetical, like Biker Toughness, and the Cavalry was not in parenthetical. Now this is no longer the case. Such upgrades are automatically included in the profile. But in the cases for tests, they no longer rely on the base profile for such things. Nothing is noted to take in to account an already modified profile when applying Multiple Modifiers. Indeed, Multiple Modifiers says the exact opposite.

If it is Intended to be part of the base profile before other modifiers, it needs to state such. Just including it when the Wargear states it is included, is insufficient. It was then, it is now.

pm713 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm right, it should have been an errata. The effect of the FAQ is to change the rule

It's been explained enough to you now. They mucked it up. Twice now. Same as they've ballsed up shrike three times.

How have the "mucked it up" twice?

By having the same rule for two codexes, both times having to FAQ the exact same thing. Just one behind shrike now....

Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Is anybody else confused?

 Happyjew wrote:

Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Is anybody else confused?

(Raises hand)

In all honesty, I'll probably play all situations using the last one if that's agreed upon with my opponents. Player whose turn it is chooses the order of resolution.

By the Emperor's beard... are you telling me there's two contradictory rules in the FAQ that are LITERALLY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY!?!

 Happyjew wrote:

Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Is anybody else confused?

I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that GW's rules don't work, have never really worked well and aren't currently being rewritten to work. This game REQUIRES a patchwork of house rules just to function.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Is anybody else confused?

I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that GW's rules don't work, have never really worked well and aren't currently being rewritten to work. This game REQUIRES a patchwork of house rules just to function.

SInce the GW FAQs are "GW House rules" does that mean we need to house rule the house rules?

These faqs feel like their rules monkeys have finally suffered a collective stroke. Like, we all knew they were abusing the poor things, but now it's just sad.

I am starting to think I work at GW because how the faqs are coming out all my fighting over the years of what was suppose to be correct, is correct lol.

Like really who really thought you can throw 1 gernade but everyone can use them in close combat was a thing. It says 1 gernade done not 1 gernad unless your near them then just start dropping them.

I always thought they should add a rule if you use a gernade in cc use a small templte centered on your model and all models that are tuched take the hit. Like if you bum rush me with a gernade then drop it we both get hit this is not a no FF battlefield server, we all seen that crap.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I am starting to think I work at GW because how the faqs are coming out all my fighting over the years of what was suppose to be correct, is correct lol.

Like really who really thought you can throw 1 gernade but everyone can use them in close combat was a thing. It says 1 gernade done not 1 gernad unless your near them then just start dropping them.

I always thought they should add a rule if you use a gernade in cc use a small templte centered on your model and all models that are tuched take the hit. Like if you bum rush me with a gernade then drop it we both get hit this is not a no FF battlefield server, we all seen that crap.

The rule wasn't exactly clear. They specifically say THROW one per phase and talk about cc attacks being grenades dropped into vulnerable areas or clamped into place.

Not to mention in 6th had very similar wording for the 1 throw thing, except that it only applied in the shooting phase.

0 reason to think GW thought differently.

 Happyjew wrote:

Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Is anybody else confused?

To be fair before the hellfrost vs reanimation in the SW draft, I was ok with the two FAQ's being different, because while FNP and RP are similar they are not the same thing so having something that negates RP but doesn't negate FNP, while needing to be an errata and not a FAQ yes or no answer, was fine. But then they decided to muck everything up anyway.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
To be fair before the hellfrost vs reanimation in the SW draft, I was ok with the two FAQ's being different, because while FNP and RP are similar they are not the same thing so having something that negates RP but doesn't negate FNP, while needing to be an errata and not a FAQ yes or no answer, was fine. But then they decided to muck everything up anyway.

Considering that the rules for how both activate and function are the same between the two, and only their restrictions are mildly different, I do not see how they can be treated differently in these cases.

Either both FNP and RP can intercede and prevent an Unsaved Wound trigger, or they cannot. GW's answer says otherwise, even though they operate exactly the same.

Their drunk monkeys got a hold of the darts again.

 Charistoph wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
To be fair before the hellfrost vs reanimation in the SW draft, I was ok with the two FAQ's being different, because while FNP and RP are similar they are not the same thing so having something that negates RP but doesn't negate FNP, while needing to be an errata and not a FAQ yes or no answer, was fine. But then they decided to muck everything up anyway.

Considering that the rules for how both activate and function are the same between the two, and only their restrictions are mildly different, I do not see how they can be treated differently in these cases.

Either both FNP and RP can intercede and prevent an Unsaved Wound trigger, or they cannot. GW's answer says otherwise, even though they operate exactly the same.

Their drunk monkeys got a hold of the darts again.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you lol. Either my opinions on things are changing or GW has really gotten out of whack on things.

 Happyjew wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?
A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Is anybody else confused?

I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that GW's rules don't work, have never really worked well and aren't currently being rewritten to work. This game REQUIRES a patchwork of house rules just to function.

SInce the GW FAQs are "GW House rules" does that mean we need to house rule the house rules?

Hotel rules?
Mansion rules?
Detroit rules?

Posting it here too. But the +2A optional rule for Dreadnoughts just became official errata. BA, GK, and SW players rejoice! CSM players, they said they informed the rules team about it, so perhaps the Helbrute will see an update too!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Posting it here too. But the +2A optional rule for Dreadnoughts just became official errata. BA, GK, and SW players rejoice! CSM players, they said they informed the rules team about it, so perhaps the Helbrute will see an update too!

"Optional"

"Official"

...

So, as players, we can now OFFICIALLY decide whether or not we want to give Dreadnoughts +2 attacks... as opposed to before when we were only able to UNOFFICIALLY decide whether or not we wanted to give Dreadnoughts +2 attacks? Massive change right there. Good call GW.

In this example, GW is taking the whole 'we think you should play however you want, but yeah, that makes sense to us' tact. Optional rules are useless when playing against strangers because you don't know which way they'll lean. Every game becomes a discussion of which optional rules to include. I don't need a negotiating session before each game. The only negotiation should be which table to use.

No, it is no longer optional. The word optional is not anywhere in the new rule. It flat out says that BA, GK, and SW Dreadnoughts of any type get +2 to their Attack characteristic. Period.
Observe:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
No, it is no longer optional.

Well unless I'm mistaken, it's a draft and therefore optional (technicality, I know, but worth noting). At any rate, it's a welcome change that IMHO should be applied regardless of whether it's optional or mandatory. And it's about time their Attacks Characteristic was brought up to par.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
No, it is no longer optional.

Well unless I'm mistaken, it's a draft and therefore optional (technicality, I know, but worth noting). At any rate, it's a welcome change that IMHO should be applied regardless of whether it's optional or mandatory. And it's about time their Attacks Characteristic was brought up to par.

This wasn't posted in an FAQ. It is a separate post. +2 attacks. Dreads now stand a chance! (I think a Librarian Furioso with Fulmination for Electroshield will be quite awesome now)

Yaasss! if it's not fully official it look's as though it will be soon enough. Well done to GW for at least trying.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
This wasn't posted in an FAQ. It is a separate post.

It doesn't have to be part of the FAQ to be a draft.

I didn't realize they'd already Errata'd their as yet unpublished draft FAQ. My apologies for being unable to keep up with this clusterfeth.

They really need to bribe about 5 veteran players paired with 5 law grad students with free models, lock them in a room and tell them they can come out when they've rewritten 40k to be unambiguous and internally consistent.

From that post "...we've decided to make it an official Errata...."
Coming from the official 40k facebook group. That's good enough for me. Grats to all the loyalists. Hopefully they will also allow you to use crusaders squads in formations one day.

Now back to lamenting csm

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
No, it is no longer optional. The word optional is not anywhere in the new rule. It flat out says that BA, GK, and SW Dreadnoughts of any type get +2 to their Attack characteristic. Period.
Observe:

And for those people who do not have Facebook to access it, how are they to know? Especially when they want to confirm it?

This isn't in their standard FAQ/Errata sites. So, Draft to me. A good Draft, but still a Draft.

If someone doesn't have access to Facebook, how are they getting access to the GW website? Magic?

 Charistoph wrote:
This isn't in their standard FAQ/Errata sites. So, Draft to me. A good Draft, but still a Draft.

While you and I may not agree with how they've marketed the errata, it is still an official errata. Here's the quote from GW that accompanied this image:

Hey folks,
Last week, as part of our ongoing FAQ draft process, we published a new optional rule for Dreadnoughts of the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights Chapters. So many of you got in touch saying that you'd certainly be using the new rule that we've decided to make it an official Errata.
The rest of the finalised FAQs and Errata will be on the way once we have your feedback on all the drafts, but we wanted to get this to you so you could all have fun smashing stuff with your Dreadnoughts while you waited. Once again, thanks for all your help making the game of Warhammer 40,000 even better.

I don't have a Facebook account, but I can still access all of this by visiting their facebook page. Yeah, this is not the best way to go about it - it should be on the website - but this is their official Facebook page, and they say this is official (and not a draft), and the copy of the image says it's official... so it's official.