The new 40k FAQ is up.

[greatcrusade08]

It also means Land Raiders must move more than 6" now, no matter what. Even if they come on sideways, the sponsons make it too wide for anything 6" or less.

 

a vehicle only occupies the space taken up by its hull, for any purposes except true LOS the sponsons dont technically exist

[Gentlemanloser]

The Walker moving at Crusiing Speed and Shooting (Deep Striking Dreads!) was also clarified! :D

[Seahawk]

a vehicle only occupies the space taken up by its hull, for any purposes except true LOS the sponsons dont technically exist

Where's it say that? And what about older models? For instance, my new predator has hanging guns, but on my old ones the sponsons are part of the hull itself. Does one now get punished? And what about FW land raiders...it's all part of the hull. Or what about Valkyries and other flyers? The wings and tail booms are technically not part of the hull, as they are defined as wings or tailbooms. While it does say you ignore "decorative" parts and gunbarrels specifically, it doesn't say ignore the gun's housing.

 

Of course, the definition of hull is the main body of a vehicle...which still clashes with solid sponsons being part of the hull and valkyries having strange features.

[Grey Mage]

Indeed- the entire model is considered for that- I dont know where people are getting this about sponsons. Your sponsons cant magically allow your model within 1" of an enemy unit and they cant be left hanging over the table.

 

If you want to house-rule otherwise thats fine of course. Im sure landraiders power sliding into the battlefield looks like alot of fun.

[dswanick]

As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

So I can see, in Greymage's example about the 1" rule, the argument that if a sponson is <1" away from an enemy model while the base is 1"+ then the 1" rule is satisfied. This would also apply to movement, so long as the hull is on the table - the sponsons being on or off is irrelevant. Of course this all hinges on the grey area argument over sponsons being 'hull' or 'decorative element'. Seems to me one would have to discuss this with his/her opponent and keep the rule consistent throughout the game.

[thade]

If you want to house-rule otherwise thats fine of course. Im sure landraiders power sliding into the battlefield looks like alot of fun.

 

If you think a single dood on a skateboard looks cool grinding on a rail....

 

I have to have a word with my LR pilots.

[greatcrusade08]

a vehicle only occupies the space taken up by its hull, for any purposes except true LOS the sponsons dont technically exist

Where's it say that?

 

page 11 movement

 

a model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is reprisented by its base or hull)

[Grey Mage]

Wich is not contradictory to the thought that it cant be within 1" of an enemy model with any part of itself. Its just saying if the model cannot in some way physically fit there you cant move it through there.

[greatcrusade08]

Its just saying if the model cannot in some way physically fit there you cant move it through there.

 

thats not what it says at all.. otherwise it would appear more as you wrote it..

it says "a model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model".. yup simple got that, its what you said above.. its the next bit that interests me

 

which is reprisented by its base or hull

which would indicate a vehicle is only considered to occupy the area of its hull.. so its possible to move into an area taken up by a modles wings or a vehicles sponsons aslong as your more than an inch from its hull (or base)

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Q: When there are multiple different characteristic values

or armour values in a single unit how do you work out

what the majority is? (var)

A: The majority will be the most common value, i.e. the

one that the largest number of models have. When two or

more values are equally as common, use the highest. For

example, a squad of five models has two with Weapon

Skill 3, two with Weapon Skill 4 and one with Weapon Skill

5, when rolling To Hit the squad in close combat you would

roll against WS4.

 

;)

Are they talking about saving throws or AVs?

 

This cropped up on another forum. I believe the AV mention was just a mistake [a naive inclusion] and is rightly ignored. I might as well check with my brothers, though. :lol:

 

BBB pg 64

"When a squadron of vehicles is being fired at, roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron's common AV [....]. If the vehicles in the squadrons have different AV on different facings, use the AV of the facing of the closest visible vehicle."

 

That never needed clarifying. I am not sure who could ever take differently AVed vehicles in one squadron besides the Leman Russ squadron, but even if they can, if was covered by whatever was exposed by the closest visible vehicle.

 

Surely they are not talking about giving majority saving throws to the wound allocation results?

As in, I have 5 Initiates and 3 Neophytes. I suffer 8 wounds and so they all need to take a saving throw, but now they all use the [majority] 3+ save?

 

Or how about using a 2+ saving throw guy amidst a unit of Marines? The 2+ guy catches krak missiles. If the FAQ is talking about adjusting everyone to the same, then he loses that ability.

 

Surely they weren't talking about changing wound-allocation and the like?

[Legatus]

That point is refering to vehicle armour values. There is no "majority saves" system in 5th Edition*, as that has been replaced with the current wound allocation system. Vehicle squadrons do operaze with a common armour value though. The quesion was irected at the specific cases where there are more than two different values present in a unit. E.g. a unit of 10 models might have four models with Toughness 4 and six models with Toughness 3. In that case it is easy to determine, since one type has more than half of the models. But if that unit had three models with Toughness 5, three models with Toughness 4 and four models with Touchness 3 some people might argue that now there is no clear "majority". The four models with Toughness 3 are not really the majority, as there are six models with a different value. But Toughness 3 is the value that is present the most.

 

With vehicle squadrons you will probably not get that problem, but who can say what future Codices or Imperial Armour or Apocalypse releases might hold.

 

 

Edit: *Well, there is for cover saves.

[Hlakir]

can someone explain what this means?

Q: Does an Independent Character count towards the

number of models in a squad when determining if it is

above half strength? (p48)

A: Yes he does. So if an Independent Character joined a

unit of 6 models there would need to be reduced to 2 or

less models for it to be below half strength.

Am I understanding it correctly in that the IC doesn't count for determining what is half strength for each squad but counts when checking if the squad has enough models to be considered not below half strength.

Their example, the squad of 6 needs to normally be reduced to 2 models to be below half strength. If an IC joins the squad, they (squad + IC) still needs to be reduced to 2 models to be below half strength. So if the squad of 6 is reduced to 2 + IC models, they're not below half strength but if the IC leaves the squad, the squad is infact below half strength?

 

EDIT: I must say, I really like this FAQ, it solves some issues I've been having, among others the moved vs. immobilised issue when assaulting vehicles.

 

There seems to have been two versions of the FAQ floating around (one if you followed a direct link to the document and of if you got it thru the shrine of knowledge). The one from the shrine of knowledge (which should be the "official" one) says this on the matter:

 

Q: How do Independent Characters that have joined a

squad effect working out if a squad is below half strength

or not? (p48)

A: Independent Characters are not counted when working

out if a squad is below half strength or not. The exception

to this is if an Independent Character is with a Retinue (in which case he is counted when working out if the squad is

below half strength).

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it

moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)

A: They are removed as casualties.

 

Spewin' for the Eldars, Orks and Bloods. They become high on the target priority list should they have moved flat-out, ja?

Note that it does say 'same turn' and by default this means 'player turn' (BRB pg.9) so it is only the player own actions (Ramming, difficult terrain, bad scatters and the like. It does not mean that a flat-out transport destroyed in the opponents shooting phase would auto-kill embarked units.

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

[dswanick]

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

So point him to the Basic Rulebook at Pg.9 where GW clearly specifies that their intent is that a 'turn' is a 'player turn' and if they intend 'game turn' they will clearly specify 'game turn'. So until it is errata'd they intended what the wrote (RAI=RAW), one player turn.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

So point him to the Basic Rulebook at Pg.9 where GW clearly specifies that their intent is that a 'turn' is a 'player turn' and if they intend 'game turn' they will clearly specify 'game turn'. So until it is errata'd they intended what the wrote (RAI=RAW), one player turn.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'.

Tried and failed, I'm afraid. His defence here is that the designers didn't write the FAQ, and so the intent is not the same, or some variant there of.

[Isiah]

Tried and failed, I'm afraid. His defence here is that the designers didn't write the FAQ, and so the intent is not the same, or some variant there of.

 

Seesh even with an FAQ there's no convincing some :P .

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Seesh even with an FAQ there's no convincing some :P .

Indeed. Incidentally, he once also nagged himself to the Deceiver not being subject to Instant Death (a Str D weapon hit it) in Apocalyse. He kept nagging about fluff and "intent" and how Apocalypse and D weapons weren't around when Codex Necrons was made until we just rolled a die on it to shut him up.

 

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother playing with him. Then it hits me that he just keeps nagging and it's easier to just go along with it to shut him up.

[dswanick]

Seesh even with an FAQ there's no convincing some :whistling: .

Indeed. Incidentally, he once also nagged himself to the Deceiver not being subject to Instant Death (a Str D weapon hit it) in Apocalyse. He kept nagging about fluff and "intent" and how Apocalypse and D weapons weren't around when Codex Necrons was made until we just rolled a die on it to shut him up.

 

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother playing with him. Then it hits me that he just keeps nagging and it's easier to just go along with it to shut him up.

I've found a good method of dealing with such as him is to just point and laugh. Whenever he opens his mouth to say something - point and laugh. When he's not saying anything, nudge the guy next to you, point at him, and you both laugh. He'll get the idea. I once had a guy in my LGG that was similar - his army ended up on EBay, and we never heard from him again.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Seesh even with an FAQ there's no convincing some :) .

Indeed. Incidentally, he once also nagged himself to the Deceiver not being subject to Instant Death (a Str D weapon hit it) in Apocalyse. He kept nagging about fluff and "intent" and how Apocalypse and D weapons weren't around when Codex Necrons was made until we just rolled a die on it to shut him up.

 

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother playing with him. Then it hits me that he just keeps nagging and it's easier to just go along with it to shut him up.

I've found a good method of dealing with such as him is to just point and laugh. Whenever he opens his mouth to say something - point and laugh. When he's not saying anything, nudge the guy next to you, point at him, and you both laugh. He'll get the idea. I once had a guy in my LGG that was similar - his army ended up on EBay, and we never heard from him again.

Except I share a flat with the guy.

[Hlakir]

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

So point him to the Basic Rulebook at Pg.9 where GW clearly specifies that their intent is that a 'turn' is a 'player turn' and if they intend 'game turn' they will clearly specify 'game turn'. So until it is errata'd they intended what the wrote (RAI=RAW), one player turn.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'.

Tried and failed, I'm afraid. His defence here is that the designers didn't write the FAQ, and so the intent is not the same, or some variant there of.

 

He's a couple of years behind I see. The FAQ are done by the development team since at least 2008. Tell him to read this.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...amp;aId=3400019

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

So point him to the Basic Rulebook at Pg.9 where GW clearly specifies that their intent is that a 'turn' is a 'player turn' and if they intend 'game turn' they will clearly specify 'game turn'. So until it is errata'd they intended what the wrote (RAI=RAW), one player turn.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'.

Tried and failed, I'm afraid. His defence here is that the designers didn't write the FAQ, and so the intent is not the same, or some variant there of.

 

He's a couple of years behind I see. The FAQ are done by the development team since at least 2008. Tell him to read this.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...amp;aId=3400019

He has.

 

However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine.

 

And if I refuse or try to argue the point, I'm being a sore loser, creating a bad atmosphere and generally being a jerk. He's in the "I'm always right"-crowd.

[breng77]

QUOTE (Linked page)

However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine.

 

And if I refuse or try to argue the point, I'm being a sore loser, creating a bad atmosphere and generally being a jerk. He's in the "I'm always right"-crowd.

 

Reading the above quote why not just come up with a group consensus about how your group will play the rules, majority rules. If he does not like it then he can either deal with it or not play.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Reading the above quote why not just come up with a group consensus about how your group will play the rules, majority rules. If he does not like it then he can either deal with it or not play.

Yeah, the gaming group we're both part of takes the "They obviously meant game turn" tac. Which is ticking me off, since RAW is the guide I use these days (the argument at the group is "Rule 0") Most games against this guy are conducted at home, however, since said group is in the next town over.

 

I'm seriously considering dropping transports in my DE army over this crap (at least when playing at said club), and I'm also considering not playing games against the guy, ever.

[breng77]

Or just run them with Flicker fields and Sails, so that you can move farther without going flat out :tu:. But that is tough in some areas where they play the rules in a particular way. That said if you play frequently enough with that club you might as well play the rules the way they are going to play them (or find a new club). It is nice that I have become the go to rule guy at the club I am playing at (mostly because there are a lot of new players)

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I'm seriously considering dropping transports in my DE army over this crap (at least when playing at said club), and I'm also considering not playing games against the guy, ever.

 

Present them with this scenario. If people can't abstract things very well, put flesh on it and see if it holds true :D

 

*If* it is game turns [which it is not] this will happen:

 

Scenario A.

T1

Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.

Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers die due to new FAQ ruling.

 

Okay, cool.

 

Now try this out.

 

Scenario B.

T1

Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot stuff [the Raiders are out of TLoS or off the table]

Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.

 

T2

Space Wolves turn2: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers DO NOT die due to new FAQ ruling, because it didn't happen in the same Game turn.

 

So you can see, both times a Wolf turn followed a Deldar turn, yet the result of what happened [the passengers getting blown up] change.

 

This shows that it is not game turn, otherwise the Deldar gets a different result if he goes secong rather than going first. No way.

 

The did not mean game turn. No way you can RAI that. It does not work by the rules so how can it be intended?