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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kris - they have never followed a real FAQ / Errata distinction, so why you xpect differently this time around I dont know.

Hope springs eternal.

Plus, the market is shifting. Warhammer 40k/Warhammer Fantasy used to be these two insurmountable obstacles to competitors. Warhammer Fantasy is now a joke and 40k is constantly losing ground to games like Armada and X-Wing. Games Workshop is going to have to get its act together one of these days, else we'll eventually say things like, "hard to believe GW used to be a market leader". They literally can't afford to keep doing things the way they've always done them. The community is screaming for consistent rules. This current FAQ effort isn't a good response, but at least it's a response. That's a step in the right direction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The prior thread just demonstrated that the rule does nothing, under your reading. You rendered an entire rule redundant.

That is always unlikely to be the correct reading.

Strike as One had a meaning, and has a meaning as confirmed by the RAW FAQ answer.

Every unit must be on the board OR
Every unit must be in reserve

Thats it. Done. Your argument was shown incorrect at the time, and is proven as such now. Drop it

It was not shown as incorrect in that thread, just incompatible with one interpretation. Strike As One as a title of a rule has no meaning except to divest itself from rules with similar effects.

There are many rules that are rendered either redundant or obselete. The Necron Obelisk has an ability that forces all Flying Monstrous Creatures (among others) to take a Dangerous Terrain Test. Flying Monstrous Creatures come with Move Through Cover which has the model automatically pass Dangerous Terrain Tests. How about the vast plethora of Salvo Weapons that are only found on Vehicles or Heavy Weapons found only on Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures?

The rulebook does not state anything that "deployed as normal" means "deployed during deployment", just like the rulebook does not state anything regarding Battle Brothers not being able to board Transports during deployment. Nor does the rulebook allow Infiltrate to be an optional situation.

You came in with a high and mighty tone regarding the situation. I acknowledged that the FAQ Draft is taking the position that "deployed as normal" does universally mean "deployed during deployment", and then you kept pressing on the issue. You have also misrepresented what happened in that thread to suit your fantasies. You need to drop it.

"Fantasies". Neat representation there

The entire rule , a defining rule of the formation, ends up having no use under your convoluted interpretation - that requires ignoring a sentence, and changing the meaning of a sentence.

Oh, and you noted that I used "unlikely" there? As in expressing something with a degree of uncertainty?

Your stance was proven wrong, ie your context ignoring, rule changing stance was proven wrong. If you wish to, start a new thread on this settled topic. Just avoid posting more about it here.

nos, and charistoph. This has been discussed in prior threads. GW has posted the intent of the rule (whether or not the actual rule agrees with that). As such, there is no need to continue this pointless bickering.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Fantasies". Neat representation there

You said it was solved. It wasn't. Either you were deliberately misrepresenting or your mind made up a different resolution in hand. I assumed you were not deliberately attempting to mislead readers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your stance was proven wrong, ie your context ignoring, rule changing stance was proven wrong. If you wish to, start a new thread on this settled topic. Just avoid posting more about it here.

It was not proven wrong in that thread. The FAQ Draft has stated numerous things which do not and cannot match what is written, so "proof" from the FAQ Draft is not happening. Clarification is what is happening with it. I acknowledged it earlier and I am acknowledging it now.

Now let it drop before your high and mighty attitude lead to problems.

It's dropped. The FAQ agreed with raw, and the clear intent of the rule. This wasn't a surprising answer.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".

And there was much rejoicing!

I like that they fixed Deathwing Land Raiders. They don't come in Turn 1, but they at least come in.

What I didn't understand though was if you are allowed to deploy the terminators in the land raider or not (if they have to be deployed in deep strike reserve still for the formation). Anyone know?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What I didn't understand though was if you are allowed to deploy the terminators in the land raider or not (if they have to be deployed in deep strike reserve still for the formation). Anyone know?

Hopefully it will get clarified in the final version - the non-terminator IC ruling earlier seems to indicate they can (as otherwise the character wouldn't be able to embark into the otherwise empty Dedicated Transport).

Hopefully the GW FAQ team reads the rules they are attempting to clarify, before they finalize the FAQ. Quite a few of their clarifications break RAW, which means those "clarifications" should be errata rather than FAQ responses.

SJ

Regarding the BB in transports question. The Ork Blitz Brigade is a Formation made up entirely of Transport vehicles (it is a detachment). If I then take an Ork Combined Arms Detachment in the same army, all the units from the Combined Arms Detachment are "Battle Brothers" with the Blitz Brigade Formation... Which would mean that they couldn't start in the Battle Wagons? If you look on the chart it shows orks are Battle Brothers with orks and nothing else. This is to represent Allied Detachments, meaning that if this FAQ was to go in effect now you could no longer ride in the blitz brigade. (Different detachment same faction)

Also on page 132 under deployment it says " models must either deploy within their deployment zone or be held back in reserve. models can be deployed inside buildings fortifications or transport vehicles in their deployment zone subject to their transport capacity." Plus on page 135 under reserves and combined reserve units it states that "DURING DEPLOYMENT you must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any transport vehicles in reserve, in which case they show up together." The rules are clear that as long as a battle brother wants to embark on a NONDEDICATED TRANSPORT it is 100% legal for them to do it, If you are right then no one can ever ride in a flyer transport again because you cannot buy it as a dedicated transport. Since you cannot start in a battle brothers transport, even units from the same detachment can't ride in a stormraven for example. Since they are considered battle brothers... correct?

No as they Ally rules only apply to models with a different Faction, not units from different Detachments (which is what many people THINK is the case, even though it isn't).

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
No as they Ally rules only apply to models with a different Faction, not units from different Detachments (which is what many people THINK is the case, even though it isn't).

Where does it say that?

If you look on the chart it shows orks are Battle Brothers with orks and nothing else. This is to represent Allied Detachments, meaning that if this FAQ was to go in effect now you could no longer ride in the blitz brigade. (Different detachment same faction)

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies - Levels of Alliance', Paragraph 2 wrote:"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army".

The relevant sections.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies - Levels of Alliance', Paragraph 2 wrote:"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army".

The relevant sections.

Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?

No because they're the same Faction, and as such their level of alliance is meaningless because it only applies to models with differing Factions.

 Red_Lives wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies - Levels of Alliance', Paragraph 2 wrote:"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army".

The relevant sections.

Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?

What gave you permission to look on the chart?
Permission only exists to look at the chart when you have different factions. here yo udo not have different factions. SO you cannot look n the chart. meaning you dont have an Ally status at all.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
No because they're the same Faction, and as such their level of alliance is meaningless because it only applies to models with differing Factions.

Except it also says they're battle brothers right? Why even label Orks are battle brothers with orks unless they are battle brothers? As it's currently worded the new GW faq disallows allied detatchemnt transport riding, or at best just raises further questions. If they want to clarify it they can easily have had it say, "Can units that are different factions embark in each other's transports during deployment? BUT IT DOESN'T it says BATTLE BROTHERS and orks are battle brothers with orks so as I read it it disallows the blitz brigade.

 Red_Lives wrote:
Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?

You take Formation as second Detachment, not as Allied Detachment. Only Allied Detachment (the other Detachment from Main Rulebook) forces you take other Faction than your Primary Detachment.

 danyboy wrote:

 Red_Lives wrote:
Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?

You take Formation as second Detachment, not as Allied Detachment. Only Allied Detachment (the other Detachment from Main Rulebook) forces you take other Faction than your Primary Detachment.

I worded that poorly my mistake. I should've said "Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as a separate detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?"

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."

Red_Lives wrote:Except it also says they're battle brothers right? Why even label Orks are battle brothers with orks unless they are battle brothers? As it's currently worded the new GW faq disallows allied detatchemnt transport riding, or at best just raises further questions. If they want to clarify it they can easily have had it say, "Can units that are different factions embark in each other's transports during deployment? BUT IT DOESN'T it says BATTLE BROTHERS and orks are battle brothers with orks so as I read it it disallows the blitz brigade.

You need to really break down the wording here to see what they're saying. First off, an army is composed of any number of detachments. The first sentence of the first quote states that you can include MODELS though from any number of different factions in the same army, but doesn't tell you how to get those models into your army. Using detachments, or going Unbound, does that. It then says that, regardless of HOW you choose your army (aka, detachments or Unbound), that it's the MODELS, not the DETACHMENTS that follow the Ally chart, and that it only applies to models from DIFFERENT Factions, not for different Detachments. If the ally rule was about detachments, and not the models in them, then any models taken from different codexes in an UNBOUND army could ride in each other's transports or cast spells on each other. However, because the ally matrix is about MODELS (and specifically, models from DIFFERENT Factions), this can't happen.

So, since it's about MODELS, and doesn't care about detachments at all, you are left with two possibilities:

A. Models from one Ork detachment can start the game in the transports of another Ork detachment.
or
B. Models from one Ork detachment cannot start the game in their own transports. (since the MODELS would be Battle Brothers with themselves)

However, we're told that the Ally chart only applies to DIFFERENT FACTIONS, not DIFFERENT DETACHMENTS, and so the only remaining possibility is A, and yes, the Orks can jump into those transports!

 Yarium wrote:

Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."

Red_Lives wrote:Except it also says they're battle brothers right? Why even label Orks are battle brothers with orks unless they are battle brothers? As it's currently worded the new GW faq disallows allied detatchemnt transport riding, or at best just raises further questions. If they want to clarify it they can easily have had it say, "Can units that are different factions embark in each other's transports during deployment? BUT IT DOESN'T it says BATTLE BROTHERS and orks are battle brothers with orks so as I read it it disallows the blitz brigade.

You need to really break down the wording here to see what they're saying. First off, an army is composed of any number of detachments. The first sentence of the first quote states that you can include MODELS though from any number of different factions in the same army, but doesn't tell you how to get those models into your army. Using detachments, or going Unbound, does that. It then says that, regardless of HOW you choose your army (aka, detachments or Unbound), that it's the MODELS, not the DETACHMENTS that follow the Ally chart, and that it only applies to models from DIFFERENT Factions, not for different Detachments. If the ally rule was about detachments, and not the models in them, then any models taken from different codexes in an UNBOUND army could ride in each other's transports or cast spells on each other. However, because the ally matrix is about MODELS (and specifically, models from DIFFERENT Factions), this can't happen.

So, since it's about MODELS, and doesn't care about detachments at all, you are left with two possibilities:

A. Models from one Ork detachment can start the game in the transports of another Ork detachment.
or
B. Models from one Ork detachment cannot start the game in their own transports. (since the MODELS would be Battle Brothers with themselves)

However, we're told that the Ally chart only applies to DIFFERENT FACTIONS, not DIFFERENT DETACHMENTS, and so the only remaining possibility is A, and yes, the Orks can jump into those transports!

Except the chart clearly says that Orks ARE battle brother's with orks, the new GW faq is poorly worded if they want it to be option A then the new faq should say "Can units that are different FACTIONS embark in each other's transports during deployment?"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I guess that's the point of posting it on facebook first right? SO people like me can spot the ambiguous wording so they can change it before it gets posted on their website and becomes official.

 Red_Lives wrote:
Except the chart clearly says that Orks ARE battle brother's with orks, the new GW faq is poorly worded if they want it to be option A then the new faq should say "Can units that are different FACTIONS embark in each other's transports during deployment?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I guess that's the point of posting it on facebook first right? SO people like me can spot the ambiguous wording so they can change it before it gets posted on their website and becomes official.

Sorry, meant to address that. This is because it's possible to have more than one army in the game. If you and I are allied together for a game, and thus we have two armies. In THAT situation, the Orks from one army would be Battle Brothers with the Orks from another army. However, all Orks within the same army don't use the Ally matrix.

 Red_Lives wrote:

 danyboy wrote:

 Red_Lives wrote:
Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as an allied detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?

You take Formation as second Detachment, not as Allied Detachment. Only Allied Detachment (the other Detachment from Main Rulebook) forces you take other Faction than your Primary Detachment.

I worded that poorly my mistake. I should've said "Right so when you take an ork army, then take the Blitz brigade formation as a separate detachment, check the chart and see they are "Battle brothers" so you can't ride in them right?"

No you did not. there is a difference between an allied detachment and an Allied Detachment.

Red_lives - again, why arey ou even reading the chart?

You only read the chart when you have different factions

For you, the chart doesnt exist.

Otherwise no FA drop pod or HS battlewagon could ever be used at deployment

the Allies chart is ON:LY used when you have models from DIFFERENT FACTIONS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Red_lives - again, why arey ou even reading the chart?

You only read the chart when you have different factions

For you, the chart doesnt exist.

Otherwise no FA drop pod or HS battlewagon could ever be used at deployment

the Allies chart is ON:LY used when you have models from DIFFERENT FACTIONS.

Then GW should change the wording in the FAQ fron Battle brothers (which orks are to orks) to different FACTIONS, because they may want to say same faction different detachment can't deploy in each others transports, and as it's currently worded that is how it would be played. Same detachment can use FA and Heavy transports another detachment with the same faction can not.

Orks are not battle brothers to Orks. Because you cannot read the chart unless you are different factions..

Seirously. The rule quotes have been given above, and they clearly state you ONLY use the Allies matrix when you have models from different factions. Until that point the Allies matrix does not exist. Orks have no Ally status with each other

How it is currently worded works with the current rules. You;ve been shown this. If you are still unclear, start a new thread please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Orks are not battle brothers to Orks. Because you cannot read the chart unless you are different factions..

Seirously. The rule quotes have been given above, and they clearly state you ONLY use the Allies matrix when you have models from different factions. Until that point the Allies matrix does not exist. Orks have no Ally status with each other

How it is currently worded works with the current rules. You;ve been shown this. If you are still unclear, start a new thread please.

I disagree, the matrix is in the rulebook so it's part of the rules too. You can make that argument that 2 Space marine Detachments using different chapter tactics deploying in each other's transports should be disallowed too as it is currently worded (this may also be GW's intent)

the rules, again- Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, page 126, 'Allies', Paragraph 2 wrote:"You can include models from any number of different Factions (pg118) in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."

Your disagreement is moot, because the rules - repeated above, as you keep failing to review them, state the Allies matrix ONLY applies whenyou have models from different factions

With 2 Ork detachments, do you have different factions? Simple yes or no required. Nothing more.

I think the reason the chart shows Orks being Battle Bros with Orks is so that the chart remains consistent with Imperials being battle bros with Imperials.

It was probably also intended so that in the future, they could release supplements that split the Ork faction (like Clan rules or something). In which case, Deathskulls and Snakebites (or something) would treat each other as battle bros.

Or because of what Yarium already stated.

"This is because it's possible to have more than one army in the game. If you and I are allied together for a game, and thus we have two armies. In THAT situation, the Orks from one army would be Battle Brothers with the Orks from another army. However, all Orks within the same army don't use the Ally matrix. "