Imperial Guard Errata and FAQ

[Lord Inquisitor]

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2
Alright, the IG FAQ is out and it has some stuff everyone really needs to read. Discuss here what you think. Here is a teaser, orders may only be issued to non- vehicle units in the Imperial Guard Codex.
Crap, someone already made a thread. Oh well. Still feel free to discuss.

[Old_Paladin]

I was shocked by some of the stuff. It'll take guard down a peg or two.

The big thing I saw was that the guys that affect reserves (astropath and navy officer); having two doesn't make the bonus stack.

[Deimos]

The disembarkation and contesting rules being clarified for the valkyrie are definitely welcome.

[Xas]

*tears* *weaps* now you cannot jsut have creed sit back 24" to get furious charge GK termies but have to sit straken wthin 12"...

and no termies in aircrafts... RIP cheese ^^


the leman russ thing for inquisition sucks though. it is damn time they make a new codex inquisitioN!

[m0rm0k]

I have a problem with the Hellstrike Missile ruling. What is a "non-blast ordinance". This term has never been used before. The rulebook says that assume all ordinance is large blast. If my valkyrie can only shoot one guy with my lilmited use missile then that build is beyond useless because lascannons are better. I have top be reading this wrong. Help me out guys.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I have a problem with the Hellstrike Missile ruling. What is a "non-blast ordinance". This term has never been used before. The rulebook says that assume all ordinance is large blast. If my valkyrie can only shoot one guy with my lilmited use missile then that build is beyond useless because lascannons are better. I have top be reading this wrong. Help me out guys.


No, the BRB says all Ord Blast is assumed to use the large blast, there is no 'ord always uses blast' rule...thus the questions that created the FAQ response.
brb pg 58 "unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker" (emphasis mine)


The Ordnance rule gives you the '2d6 pick the highest for armour penetration' special rule.

[RocketRollRebel]

Glad to see some things clarified. But there isnt really anything that I didn't already assume aside from the part about MoF and Astropaths not stacking but I never really used it in a game anyway.

[Old_Paladin]

No, the BRB says all Ord Blast is assumed to use the large blast, there is no 'ord always uses blast' rule...thus the questions that created the FAQ response.
brb pg 58 "unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker" (emphasis mine)

The Ordnance rule gives you the '2d6 pick the highest for armour penetration' special rule.

Don't forget that an ordnance weapon is also the only weapon allowed to fire that turn; so that means only one rocket and nothing else (unless the IG codex has yet more rules that i'm unfamiliar with).

[tuffdart]

Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Am I wrong about this:
I can disembark 'under' my valk/ven and not be assaulted. With some creative placement, enemy models can't move within one inch of a vehicles hull. So they would have to contact the skimmer first. So if they shoot at the squad then try to assault, it would fail.
What makes me think this is that the ONLY exception is for embark /disembark and capturing objectives.

[RocketRollRebel]

Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Am I wrong about this:
I can disembark 'under' my valk/ven and not be assaulted. With some creative placement, enemy models can't move within one inch of a vehicles hull. So they would have to contact the skimmer first. So if they shoot at the squad then try to assault, it would fail.
What makes me think this is that the ONLY exception is for embark /disembark and capturing objectives.

Yeah I wouldn't try that. It could result in your opponent hitting you with a heavy piece of terrain :p. I use the base as the reference for everything concerning range, measuring and movement. It keeps it simple, fair and cuts out a lot of confusion. The only thing I reference from the model itself is facing and LoS.

[Nabterayl]

Am I wrong about this:
I can disembark 'under' my valk/ven and not be assaulted. With some creative placement, enemy models can't move within one inch of a vehicles hull. So they would have to contact the skimmer first. So if they shoot at the squad then try to assault, it would fail.
What makes me think this is that the ONLY exception is for embark /disembark and capturing objectives.

The whole point of that FAQ is that models on the ground are not within 1" of the model's hull, so no, this won't ever be a problem.

[m0rm0k]

Q. How do you treat the Valkyrie base for
gaming? Due to its height it seems that it is
impossible for a Valkyrie to contest an objective,
or for troops to disembark/embark normally.
A. Follow the rules in Measuring Distances in the
Skimmers section in the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook with the following exception: For the
purposes of contesting objectives and
embarking/disembarking from a Valkyrie or
Vendetta, measure to and from the model’s base.
For example, models wishing to embark within a
Valkyrie can do so if at the end of their
movement, all models within the unit are within
2" of the Valkyrie’s base.

Am I wrong about this:
I can disembark 'under' my valk/ven and not be assaulted. With some creative placement, enemy models can't move within one inch of a vehicles hull. So they would have to contact the skimmer first. So if they shoot at the squad then try to assault, it would fail.
What makes me think this is that the ONLY exception is for embark /disembark and capturing objectives.


The Skimmer rules specifically say that models may not be under the skimmer's hull. This means when you disembark you have to make sure you place your models not under the hull and not more than 2 inches from the valk's base. Difficult, but accurate. This does let you exit models from the front of the base not just the bask however. Also you can assault a skimmer's base so you could assault the unit in your scenario by declaring a multi-assault on the vehicle as well.

[Vulture]

The errata for sure clarifies a number of things - for good or bad (like the astropat thing). But there is still one thing that bothers me and I have already tried to get an answer from GW...

Why on earth don't have the stormtroopers/kasrkin access to a vox caster? Standard troops and veterans have it but the elitarian stormtroopers don't have it? Seems strange to me...

Well, just my 2 cent... ;)

Vulture

[erfunk]

The Skimmer rules specifically say that models may not be under the skimmer's hull. This means when you disembark you have to make sure you place your models not under the hull and not more than 2 inches from the valk's base. Difficult, but accurate. This does let you exit models from the front of the base not just the bask however. Also you can assault a skimmer's base so you could assault the unit in your scenario by declaring a multi-assault on the vehicle as well.
Could you point out which rule about not being under a skimmer's hull you're talking about, please, so I can be sure we're talking about the same thing? I'm going to make my case, presuming it's one of the rules I'll address. Please let me know if I've completely missed something.

In the 5th ed skimmers section it mentions measuring distances from the hull, which will never be an issue for enemy infantry vs a Valkyrie as long as they mind the 1" from the base issue as normal (which can be overcome during assault, as normal). So I presume this isn't it.

There's another rule about skimmers not being able to "end their movement on top" of another model, which is probably the source of our confusion. "On top" isn't the same as 'above'. A ceiling is a above a floor, not on top of it. They're not touching. But a desk is definitely on top of the floor, just like the ceiling is above them both. Unless you have a really weird gravity defying desk, or your house is at a very non-standard angle.

Above is what you're applying. But in it's strictest sense 'on top' simply excludes landing your vehicle physically on a model. I'd interpret that as the skimmer landing such that its hull or base displaces any model or violates the 1" rule with an enemy model, measuring in 3 dimensions. I'm pretty sure there was a more clear version that existed last edition that might also be resulting in the 'above' interpretation. The games has made significant departure from it's previous 2D existence.

[Vince]

This is the reason they have to put out FAQ saying really obvious stuff. You are trying to argue that on top deosnt mean stacking 2 units on the same spot. Its clear as day that when they say you cant end a move on top they mean exactly what you are trying to argue you can do. Clearly the rules dont want you to stack 2 units ON TOP of each other. How any person could try to argue that on top only means that your skimmer cant touch the top of the models base but can still be directly above them is beyond me.

[TSINI]

i think its going to be difficult to fit a vehicle as big as the valkyrie on a table without its wings going over some scenery or friendly/enemy models. at the end of the day some common sense needs to be applied here and not dogmatic rule following.

in all of my games with my vulture and valkyrie, we've allowed friendly and enemy models to move around under the model as long as they keep clear of the base (which prettymuch represents the hull at ground level) and they would assault the base if they so wished.

when an enemy model shoots at the valkyrie/vulture then wings and tail do count as part of the vehicle, its an aircraft so theyre all important, full of fuel etc, not only that but they make up a large proportion of the model so can't be ignored.

i know this isnt going to please those tournement players that believe everything has to be fair in size and rules. but at the end of the day, you have to apply common sense to these vehicles because they don't conform to the usual, small blob tank/landspeeder shape.

[erfunk]

This is the reason they have to put out FAQ saying really obvious stuff. You are trying to argue that on top deosnt mean stacking 2 units on the same spot. Its clear as day that when they say you cant end a move on top they mean exactly what you are trying to argue you can do. Clearly the rules dont want you to stack 2 units ON TOP of each other. How any person could try to argue that on top only means that your skimmer cant touch the top of the models base but can still be directly above them is beyond me.

So you're defining 'on the same spot' to include one being 5" above the other? Then what about ruins? Can models not be directly above another on a different floor? It's not as clear as day, I'm willing to admit that. That's why there's a discussion on it in the first place.

5th ed is very 3 dimensional. True line of sight, no more generic height values, etc. I'm not sure why you'd rather see a 2D mindset complicate things. The word they chose, obviously, is being interpreted differently. In schooling, with the people I knew growing up, in college, and in the workplace, no one I knew used 'on top' to mean hovering above. There was a difference. Maybe the common understanding of the words are different in different places, due to accepted nuance. I can see why you think the two are the same and what I call 'above' is what they intended. I simply disagree. Besides, if we want to get nitpicky, that rule only specifies the skimmer can't end it's move on top another model. It goes on to say that the model can't be left hovering in mid-air. It says nothing about other things moving or assaulting under it. If you want to argue 'above' as RAW, then it only restricts the skimmer 'landing' at the end of it's move.

I argue for a simpler solution, not for an exploitable one. Is it really intended to allow a squad to shelter behind the wings of a squadron, safe from assault but with no LoS issues granting cover to their foes? Can someone explain to me what's stopping those fearless Khorne Berserkers from running past the skimmer wings a couple stories above them? And how are firewarriors reasonably supposed to get out of a Devilfish if you can't get under those winglets? Possible, but obnoxious.

[Vince]

So according to you you can place a unit on the top level of a ruin and then put a skimmer on top or above them as you call it?

There are rules governing how to deal with ruins and putting models on different levels. Your skimmer is not a ruin so you use the skimmer rules. The skimmer rules say you cant put a skimmer on top of a unit.

What you seem to be trying to say is why cant you deploy your guys/ move them over your skimmers base. You cant do this because of page "11" in the rule book under Movement phase. " A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" as your skimmer has a base you cant move on it. Now in the measuring distances part of skimmer rules it says you ignore the base except for assault but this is only in relation to measuring distances. In the moving skimmer it says you cant move on top. Also the fact that for assault purposes you use the base only reinforces why you cant move on top of it.

I have no problem with your wings ect being over a unit but the base of the skimmer is the base and you cant put your unit on it or move through it. As far as using your wings to effect people assaulting your squad woudnt a space marine be more then a inch from the valk anyway since it is so tall? Even if it is less then a inch for the assault phase you can ignore the inch restriction anyway.

[erfunk]

I have no problem with your wings ect being over a unit but the base of the skimmer is the base and you cant put your unit on it or move through it. As far as using your wings to effect people assaulting your squad woudnt a space marine be more then a inch from the valk anyway since it is so tall? Even if it is less then a inch for the assault phase you can ignore the inch restriction anyway.

Oh hey, we've been agreeing this whole time and didn't realize it. I never meant to imply you could move on, through, or within 1" of the Valk base. Sorry if that's what I conveyed. I did make an effort to continually refer to wings, which was my point of contention. I do believe in the sovereignty of skimmer bases.

And that might actually help me answer the first question you asked, about parking a skimmer above a unit on top of ruins. In any circumstance, my stance is that there always has to be room for the base to validly land. So no, I don't think a skimmer could park ON a unit. But if there was ample room for the base to land but a wing was going to stretch over them? I think that's fine, as long as the 1" rule is obeyed from both the hull, wings, base, etc. The only thing I meant to argue against was models being denied from moving under a wing or other part sticking sufficiently off of the base, while the model was outside of 1" of the base.