Friday, January 14, 2011

Bringing the old timers up to date

by: farmpunk



All you old school SM fanboys had better go looksie again at your FAQ's. The GW rules gnomes have been working away at the drawing board.



I looked at my blogroll this morning, and saw an interesting tidbit from Kirby, over at 3++ is the new black. Sometime recently the Space Marine (looks like all of them, and in a conspicuous PINK color) FAQ's got updated. Most notably:
Black Templar
and
Dark Angels

yep, the geezers of the Space Marines finally got their shipments of Storm Shields, which give 3++ saves. Plus, other wargear got brought up to date to current Space Marine standards. like their shotguns now go to 4Str.
There are other nuggets in there, but this overall should make Licorice and Spruce Spearmint Marines happier.

I'm betting this is in anticipation to the GK release, as WH and DH didn't get any updates (not that these updates would have really done anything for WH).

so dive in and take a look at your FAQ's. I haven't delved very deeply yet, but I'll be perusing them today.


*Image at the top is taken from Adam over at Space Wolves

27 comments:

  1. Check out this ruling:

    Q. Can I field the Emperorʼs Champion as my one
    compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
    (p31)
    A. Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is
    still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ
    requirement.


    So I can take a Ministorum Priest as my HQ?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Difference is you HAVE to have an EC in a BT army.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, I'm not sure when this happened, but popping smoke prevents power of the machine spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's news to me. I'd always read the RaW as it being the other way.

    Anyone else notice the update rules for the TML/CML, but the current costs? The BT are now getting 70 point Typhoon Speeders, and can run a 5 man Terminator squad putting out 4 S9 shots for 265 points.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Everything in red is the new updates. The PotMS rulings are very new, and surprising most people--they ruled against PotMS through Smoke, but are allowing it for Stormravens going Flat Out.

    That's a 36" threat radius for double-penetration on a TL Multi-Melta for Blood Angels.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was surprised about the Storm Raven ruling. I'd think flat out would negate any shooting.

    The PotMS not being able to shoot through smoke I agree with. I'm not surprised by that.

    I'm also thinking DA Deathwings will see new interest again. BT's are definately going to be getting fielded by a lot of people again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Vapor, yeah it saves the points on the Marshal which is nice for the BT.
    What really has me interested though are the wider implications of the logic that "free" HQ choices still satisfy the force org requirement.

    How about a Russ company led by a Techpriest for example? Kinda cool.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The differenece between smoke and flat out is kinda crear in the wording. Smoke says you forgo shooting, while flatout says that (on the chart) you can shoot zero weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eh?

    "The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers."

    vs.

    "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire no weapons."

    I think you'd be knee-deep in Grammar Nazi territory to see a "clear difference" between those two statements. Which is why most people expected them to be ruled the same way; it was impossible to tell if they'd allow it or disallow it, it just certainly seemed that Smoke and Flat Out would both end up with the same ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p32)
    A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads."

    This is interesting. The wording on the question is a bit wonkey, but the wording to the answer is... quite clear. I always thought that you could, be cause it was declared when they came on, not a deployment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And that Emperor's Champion non-slot HQ ruling has been in there forever; possibly back to the original FAQ update after 5th Edition.

    It's certainly not new by any stretch.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @DK I had almost the same reaction until I thought about it. what it means is units IN reserves cannot combat squad. I going for they mean once you arrive you can then combat squad still. By context of the question I'm sure they mean having 5-men parts in reserves is not possible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "This is interesting. The wording on the question is a bit wonkey, but the wording to the answer is... quite clear. I always thought that you could, be cause it was declared when they came on, not a deployment. "

    That has been in the Dark Angels FAQ forever. It's easily the most commonly misinterpreted FAQ answer in the whole collection.

    It is NOT saying that a unit placed in Reserve is unable to use Combat Squads; it is saying you cannot place a Combat Squad in Reserve. It's a subtle but very important difference.

    Combat Squads is performed when the unit is deployed, and for units in Reserve, deployment occurs when they arrive on the table:

    "Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described later. Then he picks another unit and deploys it, and so on [...]"

    What this FAQ (and the identical Dark Angels FAQ long before it) points out is that, as the ability to Combat Squad is performed DURING a unit's deployment, you can never place a Combat Squad in Reserve--as if the unit is in Reserve, it has yet to be deployed.

    The in-game implications of it is simply that you CANNOT split a single Marine unit where some of them are on the board and some of them are in Reserve under any circumstances. The entire unit is either on the board, or still in Reserve. That's why the example question deals with half the unit deploying and the other half staying in Reserve with the Drop Pod; or staying in Reserve separately, with half in the Drop Pod and half not. Because they are not allowed to make use of Combat Squads WHILE in Reserve, those splits are impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, that makes sense to me. But... My friend is convinced that you can not reserve a razorback and a tack squad, and have haf the squad come on in the razorback, and half on foot, because you need to say if the squad is embarked, and you can't combat squad until they come on (and 10 guys don't fit). help?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your friend is correct on that one.

    When placing units in Reserve, you have to declare if any of those units are going to be inside a Transport Vehicle, because then that unit and the Transport Vehicle will arrive together.

    Since you have a 10-man Tactical Squad that will not fit inside the Razorback, you are unable to declare that the Tactical Squad is inside the Razorback. They WILL be able to fit inside the Razorback once they Combat Squad, but they cannot do that while still in Reserve.

    This means you would have to Reserve the squad and the Razorback separately.

    However, if we were talking about a Rhino, you could do the thing you suggest--declare the unit to be embarked in the Rhino, but then perform Combat Squads when the unit arrives. 5 Marines would arrive in the Rhino, and 5 Marines would walk on from the board edge.

    It may seem confusing, but the constraining factor is that the unit you're declaring to arrive with the Transport has to be able to fit in the Transport at that moment. A 10-man Tactical Squad will not fit in a Razorback, so they cannot be declared to be arriving inside it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dodger3 is so smart. He is the TO for our tourney coming up which is over half way full. Sign up asap!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm a grammar nazi (i.e. English teacher) and the PotMS ruling is correct (according to how the two rules read).

    The key is the way PotMS works in IT'S rule.

    It says “The vehicle can fire one more weapon than
    would normally be permitted." Ergo, when combined with the Moving Flat Out rule that the vehicle can fire "zero guns", zero plus one is one. Whereas smoke launchers say "may not fire ANY weapons (paraphrase)", which excludes ALL weapons from firing.

    As someone that has never stopped playing his Templars I'm totally okay with this FAQ. It took them 10,000 years but my boys FINALLY thought to visit a Forge World for some new gear. Woot!

    ReplyDelete
  18. @chaplainaerion: Tell me how many none is...If I can remember correctly from math, none is 0...so therefore, zero plus one...is one. I agree with the ruling, as I didn't think it would work prior, and argued it to no end, but it still says the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh boy! Let me start by saying that there is finally an FAQ for PotMS and Flat Out. However, if you were taught math properly "none" never= a number. Therefore, per the english for PotMS, you can't move flat out and fire. "none" plus "infinity more than normal" still=none. Like I said FAQ's are out and that's the way they will get played, so there is no real reason to argue, but you shouldn't associate numbers with "none".

    ReplyDelete
  20. Grammatically speaking, I disagree. Observe:

    Joe is holding a bunch of bananas. Teacher X tells Joe that he may not eat ANY of his bananas. This implies that no bananas, under any circumstances, may be eaten at this time.

    However, if Teacher X tells Joe that NO bananas may be eaten, "NO" implies a number (zero). Principle Y comes along and supersedes Teacher X's rule by saying Joe may eat ONE more banana than Teacher X told him he could.

    "Any" may not be added to as it will always consist of every banana in Joe's hand. You can't have "any" plus one, because that's still "any". The key is in the wording (which you both have incorrectly altered).

    "The vehicle may not fire ANY of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers."

    vs.

    "Fast vehicles moving flat out may fire NO weapons." (so NO weapons=ZERO, and ZERO + ONE=ONE).

    ReplyDelete
  21. YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT "NO" = ZERO. Unless you're the one that wrote this section of the BRB you can't assume anything, nor can you say what their "intentions" were. Back to the whole RAW is LAW and RAI doesn't FLY thing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yeah, there's really not a meaningful distinction to be made there. A vehicle that "may not fire any" of its' weapons is also firing ZERO, so you could just as easily say "MAY NOT FIRE" = "ZERO" + ONE = ONE

    Most people definitely expected them to go the same way on Smoke/Flat Out, but it's never too surprising when they do unexpected stuff with their rules.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I just saw that the DE FAQ is out too... looks like it came out just last week, in fact. Seems GW really is trying to get a leg up with legitimately updating their rules...

    On a sad note, they didn't address whether or not you can use a Djin Blade along with another weapon (ie, is it an actual special CCW, or a piece of Wargear?).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Djin Blade is defined as a Power Weapon, which inherently makes it a special CCW. Definitely not something that needs an FAQ

    Despite many of the items in the DE Codex explicitly telling you they are special CCWs, it's not actually a necessary distinction. They usually tell you this on "weirder" items like the Animus Vitae whose rules have no connection to the main rulebook. But just because something else doesn't say "this is a special CCW" doesn't mean it isn't; more standard special weaponry will omit it because the main rulebook already sets out what is or isn't a special CCW.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I should go into a bit more detail.

    You're right, the Djin Blade is a power weapon. As such, it's a fancy little weapon.

    However, the blade comes with a special ability. You get bonus attacks for having purchased it.

    Note that it is purchased not in the "weapons section", but in the "wargear section".

    The bonus attacks are not extra swings a la deamon blades, but a set bonus on top of whatever else you do, with their own stats/rules.

    The split is whether or not you have to be actively wielding the weapon (as a normal power weapon) to gain these bonus attacks, or if you can opt to use a different weapon and then still get these bonus attacks in addition.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Where you "purchase" an item is entirely irrelevant to what the item is.

    It's no different than someone asking if they can use the Animus Vitae to make a Pain Token roll for kills made with a Huskblade. You have to choose which special weapon to use, and if you don't use it, you gain none of its' effects. Rolling for a Pain Token has nothing to do with making your attacks, same as the bonus attacks fron a Djin Blade are separate from your normal attacks--but they're still inherently bonuses gained from bearing that special weapon, which you may only use one of at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's basically the wording makes it seem like extra attacks akin to digi-weapons, rather than a power weapon that grants additional attacks, instead of the usual +1, etc.

    The reason I bring up it being purchased as a wargear option (though they're not literally called as such anymore) is that Wargear, as a rule, gives you benefits in addition to the guns you carry. Considering the split, it's a rather important detail.

    ReplyDelete

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites