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.

 Yarium wrote:
I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?

It could mean that they made an error in the previous draft FAQ that was noted in the feedback and wasn't repeated in the Tau FAQ. We'll have to wait until the FAQs go live to find out.

gungo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see they contradicted themselves again with Tank Shock. Earlier ruling was that Tank Shock cannot remove units, yet with Tau they just ruled that Tank Shock eliminates anchored Stormsurges.

With their writers would get on the same page.

SJ

It's not a contradiction because he storm surge CANT move where the other rulings was because they can move just not in a straight line or within coherency.If a unit can't move away from a tank shock it is still destroyed.
If I tank shock your units in a corner near a building and zone edge with my battlewagon you are still destroyed.

I guess Tau players will likely never anchor that thing as long as a single tank is anywhere near it....a 35 point Rhino suddenly got scary to a GMC!!

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

gungo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see they contradicted themselves again with Tank Shock. Earlier ruling was that Tank Shock cannot remove units, yet with Tau they just ruled that Tank Shock eliminates anchored Stormsurges.

With their writers would get on the same page.

SJ

It's not a contradiction because he storm surge CANT move where the other rulings was because they can move just not in a straight line or within coherency.If a unit can't move away from a tank shock it is still destroyed.
If I tank shock your units in a corner near a building and zone edge with my battlewagon you are still destroyed.

I guess Tau players will likely never anchor that thing as long as a single tank is anywhere near it....a 35 point Rhino suddenly got scary to a GMC!!

Not really, a Rhino is only AV11 in the front, the SS can do 'death or glory' with its highest strength weapon that will auto hit, in this case a virtually auto pen as well against AV11, just a roll on the D table or regular vehicle table, any result of immobilize/wreck/explode will negate the tank shock; on the very few times it gets killed by the Rhino, it will be epic however!

The wording of the FAQ makes it seem like Death or Glory is off the table. It's written as a simple if-then that makes it look like Tank Shocking a Stormsurge just kills it.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The wording of the FAQ makes it seem like Death or Glory is off the table. It's written as a simple if-then that makes it look like Tank Shocking a Stormsurge just kills it.

Good point but I don't think that's GW intention.
I think you can still death or glory which makes tank shocking with anything other than av13+ is near impossible to kill the Stormsurge with.

My point is that they went to great detail as to why Tank Shock was never meant to be used to remove models, then they rule the opposite for the Stormsurge, which ignores GMC rules as the Surge should technically only take 1d3 wounds instead of being removed. The issue has always been what happens to the tank, not what happens to the Stormsurge.

Again it's question answered be someone that neither read the actual rules nor the previous FAQ ruling.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My point is that they went to great detail as to why Tank Shock was never meant to used to remove models, then they rule tge opposite for the Stormsurge, which ignores GMC rules as the Surge should technically only take 1d3 wounds indtead of being removed.

Again it's question answered be someone that neither read the actual rules nor the previous FAQ ruling.SJ

I can understand this ruling from a rules-design perspective. Essentially, it can't move out of the way, so it takes 1d3 wounds. It's then still there after it's chance at Death or Glory, but the Rhino still has to complete it's move, so it takes another 1d3 wounds. It continues this process over and over again until it is removed as a casualty.

So, while I understand it, I still don't agree with it. I think GMCs should just take the 1d3 wounds, and if they're still present, the vehicle stops 1" away from the GMC. Then again, I think that GMC's and SHW's shouldn't be able to stomp vehicles or monstrous creatures, but that's just me.

Some weird changes there.. Coordinated Firepower is now officially a meh special rule as far as other similar rules are concerned.

 Yarium wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My point is that they went to great detail as to why Tank Shock was never meant to used to remove models, then they rule tge opposite for the Stormsurge, which ignores GMC rules as the Surge should technically only take 1d3 wounds indtead of being removed.

Again it's question answered be someone that neither read the actual rules nor the previous FAQ ruling.SJ

I can understand this ruling from a rules-design perspective. Essentially, it can't move out of the way, so it takes 1d3 wounds. It's then still there after it's chance at Death or Glory, but the Rhino still has to complete it's move, so it takes another 1d3 wounds. It continues this process over and over again until it is removed as a casualty.

So, while I understand it, I still don't agree with it. I think GMCs should just take the 1d3 wounds, and if they're still present, the vehicle stops 1" away from the GMC. Then again, I think that GMC's and SHW's shouldn't be able to stomp vehicles or monstrous creatures, but that's just me.

There are no infinite loops in 40k, as each effect is only ever applied once unless otherwise noted. GMCs have a rule for when models are removed, to which Tank Shock does not have an overriding counter. The only issue was where does the tank stop moving, not where does the Stormsurge get moved to if it can't be moved. GW has answered poorly.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There are no infinite loops in 40k, as each effect is only ever applied once unless otherwise noted. GMCs have a rule for when models are removed, to which Tank Shock does not have an overriding counter. The only issue was where does the tank stop moving, not where does the Stormsurge get moved to if it can't be moved. GW has answered poorly.

SJ

Well, I believe that GW intends that "pathing" is a thing, even though by RAW it isn't. In a path there would be an infinite number of points that the vehicle travels along. If ever one of those points meets another model or vehicle, a Tank Shock or Ram occurs. Normally this would result in either the vehicle ending its move at that point, or the tank shock being successful and moving the target out of the way. What we have is a spot where the tank shock is successful, so the vehicle continues its move, but the model is still there. Therefore, at the next possible point of interaction (which would be an infinitely small distance of travel), another Tank Shock or Ram occurs.

Now, since thins isn't covered in the rules in regards to GMC's, and there are no rules on pathing, this can only be assumed to exist (can't be proven, so definitely not RAW), but having a model that's completely immobilized in place be instantly slain by a Tank Shock would fit with this view, otherwise a different answer that's actually based on the rules would have to be presented.

Of course, as I said before, the real answer should just be the take 1d3 and stop 1" away if it's not killed, but that's definitely not the rule and would be an errata... which, again, is what they just should have done.

I think another question would tank shock destroy other immobile vehicles? It seems that the answer might be yes, but it doesn't seem likely.

 Lord Blackscale wrote:
I think another question would tank shock destroy other immobile vehicles? It seems that the answer might be yes, but it doesn't seem likely.

Technically speaking, you cannot Tank Shock a Vehicle. Ramming uses a different process of resolution.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lord Blackscale wrote:
I think another question would tank shock destroy other immobile vehicles? It seems that the answer might be yes, but it doesn't seem likely.

Technically speaking, you cannot Tank Shock a Vehicle. Ramming uses a different process of resolution.

True. That had slipped my mind. Never mind.

For those who want to avoid FaceBook

you can download a PDF version of the BRB FAQ here

http://www.spikeybits.com/download/gw-first-draft-faq

Tank Shick should destroy those Tyranid spore thingies, no?

What about units under the effects of the Dominate special power? If I cast Dominate on an MC or GMC and tank shock them in my next movement phase while the power is still in effect, and they fail the leadership test to move out of the way, are they destroyed as well?

Bojazz wrote:
What about units under the effects of the Dominate special power? If I cast Dominate on an MC or GMC and tank shock them in my next movement phase while the power is still in effect, and they fail the leadership test to move out of the way, are they destroyed as well?

No, MC's would die, GMCs take 1d3 wounds.

Not necessarily, dominate doesn't affect special movement such as JSJ or flatout. I doubt it effects Fall Back either.

 Quickjager wrote:
Not necessarily, dominate doesn't affect special movement such as JSJ or flatout. I doubt it effects Fall Back either.

is there a raw for that?
why is that? isnt any kind of moving your model an "attempt to move" as in the ruling for Dominate?
where is "special movement" clarified in the brb?
dont mean to disagree, just courious.

would make sense to not make "a ls test to see if you must take a ls test", but then again....

That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.

 Quickjager wrote:
That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.

Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.

Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...

 Ghaz wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.

Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.

Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...

Just to suggest a HIWPI due to that reading is that it wouldn't affect fallback moves or JSJ. The reason I say this is because it both states move, along with run or declare a charge. If it was all movement, it wouldn't need to specify more forms of it, or a limited number of them.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.

Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.

Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...

To be fair, GW doesn't capitalize a lot of things like rules and wargear, unfortunately.

it really reads "Run". with a capital R.
O.O

so its either only "regular" shooting, moving, running etc., which affects only the actions in the oppositions turn.

or, how i read it, every form of said actions(like overwatch, thrust moves, interceptor, falling back etc) until its my psy-phase again.

the "Run" would then be a special case, that would exclude all other forms of running(but turboboosting still is a Run?).
i would agree on flatout not beeing affected, it is not a "run", and also things that can go flatout usually dont have a ls.

I want new rules, with someone professional editing the texts!!

 Ghaz wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
That's because it specifies move with a capital, which is referring to move phase,. It then specifies every action that triggers it, which Fall Back isn't one of.

Uh, 'move' is not capitalized in the 'Dominate' rule in the printed rulebook.

Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, manifest a psychic power, shoot, Run or declare a charge...

Really? On my psychic cards I could have sworn each action was capitalized... could someone look at theirs.

So, new FAQ today right? I'm hoping for Necrons. Not that there is a lot to wonder about but there are a few things I think are a little shaky they might weigh in on.

Like for instance, a RP unit in a decurion with cryptek who is hit by something with ID. Is the RP a 5+ or a 4+? I've seen it argued for both and I personally fall on the 4+ side of the things. But I would hope for an official ruling on that.

I'm also curious about if they will talk about the solar staff solar pulse and scattered blasts. In one of the previous FAQs they said that a scattered blast that falls on an unintended unit still counts as targeting that unit. The solar pulse says that anything targeting the unit has to fire snap shots. Since you can't blast on a snapshot does that mean the blast just does nothing? This is something that seemed pretty straightforward before. You can't center a blast on them but it could scatter on them. But, ironically, after the FAQ it is much less clear :(

Qlanth wrote:
So, new FAQ today right? I'm hoping for Necrons. Not that there is a lot to wonder about but there are a few things I think are a little shaky they might weigh in on.

Like for instance, a RP unit in a decurion with cryptek who is hit by something with ID. Is the RP a 5+ or a 4+? I've seen it argued for both and I personally fall on the 4+ side of the things. But I would hope for an official ruling on that.

I'm also curious about if they will talk about the solar staff solar pulse and scattered blasts. In one of the previous FAQs they said that a scattered blast that falls on an unintended unit still counts as targeting that unit. The solar pulse says that anything targeting the unit has to fire snap shots. Since you can't blast on a snapshot does that mean the blast just does nothing? This is something that seemed pretty straightforward before. You can't center a blast on them but it could scatter on them. But, ironically, after the FAQ it is much less clear :(

Yup, should be a new one today. Looking forward to it! Recently it's be the Xenos forces, so Tyranid or Necrons seem likely.

I've always argued that it was a 4+ in that situation as well. I figured that the "caps at 4+" is something that applies to the total, not the specific. So, if you're increasing it to a 3+, too bad, the best you get is a 4+. In this way, it doesn't matter what order the bonuses are applied in. The only argument for it being a 5+ in that situation would be if the "caps at 4+" was applied after each and every modifier so that the order does matter. In that situation, whomever's turn it is would choose if it was a 4+ or a 5+. However, that, to me, seems out of whack.

As for the blast thing, the blast has already been fired by the time it scatters into your unit with the active solar staff. There'd be no "going back in time" to re-check it. The only time where they wouldn't be able to fire it is if, before scatter, the template would cover any model from the unit with the active Solar Staff (even if that unit wasn't targeted). At least, from the FAQ, that's my interpretation. The FAQ seems to make it that clipping someone with a blast on purpose still counts as targeting them, and if a blast scatters the unit can respond just as if they had been targeted, but that by that point the scatter has already happened.

I thought they ruled that scattered blasts did NOT count as targeting, however initial placement does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought they ruled that scattered blasts did NOT count as targeting, however initial placement does.

Yeah, I was paraphrasing. They ruled that if a blast scatters into a unit, that unit can STILL jink the attack just as if it had targeted them.

Scatters on to a skimmer. Not just any unit (rule book FAQ draft, jink section)