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.

2006 UK Grand Tournament FAQ

A few doozies in this one as well.  The UK GT will allow Independent Characters to split attacks, you will measure range from the weapon mounts on vehicles and a Size 3 vehicle on a Size 3 hill will be Size 6.

Brilliant!

Well I dont personally agree with some of those rulings but the Independent character splitting attacks blatantly goes against the rulebook. Before they make these rules they should find someone who isnt stuck in 3rd edition

I am personally very fond of these (paraphrased)
Q: "What is the standard size of a drop pod?"
A: "There is no standard size."

Q: "Does Lilith Hespoth get combat drugs blah blah"

Lilith Hespoth?! Its obviously meant to be Lelith Hesperax, but GW didn't seem to catch it, or mind printing that very bad typo of one of their own minis.

Hahahah!

Question: If Icon Bearer fails all on your own, what happens first, summoning or him falling back.
Answer: Roll to determine order of events.
Translation: We can't be bothered answering the question, so do yourself.

Question: Does Officer Leadership get boosted by A). Commissars B). CoD C). Other Officers.
Answer: No. Yes. No.
Translation: We didn't read our other FAQ, where we stated that Commissars do boost Officer Ld and Ld bubbles! Whoop! Why don't we all just D6 it?

They actually clarified the magical cylinder thing - vehicles use true LOS. I guess the fact that they got the answer right means that they didn't understand the question.

Question: Do wrecks block LOS as size 3, or true LOS.
Answer: Blocks LOS.
Audience: What? That wasn't an answer. Although it does prove they didn't understand the true LOS question from before.

Question: I you tanks shock a unit (I didn't make that up - that's the wording) and they can't get out of the way, what happens?
Answer: The tank stops to allow the unit to remain on the board.
Audience: Aww! What a considerate tank crew!

Question: Do Gift of the Gods count towards a model's Gift of Wargear allowance.
Answer: Wargear.
Chaos Players: WOOHOO!

BYE

I love how they say a small template is bigger than a carnifex's base...

Good thing these are only for the ukgt, not normal play...Definitely some errors there.

I wonder who wrote this FAQ? It has almost more clearly incorrect answers than anything else.

I am truly glad that I'm not playing in GTs in the UK.

 

Edit: Whoops, I posted too soon. Brian Anderson has taken credit for this absolute turd of a FAQ. This is perhaps the most disgraceful FAQ I have ever seen attempted. Brian should honestly be ashamed of himself.

 

 

 

Yakface- I think you just made Brian Anderson's balls roll straight under the desk...

Notice that he's decided that daemon princes can now have 150 points of daemonic goodies.

And I love all the "is it A or B" questions answered with "yes".

Brian, your work product is horrendous. You should be promoted to the design team immediately.

I like:

Q:  When assaulting a unit in difficult terrain, must you take a difficult terrain test or can you assault just the models that are outside of the terrain?

A:  You may assault just the models outside of the terrain provided you follow the rules in the 40K rulebook.

Note that the rules in the 40K rulebook say you must engage as many models as possible, which means that you can't just gang up on the one guy that is out of cover!

These are hilarious, would have been an excellent April 1st post.

- Oaka

Can something be hilarious, maddening and completely depressing all at once? 

At the same time, this is what they need as a larger FAQ. I'm not discussing the quality of the FAQ, I've played 40K so rarely this year all I remember is don't play 13 year olds.

But actually taking the time to answer more obscure FAQ questions. That is exactly what is needed.

I see GW as a grandfather-ish old man sitting in his favorite chair in front of the fireplace. He has just finished dinner and is enjoying his newspaper and his pipe. Then the annoying children (aka customers) come running into the room. They are young and eager and want to learn about the world. They stand at grandpa's side asking him questions. As he does not want to be bothered, he simply tells them the first thing that comes to mind so they will go away. He does feel guilt for a moment as he tells them something that is obviously wrong or makes no sense. But then he remembers they are children (aka customers) and they have proven time and time again, no matter what kind of crap he spews they will still love him.

UK GT players beware, one could easily study this FAQ and come up with some unexpected strategies that could easily push a game in their favor.  I hope someone does, that'll show just how crappy this FAQ actually is.

Just some 'clarifications' that could easily be sprung on a player that isn't in-the-know and ruin the game for them:

Independent Characters and Monstrous creatures can split attacks (wow, just wow, this is an important one- Carnifex putting one attack on a rhino, and the rest of the attacks on the squad anyone?).

Mystics can fire at droppods before the unit disembarks (getting a penetrating hit on that droppod will ruin that unit's day).

ICs can attach to units BEFORE deployment (just how this affects reserves rolls is beyond me...).

Units that cannot become engaged after pile-in moves are free to make a consolidation move (Ok, so bear with me on this one... if you have two units left in combat with just a few enemy models, you can surround those enemy models with one of your units, leaving the other unit out of base contact with no way to get there.  This other unit then gets to make a 6" pile-in move in any direction (it is trying to get into base contact no matter which way it moves), and then a 3" consolidate move, and then no longer counts as being in the combat?  Pull this on an opponent's turn and you've just gotten an extra 15" worth of movement).

A wound caused by a weapon that doesn't allow a save does not count as a failed save (pretty important ruling for medics, apothecaries, and, of course, instant kills, which require you to fail a save).

With the competitiveness of the UK GT environment, I hope to see this all fall apart into anarchy.

- Oaka

Units that cannot become engaged after pile-in moves are free to make a consolidation move (Ok, so bear with me on this one... if you have two units left in combat with just a few enemy models, you can surround those enemy models with one of your units, leaving the other unit out of base contact with no way to get there. This other unit then gets to make a 6" pile-in move in any direction (it is trying to get into base contact no matter which way it moves), and then a 3" consolidate move, and then no longer counts as being in the combat? Pull this on an opponent's turn and you've just gotten an extra 15" worth of movement).

To be fair, that's pretty much what the rules actually say. It's just that if your unit cannot stay engaged *if* it were to take a pile-in move, then it gets a consolidation move instead.

So if Tyranid Warriors aren't designated as Beasts in the codex and don't benefit from those rules (i.e. fleet), why don't they start on the table in escalation?

2112 - I think your analogy isn't that great. If GW were a good-natured (OK, so he manipulates the kids' innocence, but he's still good) grandpa, I don't think he'd try to take (steal?) the kids' candy money every time they visit him. I'm not sure he'd keep raising his prices either. Then again, retirement age is moving further and further back, and sadly 401k and Social Security can't cover all the gaps...

Mystics can fire at droppods before the unit disembarks (getting a penetrating hit on that droppod will ruin that unit's day).

i think the pods are moving more then 12", maybe not.

but why does he allow a demonic beast character to infiltrate, but later he suggests that infiltrating beasts wont get a first turn assult in escalation scenarios. did i read that wrong ?wtf ?

also, why use a commisar in a command hq and risk summary execution. lame,lame and lame

Well, at least they did clear up one question that Tyranid players wanted to see answered in the official FAQ:

"Q: Do lashwhips stack, i.e. if 3 tyrant guard are in base contact with a daemon prince, does it lose 3 attacks or just one?

A: Yes."

Seriously now, WTF is going on at the studio?!?

Posted By gorgon 08/18/2006 8:51 AM
Well, at least they did clear up one question that Tyranid players wanted to see answered in the official FAQ:

"Q: Do lashwhips stack, i.e. if 3 tyrant guard are in base contact with a daemon prince, does it lose 3 attacks or just one?

A: Yes."

Seriously now, WTF is going on at the studio?!?

Well to be honest it actually is a Yes or No question, it's just transcrbed poorly. 

Q: Do Lashwhips Stack
A: Yes.

On one hand I'm actually really happy to see a FAQ come out that is of a reasonable length and addresses a myrad of questions that we all have on 40k.  I'm hoping that the FAQ that the mods over at the GW Forums supposedly will get put together before September will actually address issues like this.

On the other hand, some of the rulings are pretty crazy, IC's and MC's being able to allocate attacks is pretty bad and directly contradicts the rulebook.  It also makes things hard on my KoS army somewhat, but I'd rather have questions like this answered in a definative FAQ than left open.

Here's hoping that they fix the 'Nid FAQ and that we get a lengthy FAQ like this for general 40k use.

Posted By gorgon 08/18/2006 7:19 AM

Can something be hilarious, maddening and completely depressing all at once? 

A: "Roll a d6 to determine in which order the events take place
-Brian Anderson"


I am sooo glad I am not in the UK and doubly glad I stopped playing 40k two years ago. My only concern now is I wonder is if WHFBv7 is going to get the same shabby, heavy handed treatment as this...

Well to be honest it actually is a Yes or No question, it's just transcrbed poorly.

Just like we thought we knew the answer to the synapse-IK rule and that it was just poorly worded?

Ok, so where does it exactly state that MC and IC's cannot split attacks in the rulebook? The only lines I see that reference it are under the heading "multiple combats" and do not seem to be clear on the subject. "Models in base contact with the enemy must allocate their attacks against a unit they are in base contact with". It doesn't say must allocate "all" attacks against a "single" unit, but must allocate attacks against a unit they touch. Seems that if they touched multiple units they can allocate attacks against any of them?

Right in the line you quoted:  "... must allocate against a unit...

Singular.  It doesn't say must allocate against units in base contact with.  I realize that some might see this as a 'literal' reading of the rule, but that is what the rule says.  Allocate attacks against A UNIT. 

Pretty clear.  Splitting attacks was in the rules in prior editions, and spelled out that way specifically.

I think they take Fantasy way more seriously than they do 40k, so you wouldn't see such heavy-handedness.

 

Posted by Toreador on 08/18/06 10:32 AM
Ok, so where does it exactly state that MC and IC's cannot split attacks in the rulebook?

The question is where does it say that they can split their attacks. The rules only permit them to split their attacks when involved in multiple combats and even then they may only split them on a model by model basis.

The rulebook says a model may attack a unit (singular). It never says anything about splitting attacks. Toreador, you've quoted it yourself. While it doesn't say "all attacks", it does say "a unit".  So this is indeed a new rule.

It just amazes me that their idea of good quality control is to let a guy not qualified to be on the design team make corrections for the design team's work. It's like having the guy that details my car handle a recall for faulty airbags.

But I'm sure GW thinks they're doing just great.

Ah, another RAW thing. Again we have skimmed the rule and took it as a unit may attack any unit  in base to base instead of a meaning "one" and so have been playing since this edition came out that they could split attacks.

Not a big deal if you all do it, just be aware that if you play someone outside your normal group and he says you can't, he's right.

....unless you're at the UK GT.

ICs can attach to units BEFORE deployment (just how this affects reserves rolls is beyond me...).

DIV>

Where did you see this one?  I'm sure a lot of Black Templar players would LOVE to see this!!!

</>< body>

Looks like I picked the wrong year to attend my first Grand Tournament!