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.

I heard a roomer the there completely redoing the errata & facts section of the GW web site. I want to say it was in an interview with someone at GW. Could anyone point me in the right direction?

I don't think it's ready yet, but that is was Alessio said to me at GD:UK.

It needs it..

Not as much as some people think.

90% of FAQ issues are due to extremely....liberal...readings of wordings etc.

Take the hooha over Invocation of Nehek. You always could cast it into combat, it contained an example of the spell resolving on a unit in combat, and STILL people whinged and griped and said you couldn't. Even though it was there, in black and white.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
90% of FAQ issues are due to extremely....liberal...readings of wordings etc.

I completely agree this is the primary issue with 5th ed. Honestly, if 5th ed were the first time I'd tried playing WH40k, my rulebook would have been up on ebay a week later. Primarily the problems with 5th ed are in difficult semantics. Don't get me wrong, I believe 5th ed it 100 times better than what 4th was trying to be; however, without my previous experience of 3rd and 4th ed, I'd have given up and moved on.

Hey Guys my two cents.

I am happy to here they are making a new FAQ. I think they did not adress all the issues. My hope to god that they adrees one issue.


One of my best friends was at a tournement recently as this weekend and fought a new codex Space marine army of the Ravenesguard. He said because of the rules in the Main books and the universal rules. One major issue happened. The GW agent help running the game said that he could. But, every time I have tried it with the eldar all of you have said I could not.

The writing is not clear and as we all know if you call GW 5 times you will here the answer twice for one way and then twice for the other way and one for a complete different answer.

I just hope that the FAQ will adress this issue. I will be smart and not bring it up again. but now with the Space Marines have the ability, I have seen a couple times they tried to do it and were allowed.

What I like the most of all about 5th ed. It bring you back a little closer to 2nd edition. Now matter how much people hate 2nd ed. The thing about 2nd ed., is that it had fluff, every armies had its feel. yes the game took longer, but it was more interesting because you have some fun styles.

I still remeber:

1. Squats on trikes with Gav Guns.
2. Orcs with refracter shields and bouncing in random directions as they make saves.
3. Goblin Fanatics with really spiky balls
4. Eldar who you were afraid of in the magic phase.
5. Grey Knights with the Holocaust Spell

So... Half your post was about "one issue", yet you never mentioned just what that issue was?

Fine I will be happy to mention it. ....


Does the Fleet rule in the assault phase allow a running unit to assault after disembarking out of a moving armored transport.

my friend assaulted out of a rhino that moves because his army now fleets.

Only if they were allowed to disembark and assault normally.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:90% of FAQ issues are due to extremely....vague...wordings etc.

Fixed. Seriously, how hard is it to use consistent terms for things? If you call something an "assault" in one paragraph, you will call it an assault in every other paragraph. Not an "attack", not a "close combat melee", or any other descriptions. You call it that one specific term only.

Like I said. I don't not want to get into the argument again. but by the main book. It is vauge.

There is many points each way. The book is not staight lace. I have two agents of GW saying yes you can in writing. And two others say you can't. I put poll on Dakka on this and got a very good discusion on it. Mainly marine players saying no and now that fleet is now availible for marines. I don't here them fight anymore.. odd is it naught.

Astalado wrote:
Goblin Fanatics with really spiky balls

...titter...

Astalado wrote:Fine I will be happy to mention it. ....


Does the Fleet rule in the assault phase allow a running unit to assault after disembarking out of a moving armored transport.

my friend assaulted out of a rhino that moves because his army now fleets.

Can a unit with said fleet rule assault after disembarking from a drop pod too? No. your friend got you. You have to look at the rules for assaulting from vehicles and the fleet special rule. Only open topped (not drop pods) and land raiders support this in their rules AFAIK

Blunt Force Trauma wrote:Can a unit with said fleet rule assault after disembarking from a drop pod too? No. your friend got you. You have to look at the rules for assaulting from vehicles and the fleet special rule. Only open topped (not drop pods) and land raiders support this in their rules AFAIK

Agreed, only Orks and DE have that ability given their vehicles are open-topped, and ofc vehicles classified as 'assault'.

Fleet does not remove the normal no assault from disembarking rules. The fact that they can assault after running is irrelevant if they have disembarked from a closed topped vehicle.

See the previous disucssion on this
HERE

Like, I said i will not discuss this here. I just hope they adress it in the new FAQ.

I can see it both ways and have seen it judged both ways. and about the drop pod rules. I have to ask one question.

Why in that instance does it spell out you can not do the fleet, and in this situation it says nothing.


I just want a final answer on this. that is why I mentioned it again. I just want to see a FAQ on it to make it final. No more discussion. No more points of views.

Don't hold your breath