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:

 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.

BUT...

Page 166 – Independent Character, Independent
Characters and Infiltrate
Change this sentence to read:
‘An Independent Character without the Infiltrate
special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during
deployment, and vice versa.’

and this:

Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without
Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a
squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the
Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted
freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have
Deep Strike.
A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate
special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during
deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking
or Outflanking. They are free to join units as they wish
after deployment.

I'd say that FAQ implys if you don't use the Infiltrate rule, then the units don't count as Infiltrators, and you can join whatever you want.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
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?

Well, we are told that hits from a Barrage are always resolved against side armour. But to determine which side is hit (because there might be a wall granting cover against it, or say that a tank has a 4+ save against hits from the back), we assume the hit is coming from the center of the blast and hits the nearest side.

So assume my barrage blast is placed directly behind a tank, with a wall between it and the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle would therefore get a cover save from the wall, but I would still resolve my hit against the side armour value.

I find it much more interesting that we use the direction of the firing model when determining whether an Ion Shield works or not instead of the blast direction.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I'd say that FAQ implys if you don't use the Infiltrate rule, then the units don't count as Infiltrators, and you can join whatever you want.

then why the Deep Strike bit...?

Given the last seven or so answers in the Blood Angel's FAQ were about imperial guard, do I need to read all the faqs to ensure I get all of my updates?

Banbaji wrote:
Given the last seven or so answers in the Blood Angel's FAQ were about imperial guard, do I need to read all the faqs to ensure I get all of my updates?

I don't see any Imperial Guard questions in the Blood Angel FAQ at this time.

 Ghaz wrote:

Banbaji wrote:
Given the last seven or so answers in the Blood Angel's FAQ were about imperial guard, do I need to read all the faqs to ensure I get all of my updates?

I don't see any Imperial Guard questions in the Blood Angel FAQ at this time.

Interesting. I just went to the following site (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/01/20/faqs-for-every-codex-live-now/) and looked at the BA FAQ, and the extra questions are not there. I repeated what I did this morning, were I extracted them from the "download all" zip and there were extra questions. Why would these be different?

Because GW fixed the probelm

Banbaji wrote:
Why would these be different?

Because someone probably pointed it out to them and they fixed the standalone FAQ and not the one in the ZIP file.

OK. That makes sense. And now that you all have mentioned I can see the revision update in the file name. Thank you all!

 Aenarian wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
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?

Well, we are told that hits from a Barrage are always resolved against side armour. But to determine which side is hit (because there might be a wall granting cover against it, or say that a tank has a 4+ save against hits from the back), we assume the hit is coming from the center of the blast and hits the nearest side.

So assume my barrage blast is placed directly behind a tank, with a wall between it and the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle would therefore get a cover save from the wall, but I would still resolve my hit against the side armour value.

I find it much more interesting that we use the direction of the firing model when determining whether an Ion Shield works or not instead of the blast direction.

Please read through the FAQ's I quoted more carefully. The BRB FAQ states clearly "Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker and hits the nearest side."

This completely overrides the spot in the BRB that tells you to always use side armor, meaning there is nowhere are we told (that is valid any longer) to use side armor other than the IK FAQ.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
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?

Well, we are told that hits from a Barrage are always resolved against side armour. But to determine which side is hit (because there might be a wall granting cover against it, or say that a tank has a 4+ save against hits from the back), we assume the hit is coming from the center of the blast and hits the nearest side.

So assume my barrage blast is placed directly behind a tank, with a wall between it and the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle would therefore get a cover save from the wall, but I would still resolve my hit against the side armour value.

I find it much more interesting that we use the direction of the firing model when determining whether an Ion Shield works or not instead of the blast direction.

Please read through the FAQ's I quoted more carefully. The BRB FAQ states clearly "Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker and hits the nearest side."

This completely overrides the spot in the BRB that tells you to always use side armor, meaning there is nowhere are we told (that is valid any longer) to use side armor other than the IK FAQ.

I interpreted the FAQ answer as saying that the blast hits the 'nearest side' as left or right side, not that every single vehicle facing was suddenly an option.

Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

Anyone notice the nerf to the Beacon Angelis? It no longer works on the turn it arrives.
I wouldn't mind this, except that the Beacon Angelis uses the exact same wording as the Icons of Chaos, and yet the Icons of Chaos are allowed to work as soon as they arrive.

 coblen wrote:

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.

Stackable refers to receiving multiple benefits. So you can't get two units coming back from one being wiped out, but you can still have two chances (from the two separate rules) to bring back one unit. It's fairly obvious if you think about it, otherwise as you say there's no point to the Insurgency Force rule.

It's just like casting psychic powers from different sources. You can try multiple times but unless otherwise stated the benefits don't stack.

It just seems super weird. I mean, #1, it was two differently named rules. #2 both rules placed a copy of the destroyed unit into Ongoing Reserves, and not the original unit just being brought back, so there's no reason you couldn't get two copies of one unit. #3 Alpha Legion's symbol is the frikkin Hydra, a creature known for growing multiple more heads whenever one is cut!

Just a little salty over this because I thought it was cool, even if it was just Cultists, and you would statistically end up net even on cultists at the end of it.

Blood Angels have the same situation. The Angel's Blade Strike Force has 'The Red Thirst' as one of it's Command Benefits which is the exact same special rule that their Battle Demi-company already has.

 Ghaz wrote:
Blood Angels have the same situation. The Angel's Blade Strike Force has 'The Red Thirst' as one of it's Command Benefits which is the exact same special rule that their Battle Demi-company already has.

At least that bonus applies to the other Formation and Unit choices in that Meta Detachment.

Insurgency Force only applies to Cultists and the only way they can be taken in a meta Detachment is the Lost and the Damned Formation, making it 100% worthless compared to 80% worthless like the Blood Angels Red Thirst.

Oh snap, Tau can't use supporting fire on models with Banshee Masks anymore. This makes me happy The Draft FAQ said they could.

Do I really read the Traitor Legions FAQ correctly, have GW ruled that Alpha Legion do not get any benefit for their Insurgency Force?

Why on earth would you create a Formation which doesn't get a benefit?

Does anyone know the best way to send a FAQ query to GW?

 lighterthief wrote:
Do I really read the Traitor Legions FAQ correctly, have GW ruled that Alpha Legion do not get any benefit for their Insurgency Force?

Why on earth would you create a Formation which doesn't get a benefit?

Does anyone know the best way to send a FAQ query to GW?

'Doesn't stack' presumably means you can't get two units of Cultists. You roll twice, but can't double the number of available models.

Wonderful...they made it so Knights can't hit anything directly in front of them...

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wonderful...they made it so Knights can't hit anything directly in front of them...

If it's only 3" wide, and is dead center on the knight then yes the arm guns can't hit. You'll have to resort to firing your hull heavy stubbers or carapace guns at it

This won't affect how I use my Knight at all.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 lighterthief wrote:
Do I really read the Traitor Legions FAQ correctly, have GW ruled that Alpha Legion do not get any benefit for their Insurgency Force?

Why on earth would you create a Formation which doesn't get a benefit?

Does anyone know the best way to send a FAQ query to GW?

'Doesn't stack' presumably means you can't get two units of Cultists. You roll twice, but can't double the number of available models.

This is how I interpret it. A rerollable 4+ to regen the cultists is still really good but it's not exactly game-breaking to allow the cultists to come back twofold. It is actually kind of fluffy that you kill one squad and two take its place. I'm not happy about it but it's not as bad as it could have been, I suppose. It's also kind of obnoxious that it was the only thing that got FAQ'd out of the whole book...

Remember, GW is not above making you pay for things that give no benefit. Mad Dok Grotsnik has to pay for a cybork body even though it has no effect.

Most likely if you ask GW they will say there is one (and only one) roll.

I noticed the question has been asked several times on the fb page.

Of course, GW ignores it.

Always mention that you would have to buy muuuch more Cultists if the rules would stack and maybe they will think about it again, because MONEY!

That never works for orks. Is a 4+ shoota boy really worth 11 points? If they dropped the point cost, they would sell more of them.

Presumably the profit is far to low for them to be interested.

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

Again, you are over thinking it. The side the attack comes from normally determines AV facing, however in this instance AV is determined by the nature of the attack (Barrage) while the actual side hit can be subject to other rules (Ion Shield). The ruling tells us where to count the attack as having come from regardless of how other rules change the attack.

SJ