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.

Haha I was totally and utterly wrong. Apologies to those in this thread who I disagreed with.

It even uses the "Ynnari/Dark Eldar" notation I said was clearly not right.

Oops.

Glad an FAQ has been sorted quickly.

Earth127 wrote:on the whole I like this FAQ it does what is supposed to do: clean up the (regrettably huge) mess.

A mess that is only a problem because of another FAQ. If we only go by the written rules of the rulebook (and its attendant amendments and errata), there was no issue to begin with. Nothing in Battle Brothers or Deployment causes this restriction.

Silentz wrote:Haha I was totally and utterly wrong. Apologies to those in this thread who I disagreed with.

It even uses the "Ynnari/Dark Eldar" notation I said was clearly not right.

Oops.

Glad an FAQ has been sorted quickly.

It's not your fault that GW couldn't write a rule that interacts with another with any proper clarity. The initial rules presented do not describe a Ynnari/Eldar relationship, but a Ynnari & Eldar relationship. We can only go by what we are given. GW's worse than a crazy girlfriend at times, always thinking that you can read their minds and go against what they actually say.

"I feel shocked Cotton"

I am truely shocked by this ruling. Equally shocked by the ruling that units can soulburst off their own trasnport if it is wrecked but not if it's exploded. They went the other way to what I was thinking on both of those issues.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"I feel shocked Cotton"

I am truely shocked by this ruling. Equally shocked by the ruling that units can soulburst off their own trasnport if it is wrecked but not if it's exploded. They went the other way to what I was thinking on both of those issues.

I'm truly shocked, shocked I tell you that there's gambling going on in this establishment ("Your winnings, sir" "Thank you")

Seriously though, I'm not shocked at all by the ruling; it's really the only way they could go with it without opening up all sorts of other cans of worms that could come with multiple faction units. It does raise a question though about Inquisitorial Warbands. The Acolytes can take a dedicated transport, but the other models all start with them as one unit. If you include other models such as some of the Adeptus Sororitas models, would the transport count as Inq/AS when the Acolytes take it, or just as an Inquisition transport. If the latter, then the mega-unit wouldn't be able to embark in the transport the acolyte part of the unit bought (so I suspect they'll go with the transport counting as all the factions in the mega unit - still, might be something else for them to FAQ).

Only 1 question missing, that came up this weekend:

A Land raider of my opponent kills a unit with 1 weapon, and wants to shoot with PotMS on another, but said unit charges it with soulburst,
is the vehicle now locked in close combat, until the Assault phase, or not, because vehicles don't stay locked?

I say it stays locked until the Combat Resolution of the Assault Phase.
But in this game we had to 4+ it, because even the referrees couldn't decide it.

Page 78 in the main rulebook takes care of that. "For a start, whilst vehicles can be assaulted, they do not Pile In and cannot be locked in combat."

They aren't locked in combat in the first place, so the Land Raider could shoot. with PotMS. ,

Tyrpak wrote:
... is the vehicle now locked in close combat, until the Assault phase, or not, because vehicles don't stay locked?

Vehicles are never locked in close combat, unless they're a Walker or barring other special rules (see ''Assault Results', pg. 78 bold text).

according to the most recent FAQ, no, we cannot.... making this new codex all but unusable for me now. great.

 supreme overlord wrote:
according to the most recent FAQ, no, we cannot.... making this new codex all but unusable for me now. great.

I don't see where in the latest FAQ there's something that would prevent the Land Raider from using PotMS, but I may be missing it. Do you have a rules quote from the FAQ?

 doctortom wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
according to the most recent FAQ, no, we cannot.... making this new codex all but unusable for me now. great.

I don't see where in the latest FAQ there's something that would prevent the Land Raider from using PotMS, but I may be missing it. Do you have a rules quote from the FAQ?

I believe he's talking about the subject of the thread, not the recent sidetrack.

 Ghaz wrote:

Tyrpak wrote:
... is the vehicle now locked in close combat, until the Assault phase, or not, because vehicles don't stay locked?

Vehicles are never locked in close combat, unless they're a Walker or barring other special rules (see ''Assault Results', pg. 78 bold text).

That's the question.
What you are too quoting is Assault Results!

But the question is: I charged the land raider. In the shooting phase. As if it were my Charge sub-phase.
So until the end of Assault Phase, I'm in close combat with it. Right?
Or wrong?

Tyrpak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Tyrpak wrote:
... is the vehicle now locked in close combat, until the Assault phase, or not, because vehicles don't stay locked?

Vehicles are never locked in close combat, unless they're a Walker or barring other special rules (see ''Assault Results', pg. 78 bold text).

That's the question.
What you are too quoting is Assault Results!

But the question is: I charged the land raider. In the shooting phase. As if it were my Charge sub-phase.
So until the end of Assault Phase, I'm in close combat with it. Right?
Or wrong?

It doesn't matter where its at. The answer is unambiguous. A vehicle is NEVER locked in close combat unless it's a Walker.

Tyrpak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Tyrpak wrote:
... is the vehicle now locked in close combat, until the Assault phase, or not, because vehicles don't stay locked?

Vehicles are never locked in close combat, unless they're a Walker or barring other special rules (see ''Assault Results', pg. 78 bold text).

That's the question.
What you are too quoting is Assault Results!

But the question is: I charged the land raider. In the shooting phase. As if it were my Charge sub-phase.
So until the end of Assault Phase, I'm in close combat with it. Right?
Or wrong?

Although in the Assault results section, the rule is stated to be a general rule that applies all the time. It says it can't be locked in combat even though the vehicle can be assaulted. If they had meant for it to be locked in combat until the end of the fight phase they would have said that at that point the vehicle ceases being locked in combat. There is a vast difference between "cannot be locked in Combat" and "ceases to be locked in Combat" - the rule states the former, not the latter.

Ok, what you say is:

You are never locked in combat, so you can never hit the vehicle, because you cannot be in base to base with it, because you have to keep 1" separation.


After I charged the Land Raider, and got in base contact with it, when did it cease, and when did my unit got put back 1"?
What happens to the successful charge, can I hit the vehicle in my opponents Assault Phase, or do I need to charge it again in my own turn?

And by your rules interpretation: can I hit it, even in my own turn, because I'm not even locked in close combat with it.

Tyrpak wrote:
Ok, what you say is:

You are never locked in combat, so you can never hit the vehicle, because you cannot be in base to base with it, because you have to keep 1" separation.


After I charged the Land Raider, and got in base contact with it, when did it cease, and when did my unit got put back 1"?
What happens to the successful charge, can I hit the vehicle in my opponents Assault Phase, or do I need to charge it again in my own turn?

And by your rules interpretation: can I hit it, even in my own turn, because I'm not even locked in close combat with it.

You are really insistant on over complicating this.
You can assault it, charge it, hammer of wrath it, melee it.
You can't lock it in combat.
The only question here is who gets precedence - shooting or hitting?

Tyrpak wrote:
Ok, what you say is:

You are never locked in combat, so you can never hit the vehicle, because you cannot be in base to base with it, because you have to keep 1" separation.


After I charged the Land Raider, and got in base contact with it, when did it cease, and when did my unit got put back 1"?
What happens to the successful charge, can I hit the vehicle in my opponents Assault Phase, or do I need to charge it again in my own turn?

And by your rules interpretation: can I hit it, even in my own turn, because I'm not even locked in close combat with it.

Except the actual rules say otherwise. Please read 'Vehicles in the Assault Phase' on page 78 of the main rulebook.

Ghaz,

From that page in the BRB:

"
Whilst vehicles can be assaulted, they do not Pile In and cannot be locked in combat.
Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle (not including Walkers or Chariots) are not locked in combat and can therefore be shot during the Shooting phase.
Units that still have models in base contact with a vehicle during its Assault phase may attack it again, just as in a normal ongoing combat (including all models that would count as engaged in a normal assault)."

I feel this says that both the unit charging and the vehicle are not locked in combat, especially as it says "enemy models" above. The charging unit can be shot at by other units (including the vehicle), and can shoot at other units (including the vehicle) - even though it is in base contact with a model (the vehicle). This is an exception to the normal rules.

I hope this helps.

bah, read the wrong name. Yeah Warhanna, that should help Tyrpak clear it up. Neither unit is locked in combat after the out-of-sequence charge.

Well I feel somewhat vindicated about dual Faction units interacting with Battle Brothers.

Well this was interesting to see points of views. Kudos to GW for fast FAQ Errata.

And a Gold Star for whoever was first person to predict, duel/sub factions in a detachment with its own "Faction".

Tsilber wrote:
And a Gold Star for whoever was first person to predict, duel/sub factions in a detachment with its own "Faction".

While I can see the RAI behind it, it was still a mistaken perspective based on the information at hand, and it should have been written with that intention in the first place.

 Charistoph wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
And a Gold Star for whoever was first person to predict, duel/sub factions in a detachment with its own "Faction".

While I can see the RAI behind it, it was still a mistaken perspective based on the information at hand, and it should have been written with that intention in the first place.

I dont think its going to matter much with the new edition, and they put the FAQ out, as they know it will be used at some big tourneys coming up, that they themselves will have a presence at. So an FAQ to please the mass's and us plebs.

Tsilber wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
And a Gold Star for whoever was first person to predict, duel/sub factions in a detachment with its own "Faction".

While I can see the RAI behind it, it was still a mistaken perspective based on the information at hand, and it should have been written with that intention in the first place.

I dont think its going to matter much with the new edition, and they put the FAQ out, as they know it will be used at some big tourneys coming up, that they themselves will have a presence at. So an FAQ to please the mass's and us plebs.

A lot of the big tourneys don't use the GW FAQ, they use their own, whether it be ITC, ETC, or a variant thereof. So whatever GW chooses to do to on their own will mean little. The "presence" of GW tend to be more as players or as booth presences at the conventions the tournaments, at best.