New FAQ eminent ?

[Jarkaira]

Problem is that the sell-through of FW book is always 100% for the first printings before market saturates. Most people want to get theirs as fast as possibly which leads to the fact that they could actually release empty pages and it would still sell.

 

If there would be some wallet voting it could change their policy about not proof reading their books.

 

I just hope that Inferno acts as a wake-up call for people and they would be less jumpy on getting hold of a new FW book although I am quite sure that Angelus will still sell in a same fashion as Inferno.

[Plaguecaster]

Would be nice if they got around to actually making destroyers decent or at least actually ok to take and Breachers being slightly better maybe with access to plasma guns

[Marshal Loss]

They flat out can't be taken in bloodied claw

 

Yes they can. Cataphractii armour does not have the slow & purposeful rule.

[depthcharge12]

 

 

They flat out can't be taken in bloodied claw

Yes they can. Cataphractii armour does not have the slow & purposeful rule.

Technically drop pods can come in too as they only suffer an "immobilized result" and are not inherently immobile like tarantulas.

[Runefyre]

I'm aware of that loop-hole, but I have the distinct feeling that the intent was to bar Cataphractii from being taken. If they do drop an FAQ I won't be surprised if they clarify it to restrict Cataphractii.

 

If they are allowed after all, great. They still barely benefit (just +1 combat resolution and one-use charge re-roll).

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Space Wolves are perfect for podding in and blowing up the enemy.

[Marshal Loss]

I'm aware of that loop-hole, but I have the distinct feeling that the intent was to bar Cataphractii from being taken. If they do drop an FAQ I won't be surprised if they clarify it to restrict Cataphractii.

 

The reality is that the current FAQ dropped over a year ago, and FW had the entire development cycle of Inferno to factor changes in from a problem often brought to them over email. Saying that they 'flat out can't be taken' is more than a little misleading, because they most definitely can. If/when an FAQ drops, then we may revise our stance. Until then, they can be taken.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

They flat out can't be taken in bloodied claw

Yes they can. Cataphractii armour does not have the slow & purposeful rule.

Technically drop pods can come in too as they only suffer an "immobilized result" and are not inherently immobile like tarantulas.

 

 

Pods can't be taken. They have one of the three Immobile special rule variants

[depthcharge12]

 

 

 

 

They flat out can't be taken in bloodied claw

Yes they can. Cataphractii armour does not have the slow & purposeful rule.

Technically drop pods can come in too as they only suffer an "immobilized result" and are not inherently immobile like tarantulas.

Pods can't be taken. They have one of the three Immobile special rule variants

Don't they suffer immobile after they deploy though? Technically they suffer an immobilized hit with no hull points.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

 

 

They flat out can't be taken in bloodied claw

Yes they can. Cataphractii armour does not have the slow & purposeful rule.

Technically drop pods can come in too as they only suffer an "immobilized result" and are not inherently immobile like tarantulas.

Pods can't be taken. They have one of the three Immobile special rule variants

Don't they suffer immobile after they deploy though? Technically they suffer an immobilized hit with no hull points.

 

 

They become Immobilized after deep striking due to their Immobile special rule. The tarantula's Immobile Artillery is also a special rule found in the back of the book, while the artillery pieces for the militia straight up made it a special rule in their profile.

[Excessus]

I'm aware of that loop-hole, but I have the distinct feeling that the intent was to bar Cataphractii from being taken.

 

Sooo...RAW is now a loop-hole? Dude, we know you don't like the rules but try to stay objective...and on topic. This is about FAQ:s, not how crappy you think your legion's rules are...

[Guest Drekkan]

Eventually, Inferno has been written with 8th edition in mind, and it would make sense once the 8th is available to us.

 

Or, it is not and every game will require a two hours talk, before an hypothetic FAQ..

 

Nevertheless, with so few minis available atm, it doesn't even bother me at all.

[Rangaman]

When certain RoW restrict Immobile "units" aren't they quite literally talking about a unit type? Drop pods are Open-topped Vehicles as seen under the header "Unit type". Special rules aren't a type of unit.

[Runefyre]

 

I'm aware of that loop-hole, but I have the distinct feeling that the intent was to bar Cataphractii from being taken.

 

Sooo...RAW is now a loop-hole? Dude, we know you don't like the rules but try to stay objective...and on topic. This is about FAQ:s, not how crappy you think your legion's rules are...

 

I'll admit my original comment was misleading, and I apologize.

 

But I'm being genuine when I ask what could that restriction possibly be restricting? I can't find any other unit that has/had slow&purposeful. I would hate to build an army around Bloodied claw with Cataphractii and then suddenly be barred from using them.

 

And it is something I think should be FAQ'd, so I'm not sure how it's off-topic?

[pompeyladbfp]

nice sensible FAQ hopefully (just not a deathwatch version lol) I really do think the FW/40k guys could take a leaf out of AOS generals handbook situation and speak to the tournament going sensible community. I dont buy many FW books but the simple obvious mistakes taht scream out at someone who doesnt even game that much does make me wonder how it gets to print like that.

 

 

roll on 8th and the rules cull hopefully

[Charlo]

@Charlo I was very thoroughly on day one when the rules we're first leaked. And you refused to admit there were very serious issue with the language they used but also mechanically with how the army functioned.

 

But if you like I can put it all here in poont form for you. You won't like it, its a very long list and grows daily.

 

I don't really recall refuting anything and if I did... It was day one of the leaks man, I'd only been reading on my phone in the downtime between driving around the country and drinking copious amounts for my birthday :P

 

Any views I expressed were probably just my initial views on what I'd actually read - which was that the wolves were pretty cool. I was probably also trying to be chill and stop the tactica thread from just filling up with bile.... :D

[Noserenda]

Unfortunately you not liking the units isnt FAQ worthy guys, i mean look at the Alpha Legion units :/ (Who in fact got Headhunters made even more useless in an FAQ!)

[Baluc]

Perhaps I should be easier on FW...

 

As of the new LA:CAL, the Legion Drop pod, Dreadnought Drop pod, and Deathstorm Drop pod have the Immobile special rule. If that is not suffecient to proc the "no Immobile, Artillery, or Slow and Purposful units" condition in people minds... well I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 

Two special rules, and one unit type. Immobile isn't a unit type, FW just don't know how to be internally consistent. In the Tarantula data slate they should have put the (Immobile) in the special rules section like it is in every other dataslate in which the word "Immobile" appears. But yes, Immobile is a Special Rule and not a unit type. So if you have been taking DDPs in Armoured Breakthrough you have been making a serious error in list writing. The Slow and Purposeful thing I am assuming is future proofing, but with FW its pointless to attempt to interpret RAI.

 

If FW actually were this wellspring of goodwill they would have an open forum either online or at Adepticon or some such event to clear the air about their books. But sales are too high for them to care, I doubt anything but plummeting sales moves them to do anything.

[SkimaskMohawk]

When certain RoW restrict Immobile "units" aren't they quite literally talking about a unit type? Drop pods are Open-topped Vehicles as seen under the header "Unit type". Special rules aren't a type of unit.

 

The thing is, Immobile isn't a unit type in the BRB, FW invented the term. Now Tarantulas do have Artillery (Immobile) under unit type, but it appears under Legion Astartes Special Rules at the back of the book. Furthermore they completely dropped it from the unit type on the milita stationary artillery pieces and just made it a special rule.

 

So you have 3 places where the term "Immobile" appears, all of them being special rules

[Withershadow]

The Serrated Sun rite bars Immobile Units and allows drop pods. Raven Guard rite makes the distinction between something being an Immobile Unit, and something being a Unit with the Immobile special rule.

 

As far as I'm concerned, drop pods are Vehicle units that have the Immobile special rule. Tarantulas are Artillery Units (base type) and Immobile Units (subtype), much like Jump infantry are both Infantry Units (base type), and Jump units (subtype). Militia rules are irrelevant since that is a different book by a different writer and we know how consistent FW is with their rules wording.

 

I have never heard an argument that can debunk the above concrete in-game precedents and examples, and amounts to anything more than "nuh-uh!", this thread included.

[SkimaskMohawk]

If you're going to handwave crusade imperialis away because it's different and known for inconsistencies, we can just apply that to the raven guard row. Serrated sun equals some of the inferno stuff for poorly written rules. How you feel about it doesn't matter, because at t end of the day every instance of immobile is a special rule

[Withershadow]

You're right, feelings don't matter.  My side of the argument has three distinct written precedents supporting it, your side of the argument has your impressions and feelings because the core rulebook doesn't define this as a unit type. Guess what, we are playing a modified ruleset. I am making inference based on WRITTEN RULES. You are basing your feelings on demanding absolute and pinpoint precision from a FW publication.  It should be very obvious by now that is a fool's errand, and that a certain amount of common sense is required. This is really not the system for obtuse pedantry.

 

In the only document that is relevant, the Legion book, the actual unit entry for Tarantulas define Artillery (Immobile) as a unit type. Yes, it's in special rules, just like "Jump infantry" is technically a special rule and not a classification of units. The Militia book is irrelevant because Militia cannot take Rites and such a distinction is utterly irrelevant. We also have a concrete example of a Rite where this is allowed, and a concrete example of a Rite with more inclusive language in its restriction.

 

Are you going to tell a Serrated Sun player that he is cheating and his list that follows written construction guidelines is actually illegal because you think so?  Are you going to allow a Serrated Sun player bring "Immobile" drop pods in his Rite, and then turn around and deny a Drop Assault Vanguard player the same privilege? 

 

Anyway, Adepticon and Nova, two of the biggest 30K events in the United States, have gone this way.  So has our large player group in the great State of Texas. What you guys do in Canada is up to you.