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.

 slip wrote:

 Runic wrote:

 slip wrote:
I like how get hots blasts can't be re rolled, but regular gets hot still can for reasons.

Gets Hot shots are usually re-rolled with abilities that affect To Hit Rolls. The Gets Hot roll on a Blast weapon is not a To Hit Roll.

Did you think I didn't understand that part?

Judging by your post, ofcourse.

Erm. I'm not sure you read slip's post.

He is noting the paradox of blast plasma not being able to mitigate the gets hot, whole direct fore plasma can

The confusing thing about the ruling on Gets Hot and blast weapons is that it directly contradicts the last paragraph in the Gets Hot rule on page 164 of the rule book.

I mean, the rule couldn't be any clearer.

Evidently not that clear.

 oldzoggy wrote:

Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.

Boom that kills a lot of things


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Using grenades in the Assault phase. Can every model replace their close combat attacks with a single grenade attack or just one model in the unit? Like in the Shooting phase e.g. a unit of 5 Tau Pathfinders charge a Knight. Do 5 Pathfinders make close combat haywire grenade attacks?
A: Only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the Assault phase. Per Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, ‘Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase’.

Ugh lets hope that this is not in the final form or my tank busta's and inquisitors are completely useless : (

I really don't get why these are ruled this way ( pure from a rule perspective not from balance etc)

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.

On grenades, it made no sense with vehicles are bad as they are. A bunch of space marines running arms out with krak grenades is also not very fluffy ffs....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ignatius wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:


Plus the rulebook already says you can only use a single grenade a turn. Have people really just been ignoring it for mass grenade spam? That sounds weird that everyone would agree on that.

The rulebook says that you can only throw a single grenade per phase. You don't throw grenades in the assault phase, you clamp them to the vehicle's hull or stuff them in a cranny... So no, it's not strange that 'everyone' would agree to that. It's how it has always worked... this is a rules change.

Wait so this means that the 30 point Demolitions doctrine on Guard Veterans gives you one demo charge per game and allows just a single melta bomb use in CC per turn?

Like anyone was getting that for the assault capability of that unit.... that was a suicide unit from day 1 when it came out in 5th ed codex.

M m m melta bombs.

The number of times I've had scouts and tac marines kill my LRBT with one is amazing.

I just want to give the biggest hug or slap in the face, im not sure which at this point, to the nerdball who asked:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.



My god.

 xSoulgrinderx wrote:
I just want to give the biggest hug or slap in the face, im not sure which at this point, to the nerdball who asked:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.



My god.

You know what? After reading this, I think I want to have a game of this. Attacking/invading force has to destroy as many buildings as possible.

 corpuschain wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
A: No.

Hahaha! Did someone actually ask that?

 curran12 wrote:
as you can no longer embark in Battle Brother transports at deployment.

Our group never understood that whole taxi shenanigans. The only thing I can come up why it became a thing is because of waac player trying to get the most out of the rules by bending them in their favour. BB allow you to share transport but never give you permission to get into friendly transport as if they were dedicated transport before being deployed through outflank, reserve or deep strike.

GW has fixed this for the internet... for now.

I haven't played in about 3 months, now.

Looking at these faqs, I doubt that will change any time soon.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh god. The Ordinatus is practically indestructible now.

Not if you have Titans.

And let's be honest, Leviathan vs Leviathan is only fair.

Actually I am not afraid of D weapons. Like at all. The Dispersion Shield makes D weapons not great, and their secondary guns flatten Void Shields...

What are you afraid of, then?

(You play an Ordinatus list so I know the answer is 'nothing'. Eh.)

Psychic Shriek doesn't roll to hit! I was right! Seems a tad strong though.

 Saber wrote:
The confusing thing about the ruling on Gets Hot and blast weapons is that it directly contradicts the last paragraph in the Gets Hot rule on page 164 of the rule book.

I mean, the rule couldn't be any clearer.

^ This is the problem.

People misunderstanding the FAQ.

Re-rolls still allow the re-roll of the get's hot dice.

However re-rolls with special requirements such as "re-roll all hit results of 1" do correctly not affect blast weapons because they use alternative hit methods. Those re-rolls never specify a re-rolling of the gets hot dice. It's an extreme RAW, but it's not actually in contradiction with the BRB. Hell the FAQ even has an example of Get Hot Blast weapons in it using the normal Re-roll, via twin linked iirc.

Mind you the clarification on Wyverns is pretty great! As far as I could tell as far as you took the RAW argument with it, it boiled down to the usage of english and whether scatter automatically meant scatter die or not.

 vipoid wrote:
I haven't played in about 3 months, now.

Looking at these faqs, I doubt that will change any time soon.

I haven't played inn nearly 12 months now...

GW needs a serious rewrite of the rules, or I'm out for good.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Saber wrote:
The confusing thing about the ruling on Gets Hot and blast weapons is that it directly contradicts the last paragraph in the Gets Hot rule on page 164 of the rule book.

I mean, the rule couldn't be any clearer.

^ This is the problem.

People misunderstanding the FAQ.

Re-rolls still allow the re-roll of the get's hot dice.

However re-rolls with special requirements such as "re-roll all hit results of 1" do correctly not affect blast weapons because they use alternative hit methods. Those re-rolls never specify a re-rolling of the gets hot dice. It's an extreme RAW, but it's not actually in contradiction with the BRB. Hell the FAQ even has an example of Get Hot Blast weapons in it using the normal Re-roll, via twin linked iirc.

But the rulebook also mentions rerolls for BS 6+ being a valid source of rerolling a Gets Hot! die for a blast weapon. So clearly it's not just twin-linking (or other rules that let you reroll all misses) that let you reroll the Gets Hot! die, but any source of rerolls, even those that aren't a full-fat reroll all misses. Why does BS 6 allow the reroll but not Preferred Enemy or Space Marine doctrines or what have you?

The rulebook is clearly just presenting examples of situations when the die can be rerolled, and is not making an all-inclusive list of the situations when you can do it. I get what they're going for with the FAQ answer it just seems to be a completely nonsensical reading of the rule.

 Saber wrote:
But the rulebook also mentions rerolls for BS 6+ being a valid source of rerolling a Gets Hot! die for a blast weapon. So clearly it's not just twin-linking (or other rules that let you reroll all misses) that let you reroll the Gets Hot! die, but any source of rerolls, even those that aren't a full-fat reroll all misses. Why does BS 6 allow the reroll but not Preferred Enemy or Space Marine doctrines or what have you?

The rulebook is clearly just presenting examples of situations when the die can be rerolled, and is not making an all-inclusive list of the situations when you can do it. I get what they're going for with the FAQ answer it just seems to be a completely nonsensical reading of the rule.

Well, the FAQ simply puts its foot down. Now, of course, you're welcome to ask them to re-considering this ruling! They are asking for people to write back about them!

As for rules-lingo, they seem to be differentiating between "you get a reroll when this happens" and "you get a reroll when you miss". BS6+ is cited as being a reroll when you miss, it just so happens that you miss on a 1. Preferred Enemy doesn't allow a reroll on a miss, just on a roll of a 1. Ergo, the two, while they function similarly, are not the same. GW has made the decision that they are sufficiently different that Preferred Enemy doesn't get a "Get's Hot" reroll, while BS6+ does.

The philosophy of these rule changes seems to be about matching expectations with reality. In the case of Preferred Enemy or Twin Linked and Gets Hot, think about what's theoretically happening in the game. In the case of Twin-Linked, as one gun starts to Overheat, the gun switches to the other to avoid a meltdown. In the case of Preferred Enemy, the shooter may be exceptionally skilled at targeting specific types of enemies, but that doesn't affect the equipment they carry. Someone with BS6+ meanwhile is sufficiently skilled with their weapon to be both a better shot and to know when the gun's about to meltdown. But that's just my theory on the reasoning for some of these changes.

I wonder if this is GW's first attempt at a re-balance of sorts for the game, as opposed to strictly a rules clarification.

(Just seeing how they've adjusted/changed things, in some cases going against the rulebook...)

Thoughts?

 Cothonian wrote:
I wonder if this is GW's first attempt at a re-balance of sorts for the game, as opposed to strictly a rules clarification.

(Just seeing how they've adjusted/changed things, in some cases going against the rulebook...)

Thoughts?

I don't entirely think so. Some of them, like the Battle Brothers and their transports, perhaps, but the majority are I believe changes to reflect the actual setting of the game. I'm pretty positive that Dark Eldar Kabalites or Dark Eldar Raiders in the next 'dex will get a specific rule where they CAN jink and have the occupants not count as jinking. Just wish that "Skilled Rider" wasn't the name that was already taken. Perhaps Skilled Rider on non-bike models can give this Jink immunity.

Except there are no new codices. Only new models and their campaign books.

 Yarium wrote:

 Cothonian wrote:
I wonder if this is GW's first attempt at a re-balance of sorts for the game, as opposed to strictly a rules clarification.

(Just seeing how they've adjusted/changed things, in some cases going against the rulebook...)

Thoughts?

I don't entirely think so. Some of them, like the Battle Brothers and their transports, perhaps, but the majority are I believe changes to reflect the actual setting of the game. I'm pretty positive that Dark Eldar Kabalites or Dark Eldar Raiders in the next 'dex will get a specific rule where they CAN jink and have the occupants not count as jinking. Just wish that "Skilled Rider" wasn't the name that was already taken. Perhaps Skilled Rider on non-bike models can give this Jink immunity.

Call it "High Speed Hijinks"

Hiya, Jink shots

Never understood people using drop pods for their guard or admech. The BRB is pretty dam clear. "Battle brothers can embark upon one anothers transport vehicle". "Embarkation happens in the movement phase". No you can't put your admech in a BA drop pod and makes no dam sense either.

CumsnComments wrote:
Never understood people using drop pods for their guard or admech. The BRB is pretty dam clear. "Battle brothers can embark upon one anothers transport vehicle". "Embarkation happens in the movement phase". No you can't put your admech in a BA drop pod and makes no dam sense either.

A Watcher In The Dark wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
as you can no longer embark in Battle Brother transports at deployment.

Our group never understood that whole taxi shenanigans. The only thing I can come up why it became a thing is because of waac player trying to get the most out of the rules by bending them in their favour. BB allow you to share transport but never give you permission to get into friendly transport as if they were dedicated transport before being deployed through outflank, reserve or deep strike.

GW has fixed this for the internet... for now.

You could since BA 7th codex showed up because they got in the Fast Attack. There isn't any more need to buy Drop Pods only as Dedicated Transports - you can fill your Fast Attack slots with them. And, as not being Dedicated Transports, any kind of BB unit could start the game there.

Now the FAQ killed these shenanigans.

 Vector Strike wrote:

CumsnComments wrote:
Never understood people using drop pods for their guard or admech. The BRB is pretty dam clear. "Battle brothers can embark upon one anothers transport vehicle". "Embarkation happens in the movement phase". No you can't put your admech in a BA drop pod and makes no dam sense either.

A Watcher In The Dark wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
as you can no longer embark in Battle Brother transports at deployment.

Our group never understood that whole taxi shenanigans. The only thing I can come up why it became a thing is because of waac player trying to get the most out of the rules by bending them in their favour. BB allow you to share transport but never give you permission to get into friendly transport as if they were dedicated transport before being deployed through outflank, reserve or deep strike.

GW has fixed this for the internet... for now.

You could since BA 7th codex showed up because they got in the Fast Attack. There isn't any more need to buy Drop Pods only as Dedicated Transports - you can fill your Fast Attack slots with them. And, as not being Dedicated Transports, any kind of BB unit could start the game there.

Now the FAQ killed these shenanigans.

I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

CumsnComments wrote:


I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

What is the point of a drop pod if you can't actually put models in it?

A 35 point way to get 2 pods in on T1.

 insaniak wrote:

CumsnComments wrote:


I don't have a BA codex on me but I'm.going to assume it operates similar to a dreadclaw. In the dread claws rules it says "assault vehicle" and lists "transport capacity" however it goes in the fast attack slot. For all intents and purposes, if you use it as a transport it counts as a transport vehicle. Which means I could not embark demons upon it before the game only during the movement phase. Ill have to look up the Drop pod rules from BA to get a better grasp on it though.

What is the point of a drop pod if you can't actually put models in it?

The main reason for taking it as a fast attack choice would be to place models within your CAD that can't take dedicated transports in the Drop Pod. The FAQ is ruled towards Battle Brothers, meaning a separate codex trying to take and use the Drop Pods. There's still purpose to those Fast Attack Pods.

Can battle brother independent characters still join unit in their transport?

Yes. Because they then become part of that unit.

But remember, formation and detachment rules don't jump between detachments anymore.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Yes. Because they then become part of that unit.

But remember, formation and detachment rules don't jump between detachments anymore.

Doesn't one of the new FAQs state that combined units count as having both Factions? Meaning that an IC with BB faction:A still cannot embark in a transport during deployment even if joined to a unit with BB faction:B?