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.

doctortom wrote:So, you're saying "provide an example of how the IC dies as a result of the Charge in which they did not move, but don't include the method in which they could die."

I gave a (very) brief explanation of why to exclude it. The Charge is is what allows the Shooting, but Charging itself is not what actually kills the IC, the responsive Shooting does (Shooting is a separate process, technically). But that could be just a way of interpreting the question.

More to the point, how/why can a unit initiate the charge when one model in it cannot participate? Nos's question is a bit of a red herring when addressing this overall point. A diversion that isn't really addressing the actual question, but just trying to change the direction in an unnecessary direction.

doctortom wrote:If the IC is the closest model when the charge is declared, whether or not he can move, according to Overwatch rules he would be the model that wounds were allocated to, since normal rules for wound allocation are still followed.

Of course, it seems like a moot point because however he would be destroyed in a charge, it doesn't seem it would matter whether he could move or not. And isn't looking at the larger point, which you talk about in your earlier post. A Captain firing a bolter and a Tac Marine firing a lascannon is the same in that a member of the unit fired a weapon that disqualifies the unit from charging. Otherwise, we could normally see IC's firing heavy weapons or rapid fire weapons and having units charge. I haven't seen anybody allow that now.

A question then is, why is the IC part of the unit for getting shot for Overwatch, but not part of the unit for Bounding Lope? The IC cannot Charge with the unit, but can get shot with the unit?

doctortom wrote:I do agree with your previous comment about giving a half answer that ignores the errata about charging and unit coherency. Maybe when they dreamed up the Bounding Lope answer they hadn't come up yet with that answer for charging and unit coherency - just because it was released later doesn't mean they came up with the question and answer later.

The current BRB FAQ which included that Errata was about 6 months before this FAQ. It doesn't matter when Bounding Lope itself was written, it matters when the two FAQs were written.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the IC dies as a result of the charge, was it still beneficial for the IC?

Simple question.

Provide an example of how the IC dies as a result of the Charge in which they did not move? I'm not including Overwatch in this, since technically, it's not part of the unit's Charge and the Charge would have to be declared before Overwatch is made.

Maybe phrase your question more clearly, however just because he could not make a charge move doesn't mean he cannot have wounds allocated to him normally.

So he dies. Is that still a benefit? Yes or no.

I'm trying to understand your question and requesting a definition from you regarding your question. Maybe rephrase your question to properly setup the scenario instead of such a blank canvas?

How is the IC dying because of the Charge itself?

Regardless of what some people think the dictionary definition of benefit is...

Bounding Lope has 2 benefits.

If the unit runs and then moves into assault, is one benefit.

So if the IC ends up in assault as part of the unit it has benefited from part of the bounding lope rule, assault after running. Normally the IC would not be able to end up in assault after running, so yes the IC has unanimously beneffited from the rule, despite the faq clearly stating in the same answer the IC may not benefit.

Rendering the faq answer nonsenical and paradoxical.

Why not play it the other way where the Wulfen run, but the IC stays stationary, then the entire unit charges? Entirely consistent with the FAQ answer and avoids the absurd situation of only part of a unit charging.

JakeSiren wrote:
Why not play it the other way where the Wulfen run, but the IC stays stationary, then the entire unit charges? Entirely consistent with the FAQ answer and avoids the absurd situation of only part of a unit charging.

The problem with that is the FAQ for multiple types of movement in an unit states the whole unit counts as running if the unit runs. So the IC would still be running even if the player chooses to not move the IC and the unit has elected to run. Further this is a repeat of the BRB which tells the player the unit runs, not models in the unit. Just like the unit makes an assault move, not models in the unit. Which then runs into the problem of the IC being able to end up in assault after running which according to the faq, the IC cannot benefit from bounding lope to do so...

Here's to hoping they use better wording in the final version of the FAQ.

blaktoof wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Why not play it the other way where the Wulfen run, but the IC stays stationary, then the entire unit charges? Entirely consistent with the FAQ answer and avoids the absurd situation of only part of a unit charging.

The problem with that is the FAQ for multiple types of movement in an unit states the whole unit counts as running if the unit runs. So the IC would still be running even if the player chooses to not move the IC and the unit has elected to run. Further this is a repeat of the BRB which tells the player the unit runs, not models in the unit. Just like the unit makes an assault move, not models in the unit. Which then runs into the problem of the IC being able to end up in assault after running which according to the faq, the IC cannot benefit from bounding lope to do so...

Here's to hoping they use better wording in the final version of the FAQ.

In the same way that if a unit charges the entire unit charges. Running and charging are both unit level actions. I just think it's much cleaner to say during a game "the Wulfen are using bounding lope to run", making it clear to your opponent that your IC is not moving, rather than saying "I am declaring a charge, but my IC is not moving because he just ran and can't charge"

Hopefully GW clear up the FAQ as to how they want it to work.

JakeSiren wrote:
In the same way that if a unit charges the entire unit charges. Running and charging are both unit level actions. I just think it's much cleaner to say during a game "the Wulfen are using bounding lope to run", making it clear to your opponent that your IC is not moving, rather than saying "I am declaring a charge, but my IC is not moving because he just ran and can't charge"

Hopefully GW clear up the FAQ as to how they want it to work.

Again, the issue is that even if the Wulfen models Run during the Shooting Phase, they have only done so because the Wulfen UNIT has initiated the Run action.

While each individual model can move whatever they are allowed to move (no matter the Phase), it is still the Unit activating Run which allows the models to perform those individual moves in the first place. If the Unit Runs, the Unit cannot normally Charge. Bounding Lope then says, "nope, the Unit can run". Then the FAQ says, "The IC is part of the unit for the Run, but not for Bounding Lope". This translates as a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot in regards to a proper logic train.

I dont disagree that its a crazy FAQ answer. However only ONE result allows the faq answer to have meaning. which is that the wulfen models charge, the others do not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I dont disagree that its a crazy FAQ answer. However only ONE result allows the faq answer to have meaning. which is that the wulfen models charge, the others do not.

Or they just benefit from the first half of the rule (re-roll run and charge) but not the second half.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I dont disagree that its a crazy FAQ answer. However only ONE result allows the faq answer to have meaning. which is that the wulfen models charge, the others do not.

Not a complete statement. The Wulfen models make a Charge MOVE, and the others do not. Models do not Charge independently in this game.

However, there is nothing which allows for a Charge to happen if all models cannot make such a Charge move except this FAQ which does not properly Errata the situation.

So, either treat it as Stubborn, and the ICs can make a Charge Move, or treat it as Fleet, so the unit cannot even declare the Charge if one model cannot make a Charge Move. This hotel-alpha passive aggressive response crap is ridiculous.

Except they're not treating units as inviolate as much now - jump,packs and rerolls, for example

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except they're not treating units as inviolate as much now - jump,packs and rerolls, for example

Which requires an Errata, not a House Rule, to be official in actually changing it. There is nothing in the ruleset that allows individual models to Charge without the entire Unit being able to do so. This rule does not even follow the normal convention of how possession works with USRs, and their ruling even less so.

Speaking of Jump Packs, oddly enough, a walking Captain can apparently benefit from a Jump Pack model in unit doing a Jump for a Charge, but not when Bounding Lope does. This is the definition of inconsistent.

This round of FAQ Drafts clearly indicates that they didn't bother looking up half the rules they have written and go by how they prefer to play it in their own time.

Only if yiou presume that is how GW operate. They dont. They never have. THey have ALWAYS altered how the rules read by FAQs - SitW and psykers in a transport was a FAQ both ways round, for example - ONE of the ways should have been an errata, by definition!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only if yiou presume that is how GW operate. They dont. They never have. THey have ALWAYS altered how the rules read by FAQs - SitW and psykers in a transport was a FAQ both ways round, for example - ONE of the ways should have been an errata, by definition!

Incorrect. FAQs have ALWAYS been specifically noted as being their own House Rules until their last site redesign where the Erratas were first taken off and moved to Black Library.

Errratas are to correct mistakes. Amendments are to bring the rules up to date. FAQs do neither, just answer questions. This is on the current, live Erratas.

Too many of these Draft Answers do not properly recognize or alter the game as it currently exists. If it is only answering a question or providing a clarification, it is How They Would Play It, aka House Rules.

Only when they added the lead page were they called house rules. 4th ed faqs had no such distinction made.

They have always answered questions that should instead be errata. This is their one consistency.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only when they added the lead page were they called house rules. 4th ed faqs had no such distinction made.

Actually, I had found a reference during 4th Ed FAQs for that. It may not have been at the beginning, but was there by Chaos Marines.

But that doesn't change the fact that FAQs are still HTWPI, not active changes to the words of the rules. And HTWPI is still House Rules, even if they are the head House.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They have always answered questions that should instead be errata. This is their one consistency.

Not true. Those FAQs that should have been Errata were later altered to follow the rules as they were written. Unless you are referencing the Helldrake, to which nothing was really defined in the first place, either way, and it could have been considered a turret or hull-mounted due to its dual nature.

Site and rhinos
+d3 attacks and +2 attacks on the charge interaction
Etc.

If the FAQs are GW's "house rules", and we see the vast majority of people treating them as true amendments/errata, then it doesn't really matter if they're "house rules". Not following them when they're published really means that you are substituting your own house rules instead of theirs. Most people are going to treat "house rules" from the company that makes the game as official.

And, since they've stopped referring to the FAQ's as "house rules", then it seems even they don't see them as house rules any more. Once they were, now they're not. Once you could take a looted Vindicator for an Ork army, or have a CSM unit and a IG tank in a Lost and the Damed FOC, now you can't. Times change, rules change, and now even the definition of what are rules change.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Site and rhinos
+d3 attacks and +2 attacks on the charge interaction
Etc.

A little more specifics are required. I have reviewed a lot of GW erratas and FAQs over the years, and have noted that a few of them have changed to being the opposite from one month to the next.

doctortom wrote:If the FAQs are GW's "house rules", and we see the vast majority of people treating them as true amendments/errata, then it doesn't really matter if they're "house rules". Not following them when they're published really means that you are substituting your own house rules instead of theirs. Most people are going to treat "house rules" from the company that makes the game as official.

And, since they've stopped referring to the FAQ's as "house rules", then it seems even they don't see them as house rules any more. Once they were, now they're not. Once you could take a looted Vindicator for an Ork army, or have a CSM unit and a IG tank in a Lost and the Damed FOC, now you can't. Times change, rules change, and now even the definition of what are rules change.

You do have a point in how they are treated by much of the public. But let's face it, people will always try to use what they feel is best, no matter how official it is. Quite a few won't even use the official documents and prefer to use their own local tournament documents for such cases, too.

But how about how GW defines the FAQs in their own documents? FAQs are not noted as being a change to the written rule, are they? Why does no one bother addressing that point?

No, theyre saying thats what the rule meant all along.

Errata are "in future versions we will print X sentence instead of Y sentence"

FAQ are "X sentence means X'" even if there is no way to transpose X to X'

 Charistoph wrote:

But how about how GW defines the FAQs in their own documents? FAQs are not noted as being a change to the written rule, are they? Why does no one bother addressing that point?

No, they're not being explicitly noted as a change, but they ARE GW's answer as to how the situation is handled. If it's a change to the rule, then it's a change. I wish they'd be more consistent and not them as actual rules changes, but their mileage obviously varies on the subject. Even when they say this is what the rule said all along, sometimes it does become an actual rule change. Most people I think are just resigned to this by now since that seems to be business as usual for them. Railing about it seems to be about the same as railing at the sun for rising in the east, or railing at liquid water because it's wet.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, theyre saying thats what the rule meant all along.

Errata are "in future versions we will print X sentence instead of Y sentence"

FAQ are "X sentence means X'" even if there is no way to transpose X to X'

Than why not just make the change to the rule itself to make it that way instead of "clarification" which is in direct opposition to what is written?

There is always a way to transpose X to X, they call them Errata and Amendments, and that has been the accepted procedure in the industry and their own declarations.

But that is a discussion that is best directed at GW, not between us. This game has always been more subject to the whims of the game organizers than the rules writers, anyway.

Just to query the Death Frenzy rule.
Wulfen don't swap their Close Combat weapons for the upgrade, so they are still carrying them.
My question is regarding the Death Frenzy trigger, would it allow for a swapping of weapons for the post mortem attacks?
Eg - Wulfen carrying TH/SS uses Close Combat weapons to strike at I5, Necron kills it at I2, Wulfen lashes out with Death Frenzy using the Hammer.
Is there any other unit that hits at two initiative steps in the same assault to give a precedence?

Can someone link me these FAQs? cant find them anywhere.

nanaki658 wrote:
Can someone link me these FAQs? cant find them anywhere.

They're on GW's facebook site, I believe