fester's oddball and notable FAQ readings.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

fester's oddball and notable FAQ readings.

Posted by fester

Hey guys, been trying to catch up with the cool that I woke up to this morning.
Man, I pity the TO that comp score a DA list highly yesterday, only to find all the rules changed overnight!

Anyway, I have been reading through the changes and a few things have caught my eye.

Rulebook FAQ
Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.

So what, I hear you say?
Tempest's Wrath?
"Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn [...] and units deploying by deep strike treat all terrain, even clear terrain,as both difficult and dangerous". Tempest trumps Jaws again?
Who wants to rules-lawyer that?

Also, that fixes charging out of deep-striking DE Raiders, I think.

Space Marine FAQ
Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and
then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the
Drop Pod? (p69)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.
So it's now official: You cant split a squad in reserves.

Q. If Korʼsarro Khan rolls a 6 to wound a model with a
Toughness so high he cannot usually wound it, will
Moonfang still inflict Instant Death on it? (p94)
A. Yes.
Nothing dodgy here, just cool :)

Q. Can a vehicle with the Power of the Machine Spirit fire
a weapon on the turn the vehicle uses Smoke Launchers?
(p81)
A. No.
(this was in all the Space Marine FAQ's)
Thank god that was sorted out, cheating bastards (I swear I never did that, no, not me)

Space Wolves FAQ
Q. Is a model that has suffered an unsaved wound, but
hasnʼt been killed, from Arjac throwing his Foehammer
reduced to initiative 1 until the end of the next player turn?
(p51)
A. Yes.
Hey wow! Thunderhammers work in mid air too now. This saved so many forum fights... Until people start going I1 from TH, Jaws, dead!

Black Templar
Page 26 – Single-handed Weapons
Change the storm shield from “10 points” to “15 points”
This isn’t anything much, but a nice precedent for future FAQ’s – we can expect price changes on items.

GOOD SHOW GAMES WORKSHOP

Page 39 – Black Templars Assault Squad, Options
Change the last sentence to “Any model may exchange its
bolt pistol for a storm shield for +15 points.”

This is interesting I thought, BA get ASM Rock Units now?

Comments (22)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

0 Vote up Vote down

willydstyle · 745 weeks ago

There is actually a scary implication with Khan's FAQ ruling. Khan's weapon says that on a 6 to wound it causes instant death. Al Rahem has a power sword that simply says it causes instant death, with no to-wound roll mentioned at all. Technically Khan's FAQ answer would cause Al Rahem to cause instant death to any model he hits in CC, without needing a to-wound roll of any kind.

9 replies · active 744 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

TheWolfsLunch 61p · 745 weeks ago

I can't figure out a proper wording to say why I think that's wrong, but pretty much, you said Khan's rule states that a roll to 6 to wound causes instant death, whereas Rahem's sword simply causes instant death. The difference is that Khan's rule specifies that a roll of 6 causes it, but I'm assuming Rahem's rule only says it causes instant death (which happens when wounded). Although I'm probably completely wrong. Anyone understand what I'm rambling about?

0 Vote up Vote down

willydstyle · 745 weeks ago

The reason why you think it's wrong is because you want it to be wrong. The wording on Khan's weapon is that on a 6 to wound it "causes instant death regardless of the target's toughness." The wording on Al Rahem's sword is that it is a power weapon that "causes instant death regardless of the target's toughness." It's the same exact wording. On a 6 Khan's weapon causes the same exact condition that Al Rahem's sword says it causes all the time. Therefore, if Khan's sword can cause the condition "instant death" to affect things that he can't actually wound, then Al Rahem does not actually need to roll to wound to cause the same condition. Is it ridiculous? Yes it is. Is it the rule that is written? Yes, it is.

+1 Vote up Vote down

TheWolfsLunch 61p · 745 weeks ago

Ahh alright then. I didn't know Al Rahem's ruling, it just seemed wrong.

Also....who is Al Rahem? lol

-1 Vote up Vote down

Anonymous · 745 weeks ago

You are easter-egging with RAW. It is very clear that the intention of Khan's weapon is some sort of super rending. There is no question about RAI here.

0 Vote up Vote down

willydstyle · 745 weeks ago

Eh, Khan's ruling is just a bad ruling that goes counter-RAW. If they wanted it to work properly they should have changed the wording to "on a to-wound roll of 6 it causes a wound which inflicts instant death regardless of the target's toughness."

This isn't about the "RAI" (which is a stupid phrase anyways, if they "intend" something they should write it correctly) it's about the fact that the same grammar is used in both Khan's an Al Rahem rules, and makes Al Rahem one of the most powerful mortals in the 40k universe, able to strike down any enemy with the slightest stroke of his sword.

+1 Vote up Vote down

neverXmoor 43p · 745 weeks ago

Weapons with more than double the strength of the target's toughness cause instant death too. Does this mean that they don't need to roll to wound?

-1 Vote up Vote down

willydstyle · 745 weeks ago

According to this FAQ ruling: yes. That's why it's a bad ruling, because it says that you can cause instant death without actually causing a wound.

0 Vote up Vote down

thechris · 745 weeks ago

The ruling only applies to the Space Marine Codex because it's the only codex with the "Moonfang" weapon. The FAQ answer is dealing specifically with that weapon and it's character, so it doesn't apply to all, or any other for that matter, instances of the Instant Death special rule.

+1 Vote up Vote down

thechris1026 1p · 745 weeks ago

Arjac's ruling says his hammer, when thrown, hits and causes Initiative 1.

Does this mean that all other Thunder Hammers in the game can be thrown and drop the target to Initiative 1? If we interpret that rule the way you've interpreted the Moonfang rule, then yes, they can.

+2 Vote up Vote down

neverXmoor 43p · 744 weeks ago

Because Khan has a new 'wounds on a 6 regardless of toughness' rule, just like Necron Gauss weapons?

+4 Vote up Vote down

sirbiscuit 81p · 745 weeks ago

For combat squads:

You CANNOT split the squad in reserve!

However, I believe you CAN still Combat Squad once you hit the table.

There are two important points here:
1.) In the reserves section of the BRB, it says that when you put a unit in reserve, you are choosing to NOT deploy it. Furthermore, it specifies that when a unit moves onto the table from reserve, that is it's deployment.
2.) The option to Combat Squad happens when the unit is being deployed.

What this means is that yes, you can come in with Combat Squads from reserves. The Combat Squad special rule states that you do not have to deploy the squads in the same location, so they can also come onto the board nonadjacent to each other.

The important thing this rule changes is that you do not roll for the combat squads individually, they are all rolled for as one unit.

5 replies · active 745 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Gx1080 · 745 weeks ago

I agree.

0 Vote up Vote down

Gx1080 · 745 weeks ago

Also, some things:

People say that said interpretation of the combat squad rules is invalid for the SM FAQ, but the last one doesn't say it. Yes, the SM FAQ got updated too. Pretty much all Marines (except Chaos) and DE got the update.

Also, something that went out in the BA FAQ is the "Furioso Librarians can't pick other wargear". The fact that it was eliminated when a shiny new Furioso Dreadnought kit is coming (check around, is leaked and is awesome) is SUCH a coincidence.

Now, if some love was extended in the Tyranid FAQ....

+1 Vote up Vote down

tzeentchling 76p · 745 weeks ago

Exactly. You cannot combat squad in reserves, because combat squadding happens when the unit is deployed. It doesn't deploy until it hits the field, at which point it can then combat squad.

0 Vote up Vote down

Killmaimburn · 745 weeks ago

At what point does it say that "may not" is lifted at a latter point? (silly I know)

+1 Vote up Vote down

sirbiscuit 81p · 745 weeks ago

Do you mean the "may not" that is present in the FAQ? It still functions.

You cannot split a squad into combat squads when the squad is placed into reserve. You split the unit into combat squads when it is deployed, IE when it comes onto the table from reserve.

+2 Vote up Vote down

MarshalLaeroth 52p · 745 weeks ago

Page 39 – Black Templars Assault Squad, Options
Change the last sentence to “Any model may exchange its
bolt pistol for a storm shield for +15 points.”

--------------------------

That makes the unit ridiculously expensive. And still lacking options. For that price, you might as well get the TH/SS terminators.

4 replies · active 745 weeks ago

+2 Vote up Vote down

Lyracian 59p · 745 weeks ago

I think the importance is less that unit and more that GW are willing to now change points values with errata.

+3 Vote up Vote down

snugger 43p · 745 weeks ago

Still, the fact that Dark Angels now get a proper Land Speeder Typhoon with multi-melta for 75p indicates that the willingness to change printed point costs is still really really low. But I hope they do more of it, since it can go a long way towards balancing useless units.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Lyracian 59p · 745 weeks ago

Since most of the DA book is still over costed junk it would be a real affront to have just changed there one really cheap unit. Anyway perhaps GW think Speeders are overcosted in other books? After all it is the Mech addition of the game :-p