Sanguinary Priest Aura

[Defenestratus]

So before the FAQ - it was pretty cut and dry that any UNIT with a model within 6" got the FNP and FC.

However now that the FAQ has come out and said that MODELS have to be inside 6" when the power is used - my normal opponent is claiming that only models within the 6" bubble are affected by the powers - leading to a huge mess when it comes to wound allocation and determining who gets FC during assaults.

What is the opinion of the high rules court?

All models within 6" or all units within 6"?

[Nabterayl]

Units within 6" still gain FNP. What the FAQ does, in my opinion, is (i) answer when you measure the 6" (after assault moves have taken place) and (ii) clarify that when the book says "units within 6"" with respect to FC, it actually means models.

[Defenestratus]

I understand what the FAQ was trying to address - and I've always played it as such.

But I'm curious - why do you feel its different for FNP as opposed to FC?

In a 10 man squad, its very likely that I'll not be able to cover all 10 of the models to get the FC bonus - but you claim that they should still get FNP...

[Tynskel]

I understand what the FAQ was trying to address - and I've always played it as such.

But I'm curious - why do you feel its different for FNP as opposed to FC?

In a 10 man squad, its very likely that I'll not be able to cover all 10 of the models to get the FC bonus - but you claim that they should still get FNP...

This is actually exactly the same thing.

When do you measure FNP? When you need to.

When do you measure FC? When you need to.


That's exactly how they wrote the FAQ. You measure when the model is using the attacks. ie, you check to see if the unit has FC at the time of using the Attack. The rule itself still states the unit gains FC. The individual model benefits at the time of use, not the entire assault phase.

Just like FNP.

[Defenestratus]

So the question I really have is whether or not the WHOLE unit gets the benefit of the powers at the time of use or just the MODELS in the unit. I think we're talking about different issues here - or at least thats the feeling I get.

Lets say I have 10 marines stretched in a line with a sang priest at the end of the line. 6 of the marines in the squad are within his 6" power.

This squad launches an assault, with the priest in tow. Nothing has changed in regards to spacing once they assault.

When I attack, do all 10 models get FC, or just 6?

When the enemy hits me back, do all 10 models get FNP, or just the 6?

[Nabterayl]

I think the answer to that gets philosophical. It will turn on how you view FAQs.

If you view FAQs as errata, as many people do, then the whole unit gets FNP (because the FAQ said nothing about it) and only the six marines get FC (because the FAQ did say something about it).

If you view the FAQs as interpretive guides, as I do, then all the FAQ clarifies is that you measure when called upon to make use of the rule, exactly as Tynskel said, so the whole unit gets FNP (because the unit is within 6" of the priest, as he is attached to the squad in your example) and the whole unit gets FC (for the same reason).

[Lerra]

The Blood Angel FAQ seems odd when you compare it to the way Furious Charge works for other codices. I know for Space Wolves, the range on furious charge is measured at the beginning of the assault phase, before any assault moves are made. If any model in a unit is within range, the whole unit benefits from furious charge.

It's strange that it works differently for Blood Angels when both codices are about the same age.

Another question: Let's say you have 10 Space Marines with bolters (all identically equipped). 6 of those models are in range of FNP, and 4 are outside of range. How on earth would you roll wounds? You'd have to roll the 6 separately from the 4, because otherwise you wouldn't know if you're allowed to roll FNP or not. By RAW, they are identically equipped and their wounds should be rolled together, though.

[Nabterayl]

By RAW, they are identically equipped and their wounds should be rolled together, though.
Identical models have to have identical equipment, and identical statlines, and identical special rules. If six of the ten had FNP and four did not you would split them up into two buckets of six and four models each on the basis of not having identical special rules.

[Angelus Mortifer]

...and (ii) clarify that when the book says "units within 6"" with respect to FC, it actually means models.

I sadly don't think you can see it that way. If they meant only models benefit rather than unit (against every other standard use of FC to-date), they would have put it under the Errata section and reworded the actual Blood Chalice entry on p.48 of the Codex (or something similar).

The whole squad benefits from FNP if at least one model is within range of the Priest - that much is pretty clear.

The actual question in the FAQ for FC was a little poorly worded, which has lead to a slightly contradictory answer, but whatever the eventual outcome of when the FC takes effect (as you assault OR as you attack), the whole unit will benefit from it providing one model in that unit is within range.

Not even GW are that stupid to over-complicate the USR system (or the general game mechanic as a whole) by specifying only certain models within a unit can benefit from the bubble. It's another common sense issue that was often ignored by many over the likes of Descent of Angels for RAS without JPs, or the current Scout Smoking Baal Pred issue. Intention cannot be ignored despite poorly written rules (...in most cases anyway. Sometimes GW **** it up so much that you can't even see the intention either :p)

I'm not stipulating when the FC effect takes place either way, as it's still a grey area and GW actually need to very clearly take a stance one way or the other:
- The FAQ could indeed be specifying that FC works differently for BAs over any other race that has the same mechanic...
BUT
- In the BRB under USR it states "unless specified differently in your codex, this is the USR"..

Nowhere in the BA Codex is FC or FNP referred to as different, so there's an argument that BRB remains in effect - so FC as you charge... The FAQ sadly doesn't give you a clear black and white answer either way.

[addamsfamily36]

Right im putting this one to bed!

here are the rules:

BLOOD ANGELS CODEX:

blood chalice : all friendly UNITS within 6" are subject to the Furious charge and Feel No pain special rules.

(written word for word exactly, just not bold on the units word:D)

Blood angels FAQ

Q: At what point does my model need to be in range
of a Sanguinary Priest to gain the bonuses of Furious
Charge?
A: When you put the bonuses to use, i.e. when the
model makes its close combat attacks.


Ok so i have my unit of ten men, one of them is in range of my priest. That means my unit as my unit is within 6 inches of that priest gains the abilities of furious charge and feel no pain. All the FAQ does is state when the abilities have to be in range, which is when the attacks are made.

Heres a diagram:

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/photopost/data/635/medium/FEEL_NO_PAIN.jpg

In example A one model in the unit is within 6 inches of the priest when the unit is about to make their attacks. therefore giving the unit the abilities.

In example B none of the models in the unit are in range at the point when the models go to make their attacks and therefore gain No abilities from the Blood chalice.


Right anyone can argue against that be my guest

[Nabterayl]

Not even GW are that stupid to over-complicate the USR system (or the general game mechanic as a whole) by specifying only certain models within a unit can benefit from the bubble.


Right im putting this one to bed!

Right anyone can argue against that be my guest
Per my last post, I agree with these positions - the only thing the FAQ clarifies is when you measure the bubble.

[Defenestratus]

I completely agree with your assessment about what the intent of the FAQ was - the timing/placement aspect of the ability. What I'm being challenged on is the scope of the ability.

The FAQ clearly says that the "Model" and not "unit" has to be within range when the power is used.

Since FAQs over-rule the codex, I've got a particularly nasty Frenchman wanting to interpret it as RAW and not RAI. Sadly I have not been able to properly articulate my side of the argument which is what addamsfamily36 so nicely illustrated.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Since FAQs over-rule the codex

Lol. Quoted straight from the GW website about Errata and FAQs.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

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.

[Defenestratus]

FAQ's overrule the codex in our gaming group*

[Lord Inquisitor]

FAQs don't overrule anything. All they do is explain things. They deal with the gray area. It definatively states in the BA codex that all friendly units within 6" of the chalice get FC and FNP. The rule book then defines everything that is a unit on page 4 and 5. The FAQ is only addressing when the special rules come in to effect.

[Defenestratus]

I suppose my argument could be that if they intended the power to work on a per-model basis, it would be in the errata and not in the FAQ section.

[Nabterayl]

You might also point out that "my model" is actually ambiguous, in a number of ways. The question assumes you are asking about "my model," which is a very strange way to change the rule. If they intended to change the rule, why wasn't the supposedly relevant language in the answer to a question about that very topic? And even if they assumed that (somehow) everybody already knew that blood chalices work on a per-model basis rather than a per-unit basis, why would they say "my model" instead of "each model" or even "a model" - something that implies we're looking at more than one model in the aggregate? "My model" implies that we only ever need to look at one model, which actually argues for the plain text of the codex.

[Lord Inquisitor]

That should work, unless the person is obstinant and doesn't care about what you think. For the ruling that models must be within 6", they would be drastically changing the wording of the codex. Erratas do that, not FAQs.

[addamsfamily36]

Defenestratus, even if you ignore the fact that FAQ's are not Erratas,

The RAW still works the way that i diagrammed.

The BRB describes a unit as various models etc etc

So the FAQ is writing in regard to how close does "my model" or "models" depending on if you have 2 units in range or combat etc, have to be in range to give their unit the abilities of the blood chalice.

you only need ONE model to be in range to give ITS UNIT the ability.

If anyone at your club says differently slap them with a fish. or point them in my direction because they are WRONG!

Have a good day, apologies if i'm coming across as rude, but this is another silly debate over a rule that is quite clear, even if it is poorly written, using the BRB (which we should all own) the Blood angels book and the FAQ, the answer is clear.

[mountaincycle661]

Since FAQs over-rule the codex, I've got a particularly nasty Frenchman wanting to interpret it as RAW and not RAI. Sadly I have not been able to properly articulate my side of the argument which is what addamsfamily36 so nicely illustrated.

Hi Tad. Nice to see you calling me out on the internet. Thats very nice. I dont ever recall actually talking to you about this rules dispute at all. Kyle did. So go call him names instead, thanks.

Hi everyone, Im the "particularly nasty Frenchman". So, the FAQ states it using only words like "model", and not "unit". Model, model, models. Thats it. Its true that GW might actually be changing the way that a paricular USR works between codexes. I for one think its interesting. It keeps up the variety instead of just being yet another space wolves codex. Oh look, more angry marines with more USR. Boooooring.

As for the "intent" argument, or the "faqs shouldnt be taken seriously" issue, it is my intention that GW was trying to neuter the power behind the priest after realizing that it might have gone a little far. Im sorry, but i find it pretty god damn sad that a supposedly heroic space marine character, who prides himself on fighting in the thickest of the fighting and inspiring all the troops to glory, would hide away like a coward in a rhino parked next to some marines saying out of the loud speakers "go on then! You saw my special cup, now fight harder!".

Personally, i believe that GWs intent was to fix this situation, forcing cowardly blood angels players to get ballsy with thier characters and really sink thier teeth into the enemy....the way they should be. Think of it this way: if you attach the priest to the unit, AND charge the enemy together, then no matter which way you word it or what angle you approach it from, everyone will get both FC AND FNP. And then there wont be any arguments about it one way or the other! Because you'll have the dude attached, everyone will fit in under a 6" bubble, and both your wounds taken and your attacks given all happen at times when everyone is "all together under the bubble".

See? So get out of your transport, attach that bad *** character and charge in there for the glory of your corpse-go.....Uh, i mean... emperor.

[Nabterayl]

As for the "intent" argument, or the "faqs shouldnt be taken seriously" issue, it is my intention that GW was trying to neuter the power behind the priest after realizing that it might have gone a little far.
It's not that FAQs shouldn't be taken seriously. It's that they should be taken for what they are, which is explanations of the existing rules. The only ambiguity with respect to the existing rule is at what point you measure the 6" bubble. Otherwise it's perfectly clear, and GW hasn't purported to change it.

Now, what they may have purported to do is assume that everybody already knew that when they wrote "all friendly units within 6"" in the codex, they meant "all friendly models within 6"." But why would they assume that? And if they wanted to make that change, why wouldn't they have included it in the errata?

[addamsfamily36]

Since FAQs over-rule the codex, I've got a particularly nasty Frenchman wanting to interpret it as RAW and not RAI. Sadly I have not been able to properly articulate my side of the argument which is what addamsfamily36 so nicely illustrated.

firstly i would like to apologise i didnt see this statement by you, and my previous comment wasn't attacking you but i feel it might have come across that way.

right now that i have said that, on to attacking the frenchman:


Hi Tad. Nice to see you calling me out on the internet. Thats very nice. I dont ever recall actually talking to you about this rules dispute at all. Kyle did. So go call him names instead, thanks.

Hi everyone, Im the "particularly nasty Frenchman". So, the FAQ states it using only words like "model", and not "unit". Model, model, models. Thats it. Its true that GW might actually be changing the way that a paricular USR works between codexes. I for one think its interesting. It keeps up the variety instead of just being yet another space wolves codex. Oh look, more angry marines with more USR. Boooooring.

As for the "intent" argument, or the "faqs shouldnt be taken seriously" issue, it is my intention that GW was trying to neuter the power behind the priest after realizing that it might have gone a little far. Im sorry, but i find it pretty god damn sad that a supposedly heroic space marine character, who prides himself on fighting in the thickest of the fighting and inspiring all the troops to glory, would hide away like a coward in a rhino parked next to some marines saying out of the loud speakers "go on then! You saw my special cup, now fight harder!".

Personally, i believe that GWs intent was to fix this situation, forcing cowardly blood angels players to get ballsy with thier characters and really sink thier teeth into the enemy....the way they should be. Think of it this way: if you attach the priest to the unit, AND charge the enemy together, then no matter which way you word it or what angle you approach it from, everyone will get both FC AND FNP. And then there wont be any arguments about it one way or the other! Because you'll have the dude attached, everyone will fit in under a 6" bubble, and both your wounds taken and your attacks given all happen at times when everyone is "all together under the bubble".

See? So get out of your transport, attach that bad *** character and charge in there for the glory of your corpse-go.....Uh, i mean... emperor.


SORRY WHAT!!

this is the biggest load of bull**** i have ever seen on this site!!

STOP trying to make a rule bend to how you want it to be. For ages Blood angels got bent over the designers desk and brushed and nerfed to a white dwarf artcile, they finally get an upgrade and its "OMG blood angels are too nasty lets bend the rules so they aren't so bad anymore"

WRONG!

RAW works in the favour of blood angels players and how it was diagrammed earlier. I challenge you to prove otherwise..draw a diagram if you can be bothered.

Yeh that was a throw down challenge, id slap you with a challenge gauntlet if i had one.

And as for priests in Rhino's thats a different kettle of fish. Personally i run my priests in units, but the bubbles still come in handy.

Blood angels aren;t the first army to be exploited (or used to their full potential) and they won;t be the last.

good day

P.s - I await a worthy response

[Defenestratus]

Well now Ian. Thanks for going and and dropping my real name around. Thanks for that Frenchman.

As you can see - the massed hordes here are against you and your wishful "interpretation" of the rules. I look forward to meeting you next weekend in battle.

(And ask Kyle how many times my sang priests DON'T charge into combat. Its quite difficult to keep them more than 2" away at the end of the movement phase and keep them within 6" at the beginning of the assault.

So usually, my sang priests are engaged in combat - which matters little since the squads they are attached to annihilate the unit they are assaulting.

Good luck though. I tried to argue your point.... its wrong.

Thanks again, Ian, for dropping my real name :)


firstly i would like to apologise i didnt see this statement by you, and my previous comment wasn't attacking you but i feel it might have come across that way.

No worries dude :)

[Defenestratus]

attach that bad *** character and charge in there

Also - I think you are sadly mistaken about the bad-assedness of the Sanguinary Priest. He's only a 1W, T4 model with power armor and FNP. One power fist to the face kills him outright - which is why many players decide to keep him safely locked up in a plastic box.

[Angelofblades]

Also - I think you are sadly mistaken about the bad-assedness of the Sanguinary Priest. He's only a 1W, T4 model with power armor and FNP. One power fist to the face kills him outright - which is why many players decide to keep him safely locked up in a plastic box.

If you didn't lock that PF/ PW Sgt/ Nob/ Champion in btb with a regular model, you're doing combat wrong, and have no reason to be in it.

Why waste a WS5 model and not throw in into combat with a power weapon /SLC ?

If you have an ounce's worth of brain power, you can lock the PF so that it can only attack unit instead of IC, and you're golden!

Was that really a difficult process to understand?

[Defenestratus]

If you didn't lock that PF/ PW Sgt/ Nob/ Champion in btb with a regular model, you're doing combat wrong, and have no reason to be in it.

Why waste a WS5 model and not throw in into combat with a power weapon /SLC ?

If you have an ounce's worth of brain power, you can lock the PF so that it can only attack unit instead of IC, and you're golden!

Was that really a difficult process to understand?

Often times "locking up" that PF is more difficult in real life than cyber-Napoleons on the internet make it out to be.

[addamsfamily36]

Also - I think you are sadly mistaken about the bad-assedness of the Sanguinary Priest. He's only a 1W, T4 model with power armor and FNP. One power fist to the face kills him outright - which is why many players decide to keep him safely locked up in a plastic box.


Agreed. besides they aren't character's either like Ian (or the frenchman) seemed to imply they were. They are not Mephiston or the sanguinor. and they are charged with protecting the most sacred relics of the blood angels as well as the blood of sanguinius. there are enough combat crazy units in the army, the priests don;t need to throw themselves needlessly in-front of danger. they might be honorable but they ain't stupid.

[Triumphus]

Agreed. besides they aren't character's either like Ian (or the frenchman) seemed to imply they were. They are not Mephiston or the sanguinor. and they are charged with protecting the most sacred relics of the blood angels as well as the blood of sanguinius. there are enough combat crazy units in the army, the priests don;t need to throw themselves needlessly in-front of danger. they might be honorable but they ain't stupid.

I disagree. They are still space marines. Space marines are known for their ferver. A space marine, especially one who bears a cup that is so sacred, would not cower in a rhino with his head down and the hatch open and wave it at his fellows as they fight. He would lead the charge, relic in hand, and THAT is what would rile up the others to get the bonuses they do.


Personally, i believe that GWs intent was to fix this situation, forcing cowardly blood angels players to get ballsy with thier characters and really sink thier teeth into the enemy....the way they should be. Think of it this way: if you attach the priest to the unit, AND charge the enemy together, then no matter which way you word it or what angle you approach it from, everyone will get both FC AND FNP. And then there wont be any arguments about it one way or the other! Because you'll have the dude attached, everyone will fit in under a 6" bubble, and both your wounds taken and your attacks given all happen at times when everyone is "all together under the bubble".


Absolutely right. It is pretty obvious that everyone else in here that has commented is a Bood Angels fan boy or player. ESPECIALLY the addamsfamily guy. Uh oh! Someone might have found a way to lessen his "I win because of codex creep" army. If it were any other codex after 4th edition, GW would have worded it as "any squad he is attached to gets FNP and FC", and not that 6" bullcrap they have in there. It would make things infinitely easier, cause far less time loss during the game spent measuring, and there would be no doubt as to their intent. As usual though, GW manages to craft a wonderfully worded codex that is clear and precise in every way. They are still referencing page numbers wrong for Tzeentch's sake!(Not to mention that the codex was written by a fanboy like yourselves. The only wose codex with more problems in recent release is the Tynranid one.)


Its true that GW might actually be changing the way that a paricular USR works between codexes. I for one think its interesting. It keeps up the variety instead of just being yet another space wolves codex. Oh look, more angry marines with more USR. Boooooring.

There has been precident for this. GW has changed many things via FAQ. A good example is changing the fact that Necrons warriors in reserve DO NOT have to enter play via the portal of a Monolith only. They FAQed the Tyranids and changed a rule in the MAIN RULEBOOK for the Mawloc (sp) so that he can target a squad intentionally when he deepstrikes in. There are lots of examples like these. Now people can say that "annnngh! The FAQ's are not official! The codex is the true rules! Aaaanngh!" All the FAQ is intended to do is clarify what the writers of the codex meant to do but were too stupid/lazy/careless/ignorant/etc to actually see a problem with the way they worded it. So yes, the FAQ is law if a dispute comes up. As for what the frenchman says above, I completely agree. So when someone like addams(bloodangel fanboy)family36 says:


SORRY WHAT!!

this is the biggest load of bull**** i have ever seen on this site!!

STOP trying to make a rule bend to how you want it to be. For ages Blood angels got bent over the designers desk and brushed and nerfed to a white dwarf artcile, they finally get an upgrade and its "OMG blood angels are too nasty lets bend the rules so they aren't so bad anymore"

WRONG!

I must disagree. Also, a relevant note. There are MANY MANY things that GW has "bent over the designers desk" that are far more in need of an update than yet ANOTHER marine codex like the Blood Angels. Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Inquisition, and Thousand Sons, to name a few. (Probably in that order too). It amazes me how defensive all the blood angels players here are getting about someone who interprets one of their rules differently that might (and I do stress MIGHT) cause them to be slightly less powerful and have a slightly smaller " I win" button.

All that being said, I agree with the way you are interpretting this rule. I think they were clarifying when the measuring takes place and not changing it to affect only models in the range when measured. So THERE! :)

[whitestar333]

Now I feel obligated to join in this argument as I know several of the people getting heated in this. I believe that the original rules question has nothing to do with whether Blood Angels are OP or not. However, I would like to support the previous description of how the Errata and FAQ are different. Everyone seems so determined to get an official ruling from GW, so just check what they say on their page and you'll see!
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440134a&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019

If you disagree with the FAQ, then just house-rule it. If your local store thinks that sanguinary priests should work differently, then talk about it with your local gaming group. If you think it's fine, just leave it as is! The beauty of this hobby is that it's just that - a HOBBY! The whole point is for EVERYONE to have fun, not just the person who wins the game. If there's something that makes the game less fun, then come up with your own local rules on how to deal with it.

[addamsfamily36]

OOO im so hurt by your words lol...Not

Triumphus, yes i am a blood angels player, but im also a necron, eldar , beastmen player too. I would love too see a necron codex, but until it happens i'll take what new editions of my armys i can get. As for being a FANBOY or trying to Codex creep. Not really. My fury isn't fueled by my UNDYING love of blood angels. Its fueled by peoples inability to interpret a straight forward rule.

And why can't they read this rule? Because they want it to read how they want it to.

Scupperd my CODEX CREEP army? Not really seeing as if you had read my previous posts you might have read how i play my blood angels and thats full out assault. Priests in units.

As for the decription of priests not being combat crazy, its a fair one. Yes they will be amidst the forefront of the battle line, but they aren;t exactly going to throw themselves single handedly at an army. As you said they are codex marines, they know how to assess a situtation. Did i say that keeping them in rhions is honourable.....NO

take that argument up with the real CODEX CREEPS.


And as Whitestar points out YET AGAIN FAQ's are NOT ERRATA's

and even if you follow the FAQ and use it as a rule, the BRB still creates the same situation.

The BRB describes a unit as a make up for models.
the Faq says you measure to your models
the blood angels codex says any units in range.

so ive measured to my model or models , that means by unit (made up of MODELS) is in range. Its like shooting if your in range of one model your in range to shoot. combat im in range of one model i can charge. Sanguinary priest aura im in range of one model in the unit so my unit is in range.

SHOW ME DIFFERENT


all im hearing is people who HATE MARINES and HATE BLOOD ANGELS

i like necrons as much as blood angels as much as i like any other aspect of the hobby. Im fighting a rules query that people are arguing because they are trying to stop a loop hole which is priests in rhino's, I agree that priests in rhinos is a bit of a dirty tactic, but the rule is how it is.

Again someone give concreate argument against it and fine. but i see no one showing me different. no rules quotes. no diagrams. nothing.

and in your words

SO THERE :)

[Lordgimpet]

Ok getting back to the main topic, reading the FAQ on the matter did have my head spinning until
I thought about why such a question be asked by that i mean
Blood angels FAQ
Q: At what point does my model need to be in range
of a Sanguinary Priest to gain the bonuses of Furious
Charge?
A: When you put the bonuses to use, i.e. when the
model makes its close combat attacks.
the reason I see it was asked was because there are moments where the models in a unit will be out of range of the SP
1 example is a player might have a mixed unit and the casulties might be models the bring the UNIT within 6 of the SP. the are removed
taking the unit out of range

or another could be that the BA player charges a unit that has a higher Ini or is in cover (not factoring frag grenades here)
the enemy has its combat round and casualties inflicted on the BA unit take it out of SP range so they lose FC when they get to attack back

as the answer clearly states that you check to see if a model is in range of a SP when the USR is needed

this does not in any form change the codex rules from any unit within 6 to any model within 6

if they replaced the word model with unit it might have been better to understand. but even in its present form
i cant see how players can draw the conclusion that unit within 6 was changed to model, its clearly not the case

the question can be interpreted badly such as this thread shows, but i hope this helps people understand the question in the FAQ
and will probably move on to whining that Dark eldar are so OP come November December

[Torcano]

I think you guys should stop trying to convince these 2 kids. They are either <13 years old or have some form of mental impairment. They will never understand or accept any of this, no point in trying.

In other news, it's pretty damn funny reading through this. These children are hilarious. It's like they have no concept of logic, reality, common sense, respect, honor, integrity, or civilization whatsoever.

Oh no I just started feeling guilty now. Where are these kids' parents??? Who is teaching them this is how to be a part of society???


(Just to be clear there is no argument: if one model is in range the whole unit gets the rule. That's how 40k works. Deal with it.)

[Duke]

I'm going to throw in my two cents as a long time gamer and overall awesome guy. We have always maintained even after the FAQ that if one model is in the bubble then the whole unit benefits. The trickery with the bubble and the FAQ is losing the priest prior to the attacks getting made (I.e. A higher initiative value)

I would also like to state that nerd-rage is funny.

Duke

[addamsfamily36]

Hey Duke!! nice to see you. hows that blood angels army coming along, all finished?

Yeh i had to open a whole lorry load of nerd rage on this particular thread:D



Ok getting back to the main topic, reading the FAQ on the matter did have my head spinning until
I thought about why such a question be asked by that i mean
Quote:
Blood angels FAQ
Q: At what point does my model need to be in range
of a Sanguinary Priest to gain the bonuses of Furious
Charge?
A: When you put the bonuses to use, i.e. when the
model makes its close combat attacks.
the reason I see it was asked was because there are moments where the models in a unit will be out of range of the SP
1 example is a player might have a mixed unit and the casulties might be models the bring the UNIT within 6 of the SP. the are removed
taking the unit out of range

or another could be that the BA player charges a unit that has a higher Ini or is in cover (not factoring frag grenades here)
the enemy has its combat round and casualties inflicted on the BA unit take it out of SP range so they lose FC when they get to attack back

as the answer clearly states that you check to see if a model is in range of a SP when the USR is needed

this does not in any form change the codex rules from any unit within 6 to any model within 6

if they replaced the word model with unit it might have been better to understand. but even in its present form
i cant see how players can draw the conclusion that unit within 6 was changed to model, its clearly not the case

the question can be interpreted badly such as this thread shows, but i hope this helps people understand the question in the FAQ
and will probably move on to whining that Dark eldar are so OP come November December


Thank you lordgimpet, another good explanation of the rule and how the FAQ's work.

I think between me and everyone else who has explained the rule many times now, that this is well and truly an *** kicking for anyone who says otherwise.

[DarkLink]

I'm going to throw in my two cents as a long time gamer and overall awesome guy. We have always maintained even after the FAQ that if one model is in the bubble then the whole unit benefits. The trickery with the bubble and the FAQ is losing the priest prior to the attacks getting made (I.e. A higher initiative value)

After reading through the FAQs and such, I agree with this. The BA codex says "units". The FAQ uses the term "models", but I don't read it as being used in a way that would actually imply that only models could benefit rather than the whole unit, so I don't even think there's a conflict.

The FAQ simply says "when the model makes its attacks". I don't see this as saying that only models may benefit, especially when the main rule says units.

[Duke]

Hey Duke!! nice to see you. hows that blood angels army coming along, all finished? ....otherwise.

Sorry. I deleted all the other nonsense that wasn't about me... (jk) I don't want to thread jack (sisters need a new codex) but the angels are done and will be making an appearance at the event formerly known as BoLScon. Follow my thread, and obey my dog!

Duke (don't call it a come back, I've been here for ages.)

[addamsfamily36]

Sorry. I deleted all the other nonsense that wasn't about me... (jk) I don't want to thread jack (sisters need a new codex) but the angels are done and will be making an appearance at the event formerly known as BoLScon. Follow my thread, and obey my dog!

Duke (don't call it a come back, I've been here for ages.)

lol sorry Duke, in future ill separate the posts one specifically for and about you. and one for anything else i wish to talk about. :D

or rant out about as the case may be.

i'll follow your thread, not sure why im obeying a dog, or which dog, but ill do my best.

[Duke]

My dog just got tired of taking crap from humans so I am supporting his move into the realm of miter-species politics.

Duke

[addamsfamily36]

lol

[Defenestratus]

Sadly, these are fully grown men who are acting in such a manner. Mountaincycle661 just hates to lose, and Triumphus is just screwing with adamsfamily. I suggest the latter be banned, and the former be pitied.

[Duke]

Sadly, these are fully grown men who are acting in such a manner. Mountaincycle661 just hates to lose, and Triumphus is just screwing with adamsfamily. I suggest the latter be banned, and the former be pitied.

You logic is flawed in that you expect that fully grown= mature.

Duke

[addamsfamily36]

Sadly, these are fully grown men who are acting in such a manner. Mountaincycle661 just hates to lose, and Triumphus is just screwing with adamsfamily. I suggest the latter be banned, and the former be pitied.

lol, to be fair i opened up the board and challenged someone to prove me wrong so i expected to be attacked by someone. Interestingly although i had some points argued (which a lot were not valid. if triumphus had read my posts, grr should have seen how badly i had to hold back after being accused of codex creep), triumphus still agreed on the CORRECT ruling lol, unless i read his post wrong, in which case he's wrong lol

and as much as this thread is still going i think its quite clearly a :

blood angels : 1

Haters : 0

> insert scene from beaveheart where they moon the whole english army

[Jwolf]

I think we can safely end this thread on a good old fashioned mooning.