7th faq and 6th faq

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

Nope. The RAW on Quicksilver with Hammers was still Initiative 1. Quicksilver made a model have I10. Hammers have Unwieldy, which makes you strike at I1, regardless of your model's initiative. RAW was in agreement with FAQ.

 

Incorrect.

 

Both Unwieldy and Quicksilver were 'Set' modifiers.  In 6th, these came last, after addiiton/subbtraction and multplication.

 

When you have two 'set' modifiers, the owning player decides in which order they are applied.

 

So you assigned Unwieldy to Set to 1.  Then assign Quicksilver to Set to 10.

 

Sadly, the GW FAQ team ignored the rules and issued a FAQ answer that did not follow them.

 

Still, this is out of date now with the removal of Quicksilver.

 

It's just an example that at some times, the FAQ answers break the RAW without issuing an Errata or amendment to correct the, incorrect, rule in the book.

[jeffersonian000]

That's the 5th argument, GML. In 6th, the Hammer swung at Initiative Step 1, even though Quicksilver set the model's Initiativd to 10, which meant there was no conflict. And of course, 7th doesn't have Quicksilver, making this a non-issue.

 

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

the Hammer swung at Initiative Step 1, even though Quicksilver set the model's Initiativd to 10

 

:)

 

That's both 'set to'.

 

There was an arguement that attakcing at Step 1 didn't set your Initative to Step 1, but it was a fallacy.

 

As you attacked (and piled in) at the same step as your Initiative.

 

And Quicksilvered Hammers didn't Pile in at I10 and then swing at I1...

 

GW just didn't want to allow Hammers and Banshee's going at I10 with an AP2 weapon, so plainly said you couldn't.

 

Even though that was the way the rules worked.

 

They could have ameneded the rules, with an Errata or Amendment (like they did for Plasma Grenades, which couldnt work as written).  But they didn't.