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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 winterman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Roknar wrote:
Hmm, wasn't there a bit about embarked units in the BRB faq? I vaguely remember somethign along those lines.

FAQ? not sure,

Actual rules Yes. Vehicles chapter, under the Embarking rules: "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

So yea GW just likes to ignore its own rules I guess.

No, you just happened to not read all the other FAQs

The First Draft Main Book FAQ

Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?

A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points and psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.

Honestly, that question should not even be a question if you actually read the rules.

And As I said, they changed the rule and went against the RAW.

They have done this several times in this FAQ. it is laughable at this point.

No they didn't change any rules nothing you linked in the brb changed the faq.
Just because there may be a situation you need to measure to an embarked model (for instance the shooting exception) doesn't mean every special rule works from an embarked unit. There hasn't been a single faq that changed the rules just people to stubborn to admit they read the rules wrong. And I'm not saying he wrote clear rules just that every faq makes sense.

Well, at the very least they didn't back on their own faq this time. The "hidden" erratas are fine if they make it into the final version as actual erratas. At least this one has been consistent so far.

pm713 wrote:

BA Scout units given boosted stats. SW equivalents are not. To be clear it's not so much the errata itself but the reasoning behind it.

The reasoning behind it is that in the SM book, Scouts now have the same statline as Marines. Space Wolf scouts don't get that 'boost' because they already had it.

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

BA Scout units given boosted stats. SW equivalents are not. To be clear it's not so much the errata itself but the reasoning behind it.

The reasoning behind it is that in the SM book, Scouts now have the same statline as Marines. Space Wolf scouts don't get that 'boost' because they already had it.

Except they cost a lot more. I would agree if SM Scouts cost 14pts and were Elites. What about the Claw units then? They are also "new" Astartes so why don't they have the same stats?

What the hell happened to the Frag Cannon's overwatch? The original BRB FAQ mentioned them and it's d3 per number of shots, and now they come out with this 1d3 answer?




I hope this is one of those "whoops we screw this up let us fix it real quick" moments like what they did with the SM command squad apothecary.

pm713 wrote:

Except they cost a lot more.

Because they have special rules that regular Scouts don't.

What about the Claw units then? They are also "new" Astartes so why don't they have the same stats?

Once upon a time they did. They were reduced when Scouts were reduced, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see them boosted back up next time the codex is redone.

For the short term, though, having Blood Claws and Scouts with different stats is not confusing for players in the same way as having Scouts and Scouts with different stats is, so there's not as pressing a need to update it in the FAQ. The focus of the FAQ seems to be just to 'correct' statlines on functionally (more-or-less) identical units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mulletdude wrote:
What the hell happened to the Frag Cannon's overwatch? The original BRB FAQ mentioned them and it's d3 per number of shots, and now they come out with this 1d3 answer?




I hope this is one of those "whoops we screw this up let us fix it real quick" moments like what they did with the SM command squad apothecary.

It's definitely a contradiction... but the original answer doesn't seem to fit the original rules, so will hopefully be updated to match the Blood Angels version.

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Except they cost a lot more.

Because they have special rules that regular Scouts don't.

What about the Claw units then? They are also "new" Astartes so why don't they have the same stats?

Once upon a time they did. They were reduced when Scouts were reduced, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see them boosted back up next time the codex is redone.

For the short term, though, having Blood Claws and Scouts with different stats is not confusing for players in the same way as having Scouts and Scouts with different stats is, so there's not as pressing a need to update it in the FAQ. The focus of the FAQ seems to be just to 'correct' statlines on functionally (more-or-less) identical units.

Name them please because I don't remember any.

Hence the confusion. Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

 DeathReaper wrote:

And As I said, they changed the rule and went against the RAW.

They have done this several times in this FAQ. it is laughable at this point.

Isn't changing the rules the half the point of an FAQ? If they messed up and had rules interact in a way they didn't want them to you would expect them to FAQ it to the way they intended.

A FAQ clarifies. An errata changes.

If the rule unambiguously states X, yet they FAQ to say Y, then more properly they should errata to change the actual text of the rule.

DR - every FAQ in every edition has muddled FAQ and errata. I don't know why this remains a shock.

So are all the complaining Wolf players going to ignore the REASONING behind their Claw units lower skills?

They're supposed to be lil puplings, too excited for their own good.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So are all the complaining Wolf players going to ignore the REASONING behind their Claw units lower skills?

They're supposed to be lil puplings, too excited for their own good.

Hence Rage. Scouts are inexperienced and not used to their own bodies so how come they're equal to veteran warriors now. There's a difference between pointing out a flaw and complaining.

The flaw is in your fluff. Something about the wolfy helix Geneseed amirite?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So are all the complaining Wolf players going to ignore the REASONING behind their Claw units lower skills?

They're supposed to be lil puplings, too excited for their own good.

No, they're not ignoring that. Blood Claws are the equivalent of Scouts in other Chapters. They should therefore have the same stats as everyone else's neophytes. The change to lower stats happened at a time when Scouts also had lower stats, to bring them in line with everyone else. Now that everyone else has gone up, Space Wolf neophytes should as well.



In a system where an Ork boy and an unmodified human share the same strength band, there is no particular reason for Marine neophytes to have different stats to regular marines. Yes, they're not as skilled... but the difference in terms of the stat banding that the game uses is negligible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A FAQ clarifies. An errata changes.

If the rule unambiguously states X, yet they FAQ to say Y, then more properly they should errata to change the actual text of the rule.

DR - every FAQ in every edition has muddled FAQ and errata. I don't know why this remains a shock.

It is not a shock. just laughable, and shows me that GW does not care at all about the rules.

gungo wrote:
No they didn't change any rules nothing you linked in the brb changed the faq.
Just because there may be a situation you need to measure to an embarked model (for instance the shooting exception) doesn't mean every special rule works from an embarked unit. There hasn't been a single faq that changed the rules just people to stubborn to admit they read the rules wrong. And I'm not saying he wrote clear rules just that every faq makes sense.

Yes they changed a number of rules with the FAQ.

Before the FAQ you could measure to an embarked unit for a Locator beacon.

The FAQ changed that rule.

pm713 wrote:

Name them please because I don't remember any.

In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.

Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

What sort of change are you expecting?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Or just go by common sense. Wolf Cav, Bikes and Armor stuff have always been pieces of wargear that modified the profile directly, while Weapons and Special Rules never affected the profile.

That is not factual. Bikes have never been noted as modifying the profile directly before any other modifications. Indeed, up until recently, the modified Toughness value of a model which CAME as a Bike was not considered when determining Instant Death. Instant Death was changed to consider the modified Toughness only recently, and that is when Bike units stopped having parentheses in their profiles.

All the Wolf Cavalry Wargear states is that it increases the stat and that it is included in the profile if the model comes with it as default. It does not state that it does it before any other modifiers are applied in any manner.

Armour Saves are even more quirky, and nothing in their rules state they are to be applied as part of the base profile of the model.

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Name them please because I don't remember any.

In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.

Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

What sort of change are you expecting?

Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?

WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.

pm713 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Name them please because I don't remember any.

In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.

Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

What sort of change are you expecting?

Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?

WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.

Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Name them please because I don't remember any.

In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.

Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

What sort of change are you expecting?

Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?

WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.

Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.

Well no they'd be Grey Hunters with worse weapons and more expensive for some reason.

Why should my "new" Marines be worse then everyone elses? Answer: They shouldn't. So we have two options. 1. Make Claw units WS/BS 4. 2. Make DA, BA and SM Scouts WS/BS 3. I'm happy with either of those.

Or 3, do nothing atall.

GW never double checks everything though so alot falls through the cracks.


I don't get marine players atall though.
Complains they want their chapter to be different
Demands units are made the same.

Chaos also fall into that, just with spikes and more nerfing applied.


Personally though I'd expect all scouts to be WS/BS3.
They are new and inexperienced, so shouldn't be the same as a fully fledged marine.

Fine. Two options if you want to at least attempt to appear competent at game design.

Chapters are different via tactics, organisation and unique units e.g. Deathwing Knights. Not randomly making things that have the same background different cuz we can.

As I said if other Scouts went back to WS/BS 3 I'd be happy.

They made Scouts cheaper when making them BS/WS 3. Both a good move.

When returning them to BS/WS 4, they didn't change the cost. Not a good move, not at at all. Especially with the discrepancies that should show up with Crusader Squad Neophytes and Wolves' Claws units.

As I said, personally I think they should all drop o match wolf scouts, but that's just my opinion based on them being inexperienced.

And unfortunately GW have missed quite a bit when it comes to weird rules and changes etc.

 Jackal wrote:
As I said, personally I think they should all drop o match wolf scouts, but that's just my opinion based on them being inexperienced.

And unfortunately GW have missed quite a bit when it comes to weird rules and changes etc.

Wolf Scouts aren't inexperienced. They used to be Grey Hunters and then promoted to Scouts. It is why their WS/BS didn't change in their 5th Edition codex even though Codex and BAngels did. It is all the Claw Squads who are inexperienced.

Codex progression is: Scout > Devastator > Assault > Tactical > Veteran.

Wolves progression is: Claw > Grey Hunter > Guard/Scout/Long Fang.

Claw > Grey Hunter/Scout > Long Fang.

Lone Wolf/Wolf Guard.

That's more accurate considering Lone Wolves and Wolf Guard come from any of the standard four squads.

pm713 wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Name them please because I don't remember any.

In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.

Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

What sort of change are you expecting?

Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?

WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.

Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.

Well no they'd be Grey Hunters with worse weapons and more expensive for some reason.

Why should my "new" Marines be worse then everyone elses? Answer: They shouldn't. So we have two options. 1. Make Claw units WS/BS 4. 2. Make DA, BA and SM Scouts WS/BS 3. I'm happy with either of those.

Well no they'd be exactly Grey Hunters, Same LD same upgrades and 2 more points for the bolt gun, bolt pistols, and CCW that grey hunters can pay 2 points for, so exactly the same if you take the CCW.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Name them please because I don't remember any.

In their current iteration - Acute Senses and Counter Attack.

Here the second chance to change this (the first being warzone fenris) so why not do it? It's not hard and it would hardly take away effort from other things.

What sort of change are you expecting?

Scouts have Chapter Tactics do they not?

WS and BS 4 for the Claw units. For Wolf Scouts I think a special rule is the best fix for them so I'd take an acknowledgement of the problem/promise they will be fixed.

Why not make them 4 points more expensive, give them bolt guns, limit their squad size to 10 and take away rage. Oh right because then they would just be grey hunters.

Well no they'd be Grey Hunters with worse weapons and more expensive for some reason.

Why should my "new" Marines be worse then everyone elses? Answer: They shouldn't. So we have two options. 1. Make Claw units WS/BS 4. 2. Make DA, BA and SM Scouts WS/BS 3. I'm happy with either of those.

Well no they'd be exactly Grey Hunters, Same LD same upgrades and 2 more points for the bolt gun, bolt pistols, and CCW that grey hunters can pay 2 points for, so exactly the same if you take the CCW.

Missed the Bolter bit. My bad.

FAQ's for Craftworlds, Dark Eldar, Haemonculus Covens and Harlequins are up.

Link

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Draftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

As above...

Big errata for Warp Spiders. Flickerjump is now once per turn.

Does the harlequin faq also mean that the fist of khorne special rule for assaulting after disembarking now officially does nothing, since it doesn't specify assaulting after deepstriking/reserve?