New 40k FAQ

[Nungunz]

GW has posted an updated FAQ. Lots of new stuff added and it looks like the FAQs are now official rulings rather than just house rules.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_FAQ_40Krulebook_version1_1.pdf

[BuFFo]

Spam more please.

[Sir Biscuit]

Before anyone flips out, NO, destroying an enemy vehicle that moved flat out DOES NOT kill the unit inside. The unit inside a transport being destroyed after it moved flat out will ONLY happen if the vehicle is destroyed in your own turn. Remember, whenever the word "turn" is used, it refers to "player turn" unless specified otherwise. (Page 9.) It should generally not be that big of an issue, but watch moving those skimmers through rough terrain!

Other interesting tidbits:
Stealth now spreads around. Telion, while still expensive, is at least better.
Independent characters cannot hang back as much anymore, and get into the fight.
Units that have gone to ground and then are forced to move in any way return to normal.

In general, the FAQ is excellent. Good work GW.

[addamsfamily36]

GW has posted an updated FAQ. Lots of new stuff added and it looks like the FAQs are now official rulings rather than just house rules.

sorry but where did you get FAQ's = now official rulings?

the page before all the PDF files for each codex says this


The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). 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. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.


Same as its always been.

The link to the rulebook errata and FAQ's words it differently but still calls them common questions or FAQ's. Nothing about being solid rule changes or set in stone.

[Sir Biscuit]

Read the intro text to the FAQ/errata itself.

[BuFFo]

Read the intro text to the FAQ/errata itself.


The link to the rulebook errata and FAQ's words it differently but still calls them common questions or FAQ's. Nothing about being solid rule changes or set in stone.

He did, and nothing in there mentions anything that supersedes the ruling by the GW Design Team itself in The Shrine of Knowledge.

Quote me where it says that "FAQs are now official" or "Answers to FAQs are now official Rulings that must be obeyed" Plus you need "Ignore the tidbit in The Shrine Of Knowledge about FAQS being house rules". I need you to find me those exact phrases, please.

[addamsfamily36]

I have already.

Firstly that change is in the rulebook update only. Not in any of the other FAQ's. It was only added because they added "ammendmants" so they are jsut giving a brief description of erratas, ammedmants and FAQ's.

1-The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book

2-Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules.

3-The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about
the rules.


1- erratas are for mistakes in the book. for instance missing off ordanance blast from blood angels vindicators. it was something they physically had to change so its an errata.

2- Amendments i can only imagine will be changes like they did in fantasy. removing rules that no longer exist or have been changed and updating paragraphs accordingly.

3 - FAQ"s, answering questions. thats all it is. a bunch of questions/grey areas and a judgment either way or description of how it could be played. On the previous page Gamesworkshop states there are grey ares and FAQ's are like studio house rules. a way of keeping the game flowing. However they are by no means rules corrections or rules in their own right.

I'm not saying don;t use them as rules, feel free. But not everyone will play that way.

[BuFFo]

I'm not saying don;t use them as rules, feel free. But not everyone will play that way.

This is what I hope people keep in mind. Yes, most people use the GW FAQS as sacrosanct, but, you can NEVER force your opponent to play by a FAQ's answer, as they are just house rules.

FAQS are just house rules to help keep the game moving along quickly when there is a rule hiccup, and neither player is willing to shed their stubbornness and roll a Die.

[Jwcorey]

This is what I hope people keep in mind. Yes, most people use the GW FAQS as sacrosanct, but, you can NEVER force your opponent to play by a FAQ's answer, as they are just house rules.

FAQS are just house rules to help keep the game moving along quickly when there is a rule hiccup, and neither player is willing to shed their stubbornness and roll a Die.

That having been said, I have never met another player who looked me in the eyes and said "I disagree with the GW FAQ and I would rather there be no clarity on that rule than to defer to the FAQ."

I mean, yeah. You can do it. But why would you?

[addamsfamily36]

i can think of one or two that cause arguments because they are read wrong

[BuFFo]

That having been said, I have never met another player who looked me in the eyes and said "I disagree with the GW FAQ and I would rather there be no clarity on that rule than to defer to the FAQ."

I mean, yeah. You can do it. But why would you?

Because my opponent was trying to claim the bonus for Counter Assault while denying me the bonus for Defensive Grenades because the SW FAQ says so. As in my battle report, we threw the FAQ out the window, as my local gaming group does for 99% of rules issues. We just roll a die and move on.

So yeah, not everyone uses these FAQs.

[Mr.Pickelz]

My biggest beef with the new FAQs is the argument's im goin to see over Ork trukk ramming/suicide.
although i hate how they added the wording in Wolftooth necklace "Against a model with a WS..."
so no more chain/power-fist/thunder hammer hitting on 3's against fast moving eldar skimmer :(

[MasterSlowPoke]

That line about the Wolftooth Necklace has been there for almost a year, Pickelz.


Because my opponent was trying to claim the bonus for Counter Assault while denying me the bonus for Defensive Grenades because the SW FAQ says so. As in my battle report, we threw the FAQ out the window, as my local gaming group does for 99% of rules issues. We just roll a die and move on.

So yeah, not everyone uses these FAQs.

Heh, hey again. You said you'd rather discuss this on a rules forum and whoa, I found you! Small world.

Even if you're not playing by the FAQs, Defensive Grenades do not counter Counter-Attack.

The rules for Counter-Attack:

If the test is successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.
Basically models that pass this test get an extra attack in the same manner as ones that are assaulting. They do not count as assaulting.

The rules for Defensive Grenades:

Models assaulting against units equipped with defensive grenades gain no Assault Bonus attacks.
Defensive grenades only activate against assaulting models. When you are assaulting a unit, the enemy's unit does not also count as assaulting, even if they have the Counter Attack special rule, as we have seen.


Regarding the new status of FAQs being binding, which holds more weight: a webpage from two years ago, or a recent Official Rules Update? The FAQ is "hard" rules.

[SeattleDV8]

My biggest beef with the new FAQs is the argument's im goin to see over Ork trukk ramming/suicide.


Why? Ramshackle doesn't over rule this.
Kaboom: vehicle is destroyed, passengers disembark
Kareem: the same
Karrunch: truck is wrecked, passengers disembark.
In all three cases the passengers must disembark, because they moved flat out they cannot disembark.
Any model that cannot disembark is destroyed.
All this FAQ did was stop the explode loophole.

[N.I.B.]

Another FAQ, another few shots at Tyranids - no interlining cover saves for the closest unit in intertwined formations (a tactic sometimes used by Tyranid players in matches with too little terrain to balance up against mech). Never used it myself though, sounded a bit silly.

Casualties caused by exploding vehicles in multi-combats counts to combat resolution. This is potentially bad, yes it counts both ways but chances are great squishy Tyranids will hurt more than most opponents.

And the (potentially) big, bad, game destroying one:


Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability that occurs at
the start of a turn can they use that ability on the turn they
arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

One guy at the club sprung this on me last night, with a gleeful smile. 'No more reserve armies for Tyranids now, HEHEH!' Of course implying that Hive Commander is fcuked.

Seriously, is there something I've missed? Because it would be the last straw for the already nerfed and struggling nid reserve lists. "Here's my Winged Tyrant with Hive Commander, I have to deploy him on the table for the bonus to apply, 2 turns of target practice for your whole army. Enjoy f*cking me up the *ss".

[Old_Paladin]

As for the genades issue:
I cannot believe that people can put those to sentances back to back and then be ignorant about their implacations.
Grenades stop the assault bonus; Charge grants a bonus exactly as if they had assaulted that turn. "exactly as if" is a very clear statement.


As for the FAQ: they still aren't binding rules.
All one section says is that they are answers to questions, with a precurser that states that said answers are to be taken lightly. They are possible answers, but not the only possible answers. It might be different if they said "FAQ are the answers we give, and expect you to play by," but they didn't.


Some of the answers are in fact simply stupid; namely the Stealth rule one. Good to know that a single Commissar Lord with camo-cloak will give an entire blobsquad stealth for nearly no cost (since it's clear that that's how it should work!)

[MasterSlowPoke]

Counter-Attacking models do not count as assaulting, and defensive grenades only activate against assaulting models. The bonus attacks for Counter-Attack are granted "exactly as if they too had assaulted", meaning they follow all the rules for the assaulting bonus attack, which, incidentally, do not mention Defensive Grenades.

If the assaulting attack bonus said that it is not granted when attacking a unit with Defensive Grenades, then Counter-Attacking models would not get the bonus.

[Nungunz]

Another FAQ, another few shots at Tyranids - no interlining cover saves for the closest unit in intertwined formations (a tactic sometimes used by Tyranid players in matches with too little terrain to balance up against mech). Never used it myself though, sounded a bit silly.

Casualties caused by exploding vehicles in multi-combats counts to combat resolution. This is potentially bad, yes it counts both ways but chances are great squishy Tyranids will hurt more than most opponents.

It's RAW. My group and most tournys I've played in have used this ruling.



One guy at the club sprung this on me last night, with a gleeful smile. 'No more reserve armies for Tyranids now, HEHEH!' Of course implying that Hive Commander is fcuked.

Seriously, is there something I've missed? Because it would be the last straw for the already nerfed and struggling nid reserve lists. "Here's my Winged Tyrant with Hive Commander, I have to deploy him on the table for the bonus to apply, 2 turns of target practice for your whole army. Enjoy f*cking me up the *ss".

Where does it say that Hive Commander happens at the start of the turn? Nowhere, so this doesn't apply to Hive Commander.

[Old_Paladin]

Counter-Attacking models do not count as assaulting. The bonus attacks for Counter-Attack are granted "exactly as if they too had assaulted", meaning they follow all the rules for the assaulting bonus attack.

Wow.
I'm shocked that you can even type that as a serious statement.
They don't count as assaulting, they 'count' as assaulting (thereby giving only bonuses and no penalties).


Counts as means just that, it IS the thing it refers to.
Your example would be like playing a game where my soda-can 'counts as' a killa-kan; but when you roll a weapon destroyed and try to remove the klaw, I say "Oh, you can't remove any of the weapons. It only 'counts as a Kan' so I can attack like one but you cannot effect it's weapons!"

[MasterSlowPoke]

They do not count as assaulting, they merely get the bonus attack as if they were. There is a difference - when dealing with rules, nuance is paramount. Nothing that relies on assaulting models works - Defensive Grenades and Furious Charge are the two obvious ones. As a Catachan player I sure with I could have S4 Counter-Attacking Guardsmen.

If you don't believe me, I have two GW FAQs backing me up. :p And the INAT too, for what it's worth.

[Flammenwerfer13]

Another FAQ, another few shots at Tyranids - no interlining cover saves for the closest unit in intertwined formations (a tactic sometimes used by Tyranid players in matches with too little terrain to balance up against mech). Never used it myself though, sounded a bit silly.

Casualties caused by exploding vehicles in multi-combats counts to combat resolution. This is potentially bad, yes it counts both ways but chances are great squishy Tyranids will hurt more than most opponents.

And the (potentially) big, bad, game destroying one:



One guy at the club sprung this on me last night, with a gleeful smile. 'No more reserve armies for Tyranids now, HEHEH!' Of course implying that Hive Commander is fcuked.

Seriously, is there something I've missed? Because it would be the last straw for the already nerfed and struggling nid reserve lists. "Here's my Winged Tyrant with Hive Commander, I have to deploy him on the table for the bonus to apply, 2 turns of target practice for your whole army. Enjoy f*cking me up the *ss".

No, actually this would effect Astropaths for Guard and as far as I know the general rule right now in regards to them is that they work on and off the table even when they're in reserve. So logic would roll into yes the Hive Tyrant would work even in reserve. This applies more to abilities like board wide psycho hood, other special powers that only effect units across the table or near them.

[N.I.B.]

Hope you're right. 'Occurs at the start of the turn' well you roll reserve rolls at the start of the turn, even though the ability is always active. Too bad it's vague enough to immediately get reactions like 'OMG1! no m00re deepstriking Tyrants!

[MasterSlowPoke]

The question is for units that actually preform something. The Hive Tyrant doesn't actually do anything himself, you just get a bonus while the HT is alive. Farseer psychic powers would be an example of something that happens at the start of the turn that can't be done if the unit is not on the board before the reserves rolls.

[N.I.B.]

The Tervigon spaw is another. Can't spawn the turn you come from reserves, and after this FAQ you can't cast Domination either. Fair enough.

[Tynskel]

I thought it was long known that you cannot cast psychic powers from off the board (No Deep striking Mephiston). However, effects that state "while alive" mean on or off the board. (Autuarchs and Hive Commander, ect.)

[jumai]

Yes to the psychic powers bit... Chaos Marines have been making absolutely sure you can't cast Warptime before arriving from reserve since people realized it is a combo with MoT and Wind. Can't be done, not even like that. The rule of thumb seems to just be "models off the board may not take optional actions". Which probably explains why every rule about psykers in transports feels counterintuitive or inconsistant.

A ruling that discourages people from putting their guys into a plane and then gunning it straight at the nearest solid object is appreciated. Wyle E. Cyote never wins against roadrunner, copying him should be a bad idea.

[Tynskel]

a psyker in a transport is on the board, not off the board. What gives you the idea that they are off board? That was a 4th Edition thing.

[somerandomdude]

Doesn't the Tervigon spawn at any point during the movement phase? If so, then that still works.

Also, keep in mind everyone that Logan is one of the exceptions, since the Space Wolves FAQ does state that his start of turn ability works when arriving from reserves.

[Nungunz]

Doesn't the Tervigon spawn at any point during the movement phase? If so, then that still works.

No, it happens before the Tervigon itself moves. It must have started the turn on the table to use the spawn ability.

[Flammenwerfer13]

Where does it say that Hive Commander happens at the start of the turn? Nowhere, so this doesn't apply to Hive Commander.

Reading the Hive Tyrants rules its states "In additon, whilst the Hive Tyrant is alive...." which implies both on and off the table.

Also the IG codex states:
Astropath states "Whilst the Astropath is alive,...."
Officer of the Fleet states "Whilst the Officer of the Fleet is alive,...."

In all cases they state alive not whether they need to be on the table as in the case of a lictor (which states it only works after he is on the board) or teleport homer which this FAQ seems better geared towards.


All this FAQ does is make a murky rule even murkier and gives ammunition is those that don't like to lose and find every ruling they can bend out of context to win.

[Tynskel]

I am not sure what is murky. Special Rules that were powers that activate before you move don't work off the board. Powers that are permanent work all the time. The FAQ makes that clear. 'As long as Alive': The model is only considered destroyed when off the board at the end of the game. That's in the FAQ too.

What's murky about that FAQ? What's even more interesting is that the rulebook had the answers, but people kept asking the question, so this got FAQed.

[Flammenwerfer13]

Well the best answer to this would be GW writing a rule book that doesn't require a FAQ for everything.

We all here can point out very tight rule sets that are very straight forward.

My point still stands insomuch that you have to keep bouncing around the rule book trying to find the right answer then throw in a poorly worded FAQ then yes it is a murky answer in that it allows people to be very liberal with the intended answer.

The INAT finally addressed this with the Astropath working off the table only this summer after more then a year of people lobbying to get it to be corrected. Now this brings up the debate all over again and throws in the RAI verse RAW all over again. This might be me worrying again but I'd rather not have to debate all over again with people that yes a Astropath does work in the Vendetta its riding in that is Outflanking even if its off the table.

[gcsmith]

The inat didnt fix anything.
No one I know even uses inat.
Though this is probably because we are british. If you want it fixed and mass accepeted it needs to be a GW faq.

[Tynskel]

Yes, INAT doesn't fix anything- It is a horrible piece of crap that doesn't use the rulebook as a foundation for deciding how the rules work. Instead INAT just makes up rules and interpretations as it goes, without a thought how they fit with the Rulebook. Occasionally, there is a good ruling, but that is usually to random chance. Overall, what's even more hilarious, is how the rulings in INAT are not even self consistent.
Ex: They'll grant 4+ cover save to Flat Out Death or Glory, but won't let a Popped Smoked Dreadnought use the cover save for the exploding Stormraven. Both cases deal with the same thing: an automatic hit. Both are granting cover, not because 'real' cover, but due to 'actions' being performed by the model. They are the same thing!

I refuse to use INAT, and now that I am in the Midwest, I may be forced to play by myself for the rest of eternity (I have yet to get myself down to a game store to find out if they use INAT or not.)

[Nungunz]

Yes, INAT doesn't fix anything- It is a horrible piece of crap that doesn't use the rulebook as a foundation for deciding how the rules work. Instead INAT just makes up rules and interpretations as it goes, without a thought how they fit with the Rulebook. Occasionally, there is a good ruling, but that is usually to random chance. Overall, what's even more hilarious, is how the rulings in INAT are not even self consistent.

Amen to that. 70% is quoted verbatim from the rulebook or codicies, 20% is made up rules that break core rules of the game, 10% is actually okay.


I refuse to use INAT, and now that I am in the Midwest, I may be forced to play by myself for the rest of eternity (I have yet to get myself down to a game store to find out if they use INAT or not.)

Haven't found a place in WI or MN that uses the INAT (most hate it), don't know much about the IN scene. Maybe IL or MI would have a better setting?

[Lerra]

Huh? Almost every store in Minneapolis/St. Paul uses the INAT FAQ.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the INAT FAQ. I really don't care which rules I use or how "official" they are, as long as the ruleset is tight, arguments are easily resolved, and everyone is on the same page. INAT does that pretty well, even if people disagree with some of the rulings.

It's not like GW's official rules are any better.

[gwensdad]

Haven't found a place in WI or MN that uses the INAT (most hate it), don't know much about the IN scene. Maybe IL or MI would have a better setting?

Well, speaking as someone in IN-I couldn't even tell you off the top of my head what INAT is. That's how important that is around here.

If anything, it's GW FAQs here and everything else is a reading suggestion that might find it's way into a store's house rules.

[Nungunz]

Huh? Almost every store in Minneapolis/St. Paul uses the INAT FAQ.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the INAT FAQ. I really don't care which rules I use or how "official" they are, as long as the ruleset is tight, arguments are easily resolved, and everyone is on the same page. INAT does that pretty well, even if people disagree with some of the rulings.

It's not like GW's official rules are any better.

Where do you play at? I usually hang out at The Source, the FFG Event Center, or Airtraffic. None of those places use the INAT in any game I've played.

[gannam]

To all of these head in the sand "your FAQ's don't exist" crowd, would you intentionally not patch a video game if they updated it, and just say, "no, its not the original game, and so I refuse to acknowledge it".

GW doesn't release its house rules because they just think its fun. They want you to use them, but are obviously protecting themselves from any legal obligations to replace your 50 dollar rule book by calling them house rules.

I am not sure if this is an age thing, or what, but every time there is a FAQ, or an update, we get this crowd in here that just rushes to remind us that we should ignore it.

I didn't hear this crowd out in force when they nerfed the Doom of Malantai. Where were you then when it greatly benefited you?

[N.I.B.]

I am not sure what is murky. Special Rules that were powers that activate before you move don't work off the board. Powers that are permanent work all the time.
It could be argued that the fact that it's always active doesn't matter since Hive Commander 'takes effect' before you move, therefore it doesn't work off table. If it happened to me, it can happen to anyone playing a rules lawyer.

[Tynskel]

It could be argued that the fact that it's always active doesn't matter since Hive Commander 'takes effect' before you move, therefore it doesn't work off table. If it happened to me, it can happen to anyone playing a rules lawyer.

Hive commander says nothing about 'before your move'. Where's the problem?

[BuFFo]

To all of these head in the sand "your FAQ's don't exist" crowd, would you intentionally not patch a video game if they updated it, and just say, "no, its not the original game, and so I refuse to acknowledge it".

Thats because FAQs aren't patches. Erratas are patches. Two different things here.


GW doesn't release its house rules because they just think its fun. They want you to use them, but are obviously protecting themselves from any legal obligations to replace your 50 dollar rule book by calling them house rules.

You know this how?


I am not sure if this is an age thing, or what, but every time there is a FAQ, or an update, we get this crowd in here that just rushes to remind us that we should ignore it.

I have not read any such thing from anybody 'here' yet. Last time I checked, GW themselves have told us in their Shrine of Knowledge what a Faq/ Errata is. Once again, GW says FAQs are house rules. We haven't invented any such thing 'here'.


I didn't hear this crowd out in force when they nerfed the Doom of Malantai. Where were you then when it greatly benefited you?

They only 'nerfed' an over powered 80 point model IF you use the FAQ! Plenty of people who don't use the FAQ still use it as the rules present themselves just fine.

[Lerra]

Where do you play at? I usually hang out at The Source, the FFG Event Center, or Airtraffic. None of those places use the INAT in any game I've played.

Dreamer's, Misty Mountain Games, Phoenix Games, and Tower Games all use INAT FAQ. I've only been to one tournament at FFG, but I'm pretty sure the INAT FAQ was at least used as a reference guide there as well.

[Xas]

It could be argued that the fact that it's always active doesn't matter since Hive Commander 'takes effect' before you move, therefore it doesn't work off table. If it happened to me, it can happen to anyone playing a rules lawyer.

Arguing that I'd accept it and tell you that all your reserves are automatically destroyed.
Why?

Because the virtual ability that spawns them onto the board takes effect before you move them on the table. As nothing can trigger off the table your units are not spawned and therefore destroyed.


People with common sense simply ignore all that is written after a phrase like "it can be argued that..."

[EnglishInquisition]

Huh? Almost every store in Minneapolis/St. Paul uses the INAT FAQ.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the INAT FAQ. I really don't care which rules I use or how "official" they are, as long as the ruleset is tight, arguments are easily resolved, and everyone is on the same page. INAT does that pretty well, even if people disagree with some of the rulings.

It's not like GW's official rules are any better.

But they ARE official GW rules- you know the people that WROTE the rules.

It always appears to me that the FAQs, frequently asked questions are the rules writers way of clarifying the "rules as written". They aren't perfect, by a long way, but thats because the games designers are putting out a game that they themselves want to play. When something comes up as a problem with the way a rule is interpreted they clarify the way it was intended to be played via the FAQ.
I'd much rather play the rules as the designers intended rather than how they are written or mis-interpreted! People that cling to RAW rather than RAI seem to do so to gain an advantage over their opponent, that GW clearly didn't intend them to have in the first place.

[Tynskel]

well said

[karandras]

Seconded.

[karandras]

For the sake of conversation, I would like to throw my proverbial $0.02 into the ring on this FAQ.

When I read through this FAQ I felt that GW had pretty clearly defined every ruling in a more restrictive stance as opposed to a more permissinve stance.

I have always found myself to be a restrictive gamer in that I view the rules with a "It does not state that I can do this, so I cannot" view as opposed to the the more permissive "It doesn't specifically say I cannot, so I can" view.

I am primarily an Eldar player and have always played a transported unit to be destroyed if their transport moved flat out and was subsequently destroyed. The way I read and interpret the rules, I find it well defined that a unit that cannot disembark for any reason is destroyed should their transport be destroyed. A unit cannot disembark if their transport moved flat out. The argument that somehow an emergency disembark is not a normal disembark and thus is not restricted is not logical to me.

When I read the Dark Eldar Codex, I immediately felt confident that it would force GW to FINALLY make a clear ruling on this long debated issue.

And they did... sort of!!!

They made it clear that a unit is destroyed if it's transport is destroyed and it moved flat out on that turn. As any astute rules lawyer can quickly point out, the BRB very clearly states that the word turn would only indicate a player's turn as opposed to a game turn. Thus, the FAQ ruling absolutely did not answer the argument! In fact, it did not clarify anything at all! They actually need an FAQ for the FAQ!!! Bravo!

I would posulate the view that the RAI of this FAQ was to clarify that a transported unit cannot disembark if their transport moved flat out during it's last movement phase and is destroyed. Unfortunately, that is not what it says due to the word "turn" being there and the word "game" being absent!

My question is:
Why would this so-called ruling be here at all if it had not been intended to read "Game Turn"? It doesn't actually answer any frequently asked question does it? Combined with the other rulings being more restrictive interpretaions of the rules, would anyone agree with my view?

[Archon Charybdis]

I find it well defined that a unit that cannot disembark for any reason is destroyed should their transport be destroyed. A unit cannot disembark if their transport moved flat out.

The rulebook says they may not disembark in the same movement phase they went flat out (which frankly, is even more clear than the FAQ). It only applies to that movement phase. In order to kill the unit inside, it would need to say something to the effect of "may not disembark until the start of their next turn." If you're interpreting the text in the book to mean that the unit inside is destroyed if an enemy unit shoots down the transport, you're adding things that aren't in the actual rules.




They made it clear that a unit is destroyed if it's transport is destroyed and it moved flat out on that turn. As any astute rules lawyer can quickly point out, the BRB very clearly states that the word turn would only indicate a player's turn as opposed to a game turn. Thus, the FAQ ruling absolutely did not answer the argument! In fact, it did not clarify anything at all! They actually need an FAQ for the FAQ!!! Bravo!

While a lot of people jumped to conclusions, rereading the basic definition of what constitutes a turn clears up the question fairly quickly.


I would posulate the view that the RAI of this FAQ was to clarify that a transported unit cannot disembark if their transport moved flat out during it's last movement phase and is destroyed. Unfortunately, that is not what it says due to the word "turn" being there and the word "game" being absent!

And this is why "RAI" is not a basis for rulings, because no one knows what was "intended", only what's actually written. In this case, you and I have clearly different views of what was intended by the designers, because your suggestion essentially makes moving flat-out an unusable mechanic for Dark Eldar, where 2/3 of the damage chart suddenly destroy not only their vehicles but the entire squad inside with no saves.

And frankly, in this case, what's written isn't even all that unclear after you read the definition of what a turn is.


My question is:
Why would this so-called ruling be here at all if it had not been intended to read "Game Turn"? It doesn't actually answer any frequently asked question does it?

Yes, it does answer a frequently asked question. As you seem to be aware, people argue this all the time, even though the answer is in the book. It's the very definition of a "frequently asked question."

[Xas]

What this FAQ intended to "fix" is the following:

I ram you up to 36" with aetersails (30" are easy as you only need to roll a 6 for the 2d6 from the sails).
I hope to get destroyed (hopeing your stuff dies usually is something the designers want to prohibit as it is counter-cinematic to wish death to your guys) so you disembark.
fleet d6.
charge (as there is no rule to prevent you from charging).


People that think moving flat out allways destroys the unit inside even on the oponents turn have to read carefully.

it is one thing to "can not disembark" (as in physically impossible due to no board space because of impassable terrain/other models) and "may not disembark" (as in moved to far or has a ruleing like retrofire jets prohibit it).


if you dont akknowledge that there is a difference intended here you can basically ignore all rules in the book and blame it on the same type of "minor incoherence".

[karandras]

Just wanted to clarify that I had no intention of starting a flame war.

Archon Charybdis - I understand your point of view.

The rules state that "Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase" (p.70). This is a restriction on how players can move their models. The rules also say that on a Destroyed-wrecked result "The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Models that cannot disembark are destroyed..." (p.67).

The question here can be what are they referring to when they say "that" movement phase? Your position is that is not indicative of the vehicle's last movement phase but rather the current phase the game is in. However, if the vehicle is not capable of movement in the current phase of the game (i.e. - it's the opponent's turn), it seems to me that one would revert to the vehicle's previous state of movement. Why have a rule governing that which cannot be done?

Xas - Brilliant point on the exploitive ramming. I do see the FAQ's effect there.

As a long time pointy ear player, I have already begun to gather Dark Eldar kits and have poured over their codex as it looks like it will be awhile before my boys get another one. I am a xeno fanatic and this is not being written from the opposition's point of view.

That being said, if one agrees with your point of view, it would make Dark Eldar the easiest army to play effectively with an undefensible Raider Rush. Here is the basic break down:

I bring 6 Raiders with Flickerfields and Aethersails filled with Wyches, Incubi, Grotesques and other nasty assault units. If I get first turn I move everything flat out 24" plus 2d6 setting up an easy second turn assault.

The opponent responds and tries to destroy me. I have a 4+ cover save and a 5+ invulnerable against close combat attacks (which need 6s to hit to begin with) or attacks that ignore cover (which are less common).

If you actually get through my saves and roll a 1 or a 2, you've done nothing and I will assault and kill you on my 2nd turn.

If you roll a 3 or a 4, my transport crashes, I take no damage at all and have to pass a pinning test on a 9 or less. Assuming I pass, which I normally will, I will assault and kill you on my 2nd turn.

If you roll a 5 or a 6, my transport explodes. You will likely wound half of my models, but I will get an armor save followed by a 4+ FNP save (because I am smart and brought multiple Haemonculous for 50 pts attached to my squads). I lose maybe a quarter of a squad. If I pass my subsequent LD and Pinning check, the rest of my unit is assaulting you and killing you on turn 2.

If I have the second turn, I leave everything in reserves, but utilize the exact same tactics. Barring really poor reserve rolls, it still works.

This is a total point and click army. It takes no thought to use effectively and will be nearly unstoppable. I do not believe that Phil Kelly would write such a simplistic dunce-proof codex. I do not believe the games developers intend the rules to work that way.

I could be completely wrong of course, as this is just my opinion and you are definitely entitled to yours. I will assert though that without the threat of losing the units in transports moving flat out, there is a clear and pronounced game balance issue with the new DE Codex.

[Dorsai]

Here is how I am reading the FAQ regarding the transport question. I'm looking at it from the fast skimmer angle as I use Vendetta's to move my vet squads around.

From page 71 of the BRB is states: "On the other hand , having your engines stall when flying at high speed has its consequences, so a skimmer that is immobilized immediately crashes and is destroyed (wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn. If it moved slower, it suffers an immobilized result as normal."

From this I take it that if I move my Vendetta 24" and it suffer a wrecked result from a shooting attack, I loose my squad of vets. If a fast skimmer is so easily destroyed from a shooting attack, then why wouldn't a BA rhino be subject to a similar rule? I would think that the same is applied to any transport in question. After all, if you are moving that fast and the vehicle is hit and wrecked it would probably roll/flip/smash into something causing serious injuries to the occupants. I think this was done so that people would think twice about sacrificing a fast transport just to get a unit across the board in the first turn. There is now a risk that said unit will be destroyed.

This issue rarely comes up for other armies as they don't have transports that can move flat out. BA players will be thinking twice about running their rhino's down somebody's throat. I will think twice about moving my Vendetta's in from the board edges as I outflank them.

This is how I intend to play it, and I doubt I'll find much resistance to it at my LGS.

[Tynskel]

the skimmer becomes a wreck because not only does it become immobilized, but also because it crashes. At this point it is flipping and rolling--- everything is destroyed.

think the movie 'Aliens' when the Dropship (Skimmer) pilot is killed, and the vehicle crashes into the ground while moving (Flat Out)--- it doesn't stop and stay intact, it flips around and rips apart.

However, now think about a tank that is already on the ground. (Remember, the Rhino is a Tank). Now you blast it while it is moving Flat Out-- the likeliness that it you blow off a tread and the Tank to flip around is just not going to happen. It will just come to a stop.

You can also look at it as a Free Body Diagram problem.

The Rhino has 4 forces acting on it: Accel, Drag, Normal, and Gravity. Normal and Gravity are in balance. When the vehicle becomes immobilized due to shooting, the Accel goes to 0, and the Drag causes the vehicle to stop.

The Stormraven has 4 forces acting on it: Accel, Drag, Upthrust, and Gravity. When you immobilized by shooting: Accel goes to 0, Upthrust also goes to 0. Gravity and Drag take over. Now, at point of impact to the ground, the Drag Force on the bottom of the vehicle is higher than the Drag Force on the top of the Vehicle, applying a Torque.

I could go on n' on... But I think you get my point.

[dannyat2460]

This is how im reading the faq,

"Q:If a transport vehical is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models?"
"A:They are removed as casualties."

Now we can all agree this is the official FAQ that games workshop have released, found on page 5 on the left hand side 4th one down in the Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.

Now i want to draw your attention tho the word turn in this FAQ that i have put in bold in my quote,

"whenever a rule uses the word turn, both in this rule book and the codexes, it means player turn otherwise it will clearly state game turn"

Taken from page 9 top right hand corner of the A5 size warhammer 40,000 rule book.

Now as it only says turn and not explicitly states game turn im going to take this as as long as it is not destroyed by friendly fire or other means in that players own turn so enemy fire is irrelevent in this wording of the rules.

[Riotknight]

This is how im reading the faq,

"Q:If a transport vehical is destroyed in the same turn as it moved flat out what happens to any embarked models?"
"A:They are removed as casualties."

Now we can all agree this is the official FAQ that games workshop have released, found on page 5 on the left hand side 4th one down in the Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.

Now i want to draw your attention tho the word turn in this FAQ that i have put in bold in my quote,

"whenever a rule uses the word turn, both in this rule book and the codexes, it means player turn otherwise it will clearly state game turn"

Taken from page 9 top right hand corner of the A5 size warhammer 40,000 rule book.

Now as it only says turn and not explicitly states game turn im going to take this as as long as it is not destroyed by friendly fire or other means in that players own turn so enemy fire is irrelevent in this wording of the rules.

You summed it up far better than I ever could, cheers.

[karandras]

Dannyat2460- Your position is supported by the RAW, but I still think it is rules lawyering. I think you are interpreting the rule in order to gain an advantage. I do not dispute that what you quoted is what the rules as written are and one can attempt to justify it as you aptly demonstrated.

However, while it may be able to be justified, it cannot be realistically rationalized. That is why I see it a rules lawyering. I feel the logic falls apart not only due to physics and realism as Tynskel pointed out, but also based on the way that one who agrees with your RAW interpretation must justify it. Here is your quote:

"Now as it only says turn and not explicitly states game turn im going to take this as as long as it is not destroyed by friendly fire or other means in that players own turn so enemy fire is irrelevent in this wording of the rules."

Why have a rule governing destruction by friendly fire? I have been playing 40k for a very, very long time and with the exception of a Chaos Dreadnought in a fire frenzy, have never ever seen friendly fire destroy a vehicle. Does this actually happen in your games???

It is a virtually non-existant game mechanic. Just as I asserted earlier with the fact that I cannot move my vehicles during my opponent's turn. Your view basically results in rules being printed and presented to govern events that cannot occur (or at least far beyond seldom!). Why would they have rules for events that do not happen? I just don't see the point.

I agree with your RAW interpretation as it is pretty clear, but I still believe it to be an oversight on GW's behalf that is in desperate need of clarification.

[Archon Charybdis]

I feel the logic falls apart not only due to physics and realism as Tynskel pointed out, but also based on the way that one who agrees with your RAW interpretation must justify it.

You're talking about an abstract tabletop game where a lack reality and sanity are defining characteristics. Appealing to real world physics as a context for an abstract rule system governing a fictional world populated by giant bugs, undead Egyptian robots, space elves, and genetically engineered super men is not a valid argument.

What's more, you make it sound as though actually reading the rules and understanding that the 40K definition of turn means "player turn" unless explicitly stated to be game turn, is somehow not in the spirit of the rules, or is otherwise twisting the context. You readily admit that the rules do in fact state "turn" means "player turn", but you suggest this rule shouldn't be applied in this case because you personally dislike the impact it has on the game.

A lot of people have a lot of rules they don't like, or feel are an oversight on the part of GW, but that's not a basis for dismissing what's written in the book (unless of course you and your friends agree to beforehand). Not to get all serious business about plastic men, but if you went into a court of law and said "I know the law says this, but I don't think they really intended it that way. Let's ignore it!" you wouldn't win a case. As it stands, it would require an errata/FAQ that explicitly rewrote either the definition of "turn" or the rules for being wrecked when moving flat out in order for the rules to play the way you want them to.


Why have a rule governing destruction by friendly fire? I have been playing 40k for a very, very long time and with the exception of a Chaos Dreadnought in a fire frenzy, have never ever seen friendly fire destroy a vehicle. Does this actually happen in your games???

It is a virtually non-existant game mechanic. Just as I asserted earlier with the fact that I cannot move my vehicles during my opponent's turn. Your view basically results in rules being printed and presented to govern events that cannot occur (or at least far beyond seldom!). Why would they have rules for events that do not happen? I just don't see the point.

You're straw manning. I have in fact seen scattering blasts destroy my own vehicles, or a teammates vehicles. And more to the point, he didn't say friendly fire was the only thing that could cause you to wreck in your own turn. Moving into difficult terrain and being immobilized/wrecked can also occur in your own player turn.

And to address your previous argument about Dark Eldar being an unstoppable killing machine-- if you really think that it's impossible to shoot down AV10 open-topped vehicles, even with cover saves, that's just plain ludicrous. I can tell you that even with a cover save, Raiders are pretty easy to kill. What's more, once they're down, the squishy T3 contents are pretty easy to shoot to death, as only a handful DE units have more than a 5+ armor save.

[DarkLink]

Dannyat2460- Your position is supported by the RAW, but I still think it is rules lawyering. I think you are interpreting the rule in order to gain an advantage.

It's not rules lawyering to follow the rules. It's very clear and explicit what that rule means.

That FAQ clarifies that if the transport is destroyed in the same player turn, then the passangers are also destroyed. It says nothing about the next shooting phase. Therefore, you must turn to other rules. If there is another rules saying the unit is destroyed even in the next shooting phase, it is destroyed. If not, then the unit is not destroyed. Either way, it is beyond the scope of the FAQ answer.

No rules lawyering to gain an advantage involved there.



If it's RAW, then it is not "rules lawyering".

[DarkLink]

What's more, you make it sound as though actually reading the rules and understanding that the 40K definition of turn means "player turn" unless explicitly stated to be game turn, is somehow not in the spirit of the rules, or is otherwise twisting the context. You readily admit that the rules do in fact state "turn" means "player turn", but you suggest this rule shouldn't be applied in this case because you personally dislike the impact it has on the game.



Well put. I always dismiss any argument based on "the spirit of the rules" outhand, because "spirit of the rules" is really code for "this is the way I want it to be, and it doesn't matter what you or GW or anyone else thinks, I'm right and your wrong". And that cannot be the basis for any argument.

[SeattleDV8]

Karandras, you do know that this FAQ is actually harsher than the BRB's rules?
The BRB rules disallowed embarking and disembarking in the Movement Phase.
So passengers would be destroyed from Dangerous Terrain tests and failed Ramming/Tank Shocks.
A transport hit and destroyed by friendly fire would allow the passengers to disembark pre-FAQ
Also the debatable embarked unit surviving the exploded transport.
With the FAQ it is now any action that happens in the players turn will destroy the embarked passengers.
Hardly rules lawyering.

[Tynskel]

Actually the FAQ isn't harsher.

You were destroyed anyhow by the dangerous terrain. The way the rulebook was laid out, the Flat Out rules said you couldn't disembark, and in the wrecked rules state if you cannot disembark, then remove the model.

All the FAQ did was reiterate this statement.

[Archon Charybdis]

The FAQ changes the term of the restriction from "that movement phase" to "turn" at large, so it would now also cover being immobilized/wrecked from scattering blasts or any rules that might cause you to fire on your own units.

[DarkLink]

It doesn't change anything. It just clarifies that if the vehicle destroyed in the same player turn does destroy the unit inside. This does absolutely nothing to change whether or not the unit is destroyed if the vehicle is destroyed in the next turn.

FAQs do not override or change existing rules. They only clarify them.

[Xas]

Just wanted to clarify that I had no intention of starting a flame war.

Archon Charybdis - I understand your point of view.

The rules state that "Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that movement phase" (p.70). This is a restriction on how players can move their models. The rules also say that on a Destroyed-wrecked result "The passengers must immediately disembark and then take a Pinning test. Models that cannot disembark are destroyed..." (p.67).

The question here can be what are they referring to when they say "that" movement phase? Your position is that is not indicative of the vehicle's last movement phase but rather the current phase the game is in. However, if the vehicle is not capable of movement in the current phase of the game (i.e. - it's the opponent's turn), it seems to me that one would revert to the vehicle's previous state of movement. Why have a rule governing that which cannot be done?

Xas - Brilliant point on the exploitive ramming. I do see the FAQ's effect there.

As a long time pointy ear player, I have already begun to gather Dark Eldar kits and have poured over their codex as it looks like it will be awhile before my boys get another one. I am a xeno fanatic and this is not being written from the opposition's point of view.

That being said, if one agrees with your point of view, it would make Dark Eldar the easiest army to play effectively with an undefensible Raider Rush. Here is the basic break down:

I bring 6 Raiders with Flickerfields and Aethersails filled with Wyches, Incubi, Grotesques and other nasty assault units. If I get first turn I move everything flat out 24" plus 2d6 setting up an easy second turn assault.

The opponent responds and tries to destroy me. I have a 4+ cover save and a 5+ invulnerable against close combat attacks (which need 6s to hit to begin with) or attacks that ignore cover (which are less common).

If you actually get through my saves and roll a 1 or a 2, you've done nothing and I will assault and kill you on my 2nd turn.

If you roll a 3 or a 4, my transport crashes, I take no damage at all and have to pass a pinning test on a 9 or less. Assuming I pass, which I normally will, I will assault and kill you on my 2nd turn.

If you roll a 5 or a 6, my transport explodes. You will likely wound half of my models, but I will get an armor save followed by a 4+ FNP save (because I am smart and brought multiple Haemonculous for 50 pts attached to my squads). I lose maybe a quarter of a squad. If I pass my subsequent LD and Pinning check, the rest of my unit is assaulting you and killing you on turn 2.

If I have the second turn, I leave everything in reserves, but utilize the exact same tactics. Barring really poor reserve rolls, it still works.

This is a total point and click army. It takes no thought to use effectively and will be nearly unstoppable. I do not believe that Phil Kelly would write such a simplistic dunce-proof codex. I do not believe the games developers intend the rules to work that way.

I could be completely wrong of course, as this is just my opinion and you are definitely entitled to yours. I will assert though that without the threat of losing the units in transports moving flat out, there is a clear and pronounced game balance issue with the new DE Codex.

it simply is not unstoppable. if you base your whole army around it it is rather poor and easy for any competent mech player to dismantle.
for such a unit you describe you pay 255 points (naked haemi, 9 wyches, agoniser, 1 shardnet, raider with sails and 5++).

IG can for the cost of two such units place 2 chimaeras with meltavets, 1 hellhound and 1 hydra.
the meltaguns alone have a very good chance to pop both your raiders (and a 50% chance to explode it doing that). the hydras and chimaeras are also a 2nd line of reserve firepower to down the vehicles should one survive. then you've got yourself a nice s6 template all over your squad (and 2 s5 if the chims arent needed to kill the raiders).

and even should one (or for the heck both as you magically pass 6-10 saves in a row) of your raiders survive the wyches can do nothing against the vehicles and you are fighting with 2 lances against 4 av12 tanks.


wyches are a good unit but even if they reach combat unharmed and "only" loose the 75pts transport in the process nowhere near an auto-win as they neither can do much against vehicles nor do much damage against medium resilent units (where the agoniser isnt a big deal yet but still your normal attacks to bounce off useless) like MEQ. once you get countercharge by a squad of marines or god beware a dread it is game over.

[EnglishInquisition]

Oh-OH- hearsay alert- HEARSAY ALERT!! :D

The rule in question has been clarified at a recent UK "Throne of Skulls" (used to be known as GW's GT) as Player Turn only.
The intent was to clarify what happened in a players own movement phase as all other rules in the book were in the vehicle/shooting section. It will also stop a very unscrupulous tactic of ramming an opponents vehicle on turn one, hoping that you will destroy your own vehicle in the process, and the resultant troop disembarkation would then allow an assault into the enemies lines in turn one assault phase (as long as said troops pass a Ld test!). It also stops a last turn rush onto an objective knowing that even if your vehicle was destroyed the troops inside would still be able to claim/contest the objective. Now you have to commit earlier to gain the benefits.

[dannyat2460]

Dannyat2460- Your position is supported by the RAW, but I still think it is rules lawyering. I think you are interpreting the rule in order to gain an advantage. I do not dispute that what you quoted is what the rules as written are and one can attempt to justify it as you aptly demonstrated.

However, while it may be able to be justified, it cannot be realistically rationalized. That is why I see it a rules lawyering. I feel the logic falls apart not only due to physics and realism as Tynskel pointed out, but also based on the way that one who agrees with your RAW interpretation must justify it. Here is your quote:

"Now as it only says turn and not explicitly states game turn im going to take this as as long as it is not destroyed by friendly fire or other means in that players own turn so enemy fire is irrelevant in this wording of the rules."

Why have a rule governing destruction by friendly fire? I have been playing 40k for a very, very long time and with the exception of a Chaos Dreadnought in a fire frenzy, have never ever seen friendly fire destroy a vehicle. Does this actually happen in your games???

It is a virtually non-existent game mechanic. Just as I asserted earlier with the fact that I cannot move my vehicles during my opponent's turn. Your view basically results in rules being printed and presented to govern events that cannot occur (or at least far beyond seldom!). Why would they have rules for events that do not happen? I just don't see the point.

I agree with your RAW interpretation as it is pretty clear, but I still believe it to be an oversight on GW's behalf that is in desperate need of clarification.

Ok ill try and cover everything that i want to in this reply and sorry for it taking so long im from the UK and its currently 2300 and only time i can get on lol,

1: yes it is rules layering im known for it in my local club and gw shop and because of that they all come to me for rules questions, im also a referee for most of the gaming comps in the local area.

2: you want it to be justified in real life terms ok....

Its the 41st millennia and there is only war the armies of the emperor have been waging war for over 15 millennia using weapons and technology from the dark age of technology in those many many many years the enemies will have probably shot down quite a few of the emperors weapons of war and as such the tech priests had designed technology far beyond our understanding and as such there are systems inplace to safely plot incoming enemy fire to reduce as much damage and protect the passengers and crew, or maybe in the case of space marines maybe there just brick hard and normally crash fast vehicles for the fun of it :D

3 yes i have sometimes destroyed my own vehicles by accident, this could be by moving through difficult terrain or friendly fire but it can happen and ive seen orks do it on purpose before to get the charge off after moving flat out in there trucks :mad: damn orks but this is now not a viable tactic :rolleyes:

4 possibly is an oversight but that is what it says stop worrying about fast moving transports and deal with it like a good general should be able to

any more questions about this rule please don't hesitate to ask and ill have a go at explaining it clearer not sure its possible tho :cool:

[steelmage99]

What is being discussed here?

The rules (as clarified by the FAQ) are perfectly clear. "Turn" without a qualifier means "Player turn".

End of discussion.


"But it isn't realistic!".....Thank you for participating. You may leave now. The game of Warhammer 40K is a simulation of reality where allowances are made for things such as Game Balance and Ease of Play to override Reality.
The reality of W40K is defined by the rules, not the IRL physics of Earth.

"But GW obviously didn't inted for it to work this way!". Really? Even after an FAQ has clarified it?

We are done here.

[dannyat2460]

We are done here.

aww but i was having soooo much fun :(

well ladys and gents steelmage99 has spoken you dont have to go home but you cant post here :rolleyes:

Sorry about the spam msg im just sooooo bored at work :mad:

[steelmage99]

*Takes a small bow*

"Thank you. Thank you. You have been a wonderfull audience.
I'll be here until thursday.
Don't forget to tip your waitress.
Try the veil!"

:)

[karandras]

EnglishInquisition and Dannyat2460 - Thanks for your responses!

Perhaps my opinion has been swayed. The ramming tactic is not something that has made its way to the local scene here. The FAQ as written is most certainly applicable to that situation and you all have helped shed some light on this topic.

Xas - I would still contend that the DE are unstoppable with this ruling. Perhaps not quite auto win status - there are dice to be rolled afterall - but nearly unstoppable!

This site often discusses shifts in the so called "meta game" . I think this codex above all others will present the largest such shift to date. Once competent players get a few games under their belts with lists similar to what I proposed, it will force opponents into reserve or defensive castles. Either way, opponents will be reacting and playing the game back footed, attempting not to lose by turn 3. Most armies will not have the capability to weather this storm.

Thanks for the debate fellas!

[DarkLink]

I don't know if anyone really uses that ramming tactic, it's just a silly loophole in the rules GW actually bothered to patch.

[Tynskel]

People did actually use it, and frequently enough, that GW decided to patch it.

Actually, patch it isn't the correct word: clarify. actually: Reiterate. The rules had already pointed towards unit destroyed, and GW just reaffirmed it.

[ElCheezus]

You know, if they meant "game turn" that would be a huge disadvantage to the player that goes first. Player 2 could then move flat out, yet not lose his dudes when his transport was destroyed.

If they meant something like "until the next friendly turn" or "in the current player turn and the next player turn, then they seriously misspelled that. . . by a lot. Saying "turn" and meaning "game turn" is believable (even though they explicitly laid out what they mean), but saying "turn" and meaning a much more detailed explanation of multiple phases is quite the typo, even for GW.

[dannyat2460]

I don't know if anyone really uses that ramming tactic, it's just a silly loophole in the rules GW actually bothered to patch.

well there was a long enough argument on here about if it could be done and in the end even tho I didnt like it as a rule lawyer they dictated the posibility of this happening and when dealing with orks that dont mind doing this it was a threat!

So everyone stop crying that its RAW and not RAI cos it is RAI just because your scared of dark eldar been able to jump your firing line on there turn 2 or you could just get on with the game as it is

[DarkLink]

well there was a long enough argument on here about if it could be done and in the end even tho I didnt like it as a rule lawyer they dictated the posibility of this happening and when dealing with orks that dont mind doing this it was a threat!


Oh, yeah, I'm not complaining that they fixed it, nor saying that it wasn't a problem. I just didn't know if there was actually widespread use of the loophole.