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.

Lord Perversor wrote:
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

Specific codex permission to join a Tyrant Guard unit in the same way an IC joins units means "not at all" if the model performing the joining action is a Monstrous Creature. The permission the codex gives has been made useless by the new FAQ because it doesn't specifically override the new restriction.

More comparisons!
If a special rule gave the Hive Tyrant "the ability to stomp exactly like a gargantuan creature", and then the Gargantuan Creature rules were later FAQ'd to say "only imperial gargantuan creatures can stomp", then the Hive Tyrant would not be able to stomp, even though the special rule gives him permission to stomp like a gargantuan creature could, because the Tyrant does not belong to an imperial faction. Once again, permission to perform an action does not grant permission to ignore all restrictions while performing that action - only those which are specifically called out. In the case of shieldwall, no restrictions are called out, so none are ignored.

The IC restrictions are General for all IC while the Nyd Codex grants a very specific permission.

General vs specific as much as basic vs advanced

Im pretty sure that nobody will have a problem with it as its fair to say that the intention is that they are allowed to join.

Its is also worth noting that its an faq and not an errata so it shouldnt be treated excatly like a rule . We dont know what the answer would be if we asked about the hive guard. We can take the faq as a ruling on what its specificly talking about which is ic monstrous creature

In the case of the shield wall special rule techncily the hive tyrant is never turned into a ic monsters creature . Its simple states it may join a unit of guard as if it where a ic

The important part here is ....as if it where .... so you follow the rules for ic but you never change the unit type .
This means the faq has no bearing on this situation as the hive tyrant is still just a monstrous creature so you can safely say that the faq is not refering to the shield wall special rule . Its is only adressing ic monstrous creatures

Bojazz wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

Specific codex permission to join a Tyrant Guard unit in the same way an IC joins units means "not at all" if the model performing the joining action is a Monstrous Creature. The permission the codex gives has been made useless by the new FAQ because it doesn't specifically override the new restriction.

It specifically does override. How can a rule giving permission for a non IC to join a unit like it was an IC not be specific. Its current status as a non- IC, MC is ignored due to permission from the rule. Otherwise, your claiming the rule did not work pre-FAQ as well.

I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

Lord Perversor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

I know it says to follow the IC rules.

And the Ic rules properly says.

"In order to join a unit, an (Independent Character/Hive Tyrant on this case) simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."


Again the Codex gives you a specific permission to join the unit and how it's must be done.

IC cannot join MC or MC (IC) cannot join other units = general restriction
Hive tyrant can join a Tyrant guard unit on same way as IC join units = specific permission on a Codex .

The Codex just points you to follow the Joining and Leaving a Unit part of IC rules when the HIve Tyrant joins the Tyrant guard.

This is how I was reading it, but many are reading it you now are considered a IC, not using its general rules but are now identified as IC, so you can no longer join b.c your a IC MC.


I read it as the Tyranid Guards is giving permision for the HT to join "In the same way a IC would" and is NOT giving the HT IC rule, no where in the rules does it say "it becomes an IC".

 insaniak wrote:
I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

I literally typed this before I saw your message.
Edit: English is hard for me, it takes me a long time to type everything out and re-read to make sure i'm correct.

Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

 Crazyterran wrote:
Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

The FAQ makes a reference to a unit infiltrating, outflanking or exploring, but says nothing about normal deployment.

Wich boils down to the same argument as before can an infiltrate unit deploy normally (on his table edge) and be joined by an IC or it must deploy using the infiltrate rules always.

P.S: nevermind find this one while scrolling again.

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Something I noticed that has changed - the draft FAQ stated gargantuan creatures could stomp at I1 even if they were no longer engaged.

But the final release changed it and says neither super heavy walkers nor gargantuan creatures can stomp if they are not still engaged.

Was wondering if this was connected to the LVO involvement as that's one of their house rules isn't it?

They also said yes to los! Stomps but NOT if overrun is rolled, which I think is a change.

SolentSanguine wrote:
Something I noticed that has changed - the draft FAQ stated gargantuan creatures could stomp at I1 even if they were no longer engaged.

But the final release changed it and says neither super heavy walkers nor gargantuan creatures can stomp if they are not still engaged.

Was wondering if this was connected to the LVO involvement as that's one of their house rules isn't it?

Q: If there are no models left in close combat with a Super-heavy
Walker or Gargantuan Creature at the Initiative 1 step, can it
still make a Stomp attack?
A: No.

You can be unengaged but still in combat (ie, you've killed everything in BTB) and still stomp.

The ruling, as I understand it, is to stop a super-heavy from completely wiping out all enemies in the combat at I4, and then stomping on to another unit out of combat at I1.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Does the change to the infiltrators rule not forcing models to infiltrate mean that I can stick cypher with a unit before the game begins?

Only if the unit also has Infiltrate, this was also pointed out by the FAQ.

 insaniak wrote:
I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

Just one thing, regardless of rules etc, think a bit about it people, guards are LITTERALLY created by the Hive Fleet to guard HIVE TYRANTS, its their sole purpose in this universe, saying they can't is fething stupid.

Rule application or not, its what they are meant to do.

Sometimes rules lawering helps in difficult scenarios, sometimes just use common sense for 5 secs.

Its the kind of thing i wouldn't dare to pull Vs a Nid player, because the reasoning is way too stupid, sometimes you need to lay off the rule shenanigans and just play it how its meant to be.

Tyrant Guards, guards Hive tyrants...

 insaniak wrote:
I think the Tyrant thing has been well and truly beaten to death, by this point. Given that the vast majority of players are going to allow him to join his guard regardless of what they think the rules say, it's time to give it a rest.

MOVING ON, YES?

Trasvi wrote:

SolentSanguine wrote:
Something I noticed that has changed - the draft FAQ stated gargantuan creatures could stomp at I1 even if they were no longer engaged.

But the final release changed it and says neither super heavy walkers nor gargantuan creatures can stomp if they are not still engaged.

Was wondering if this was connected to the LVO involvement as that's one of their house rules isn't it?

Q: If there are no models left in close combat with a Super-heavy
Walker or Gargantuan Creature at the Initiative 1 step, can it
still make a Stomp attack?
A: No.

You can be unengaged but still in combat (ie, you've killed everything in BTB) and still stomp.

The ruling, as I understand it, is to stop a super-heavy from completely wiping out all enemies in the combat at I4, and then stomping on to another unit out of combat at I1.

If i'm not wrong there was some FAQ question about GMC or SHW being able to stomp *IF they killed the enemy due swinging at I 1 * and the answer was yes able to stomp due both attacks and stomp happening at once.. maybe that's the answer SolentSanguine thinks to remember.

Apothecaries are back to carrying special weapons again.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Apothecaries are back to carrying special weapons again.

Source?

 Ghaz wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Apothecaries are back to carrying special weapons again.

Source?

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1628732777447355/1628732440780722/?type=3&theater

That's the draft, and isn't that also the one where the text isn't the same as the image?

So it is, I'm a nob.

 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 Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

Codex Tyranids HERE

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights HERE

Codex Necrons HERE

Codex Chaos Daemons HERE

Main Rulebook FINAL FAQ posted HERE.

All Codex FINAL FAQS posted HERE

All Codex Final FAQs posted.

Deathwatch shotgun with bolter is out. that was great while it lasted.

TRAITOR LEGIONS FAQ wrote:
Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+
in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in
the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule.
How do these interact?
A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way.

Well that sucks a lot. What a bizarre ruling. Why would you ever take the insurgency force if its major benefit literally does nothing.

They say they don't interact in a stackable way, but what other way could they interact? Would two chances be considered stacking? You wouldn't get more than one unit back.

 Roknar wrote:
They say they don't interact in a stackable way, but what other way could they interact? Would two chances be considered stacking? You wouldn't get more than one unit back.

You are still stacking the effect to increase the odds of getting a unit back.

Abaddon no longer is subject to Dark Apotheosis or Spawnhood. Nice to have that back.

Kharn hits invisible on a 2+. That's a big one.

TS Sorcerers must roll on Tzeentch, but they always also get the primaris due to psychic focus. That's not horrible.

The Alpha Legion ruling sucks.

Hold on! In the Grey Knights FAQ it states that a Grey Knight from a Nemesis Strike Force can't start the game in another detachment's Drop Pod as you can't start in an ally's drop pod. HOWEVER, previously they said you can start in their Drop Pod if you're from the same Faction. Will keep reading, but I think I see a major inconsistency here. Yup, in the Space Marine FAQ it says that a character can't join the Skyhammer unless that character also has an ability that allows them to deploy on turn 1. So, the reasoning given here is inconsistent, but the actual answer is not.

Same codex equals able to deploy in transport
Different codex means can't deploy in transport

Separate rule on formation benefits means
Even if you are from the same codex but not under a specific detachment or formations special rule. Means a unit that is not part of that detachment does not benefit from the special rule. This usually means you can't use the special rule if you add a character or in some instances you can't even add a special character to the formation. Movement special rules are also a bit different as sometimes you lose the benefit (wulfen) and sometimes they just need to stay in coherency.

 Yarium wrote:
Hold on! In the Grey Knights FAQ it states that a Grey Knight from a Nemesis Strike Force can't start the game in another detachment's Drop Pod as you can't start in an ally's drop pod. HOWEVER, previously they said you can start in their Drop Pod if you're from the same Faction. Will keep reading, but I think I see a major inconsistency here. Yup, in the Space Marine FAQ it says that a character can't join the Skyhammer unless that character also has an ability that allows them to deploy on turn 1. So, the reasoning given here is inconsistent, but the actual answer is not.

Grey Knights don't have drop pods, IIRC.

So... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the BRB rulebook official FAQ...

Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side.

And... here is the official barrage weapon ruling in the IK codex official FAQ

Q: How do you determine which side of an Imperial Knight is hit by a Barrage weapon (which are always resolved against a vehicle’s side armour) for the purposes of determining if the Knight gets an ion shield save?
A: Use the direction of the firing model to determine the facing of the attack for the purposes of the Knight’s ion shield, but resolve the attack against its side armour as normal.

See a problem anyone? The ion shield part is clear, but they completely contradict each other on what Armor Facing/AV value to use. The BRB FAQ says assume shot comes from center of the blast, but IK FAQ says use side armour "as normal". Except it's not normal, because their own BRB FAQ says otherwise.

GW... please get your heads out of your butts and read your existing FAQ's before you write more FAQ's because this is just plain stupid and sloppy.

Also... can someone explain to me why a Leman Russ can fire its side sponsons at a very slight inward angle.. but an IK's can't now?