Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

21 - 40 of 74 Posts

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
No, they're from us, reworded by me. :)

"If I keep my unit of Necron Immortals in Reserve, are they allowed to enter play via the Monolith's Portal?"

No, the Monolith clearly states "If a unit of Necron Warriors is eligible to enter play from Reserve" - this does not permit other units with the 'Necron' Special Rule to do the same. Note also, that unit of Necron Warriors must be declared to be entering play through the Monolith at deployment to be eligible for this method of battlefield insertion.

"In my unit of Space Marine Scouts, I have chosen to take the upgrade character Scout Sergeant Telion. He already has the Scouts Universal Special Rule, which is provided by the Camo Cloak option for models in the squad. Does this mean he doesn't have to pay the points for the upgrade?"

Unfortunately, no. This is a stupid error, that forces you to pay the points for an item that serves no purpose, as he already has the Rule. Sorry. You must still purchase cloaks for every member of the unit, or none, however.

"Can I use re-rolls to wound granted by the Eldar Psychic Power Doom on successful rolls?"
Yes, although this is only statistically viable on opponents wounded on a 2+ by a Rending weapon that failed to roll a 6, and would otherwise grant the enemy an armour save.

"Are Hot-Shot Lasguns affected by the Order First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire?"

No, Hot-Shot Lasguns are a different weapon from Lasguns. The order can be issued to a Stormtrooper squad, but they will receive no benefit.
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
This is a good idea, Vaz (which is why I stickied it) though I think if you;re going to use RAI, those answers need to be highlighted in some way. Perhaps a different color and a line saying "The rules in this case are (unclear/contradictary/nonexistant/argued over for a dozen pages), so the following answer is based on general consensus and the collective opinion of what was intended rather than the rules as written." or something like that.

Similarly, if there is a clear RAW answer, but people feel it isn't as intended, then both answers need to be presented and labeled for what they are.

I'm fine for including RAI, but I really think it needs to be branded as such. I would hate for some kid to get in an argument over rules thinking he's got the right answer from us only to find ouot that, while reasonable, the answer isn't actually taken from the rules.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
"If I keep my unit of Necron Immortals in Reserve, are they allowed to enter play via the Monolith's Portal?"

No, the Monolith clearly states "If a unit of Necron Warriors is eligible to enter play from Reserve" - this does not permit other units with the 'Necron' Special Rule to do the same. Note also, that unit of Necron Warriors must be declared to be entering play through the Monolith at deployment to be eligible for this method of battlefield insertion.
A bit on this one, Necron Warriors arriving from Reserves MUST be ported through the Monolith.
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
Necron FAQ
Q. Can units of Necron Warriors enter from
reserve as normal or must they enter via a
Monolith?
A. If the players hold any units of Necron
Warriors in reserve, he must specify if they are
going to enter the game through the Monolith or
simply walk in from their own table edge, as
normal. If units of Warriors are using this rule
and all available Monoliths are destroyed, the
Warriors count as destroyed and may therefore
trigger the Phase Out of the on-table portion of
the army
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
This is a good idea, Vaz (which is why I stickied it) though I think if you;re going to use RAI, those answers need to be highlighted in some way. Perhaps a different color and a line saying "The rules in this case are (unclear/contradictary/nonexistant/argued over for a dozen pages), so the following answer is based on general consensus and the collective opinion of what was intended rather than the rules as written." or something like that.

Similarly, if there is a clear RAW answer, but people feel it isn't as intended, then both answers need to be presented and labeled for what they are.

I'm fine for including RAI, but I really think it needs to be branded as such. I would hate for some kid to get in an argument over rules thinking he's got the right answer from us only to find ouot that, while reasonable, the answer isn't actually taken from the rules.
Yeah, that was the intention - some plain don't make sense (as in IG Orders), yet the rules back them up. Especially over GoW, and other things, such as Dok's Tools. Hence the RAW are being sorted out, then it's up to everyone to make a decision over the nonsensical ones. Thanks for the sticky by the way ;)



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
Necron FAQ
Q. Can units of Necron Warriors enter from
reserve as normal or must they enter via a
Monolith?
A. If the players hold any units of Necron
Warriors in reserve, he must specify if they are
going to enter the game through the Monolith or
simply walk in from their own table edge, as
normal. If units of Warriors are using this rule
and all available Monoliths are destroyed, the
Warriors count as destroyed and may therefore
trigger the Phase Out of the on-table portion of
the army
Touche! Missed that one somehow. :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
I'll be glad to help out :)

Are people going to be able to post questions they want to see answered in this thread, or should we create another 'submissions' thread? I think it would be good for people to be able to submit rules they want to see Heresy FAQ'd. not all will get in of course, but it gives us ideas as well.
I think it's fine here. We're currently on quite a slow burn at the moment, although if it picks up, we can RAW it here, then if it gets out of hand (i.e. God of War), it can be taken to a seperate thread, where we can beat the meat, as it were. I'll be going through 5pm today zulu, (so 2hours 15 left from this post) and adding them in, even some that were pmed - cheers, Rev, if you read this ;)



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
Thanks, TKE. Keep it up! :) I will, thanks for saying...:blush:

"Can my Valkyrie gain a cover save for moving Flat Out in my Scout move?"

No, the Flat Out cover save can only be gained for moving in a movement phase. Similarly, a Camo Net can never be used if the opponent goes first, as there was no previous movement phase in which to remain stationary. Note that Turbo-Boosting bikes, of any variety, still gain the cover save for the Turbo-Boosters Universal Special Rule.

"If I fail to cast a Psychic power (ie, I roll an 11) can i attempt to do so again, since I did not 'use' the power?"
No. Any attempt to cast a power is considered a 'use' of the power. You suck.

DESIGNERS NOTE: Perhaps the last 2 words of the above answer could be dropped? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
Perhaps faction specific suggestion threads (one at a time, of course, to reduce clutter, so you would only have one faction being worked on at a time) combined with scouring of recent topics to provide a basis for the beginnings of this would be a better way to start rather than picking the odd argument and throwing a members RAW into this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
This is a good idea, Vaz (which is why I stickied it) though I think if you;re going to use RAI, those answers need to be highlighted in some way. Perhaps a different color and a line saying "The rules in this case are (unclear/contradictary/nonexistant/argued over for a dozen pages), so the following answer is based on general consensus and the collective opinion of what was intended rather than the rules as written." or something like that.

Similarly, if there is a clear RAW answer, but people feel it isn't as intended, then both answers need to be presented and labeled for what they are.

I'm fine for including RAI, but I really think it needs to be branded as such. I would hate for some kid to get in an argument over rules thinking he's got the right answer from us only to find ouot that, while reasonable, the answer isn't actually taken from the rules.
Possibly wishful thinking, but is there a way the "team" (for the lack of a better... something) to have a place to discuss all this in length? Or would we simply use the existing rule forum to create threads?

And I agree many of the rules interpretations should be discuss as RAW, RAI and as interprtetations.
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
What I've been doing is trawling old threads, taking our conclusions, and rewording them to make them more official sounding, and easier to read. IMO, it's as simple as that. Once we've cleared up the backlog, then we start to add to the FAQ, and it becomes a living entity, like the official ones should be.
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
We should get a locked sticky admin only FAQ thread- keep the different armies' rulings seperated and clear. Have just the 1 post which gets editted for every rule that gets updated, with different colours for RAW, RAI and suggested anti-RAW rulings (where RAW is clear but blatantly stupid or wrong).

If we allow replies then it'll just get confusing and if a heresy FAQ was done it needs to be clear and, if possible, in an easily printed (or copy-paste print) format.
 

·
I Piss in your Cheerios
Joined
·
7,370 Posts
I agree, but that makes updating it more time consuming, even with Gal on board. I move that we get all the rulings we want/need to see collated first, then we keep this thread as a submissions thread, and create a new one for the finished version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
899 Posts
I move that...
Perhaps faction specific suggestion threads (one at a time, of course, to reduce clutter, so you would only have one faction being worked on at a time) combined with scouring of recent topics to provide a basis for the beginnings of this would be a better way to start rather than picking the odd argument and throwing a members RAW into this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
This is a great idea (and if allowed I'd like to assist)! I think making something like this would give good reference for allot of players to discuss, and lead to more streamlined play for anyone having it (given it won't be official, but will be able to shed light on matters in a way less wordy players have trouble doing).

Also in a bit of unrelated news, what was the consensus we reached on the tyrant + retinue? xD I've always wondered as a nid player, but am currently counting it as two (even though I disagree with it because of some unknown bias xD).

Thanks,

~MC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
If it's kill points your talkng about I'm pretty sure it's 2, one for the tyrant, and one for the guard... unless the tyrant loses its IC status. Would have to go check the codex, but it's upstairs and I'm on the sofa with chocolate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
When the IC rules start streaming out....whoo boy things will get heated. Ill help where I can.

All I ask is that if we rule some way with that, then it needs to be ruled that way every time. For instance if we decide that an IC with a retinue behaves like a sergeant in a squad, we need to apply that to every instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
Also in a bit of unrelated news, what was the consensus we reached on the tyrant + retinue? xD I've always wondered as a nid player, but am currently counting it as two (even though I disagree with it because of some unknown bias xD).
If it's kill points your talkng about I'm pretty sure it's 2, one for the tyrant, and one for the guard... unless the tyrant loses its IC status. Would have to go check the codex, but it's upstairs and I'm on the sofa with chocolate.
This is the kind of thing I feel the need to caution against. The FAQ is a "general consensus" of how certain rules work under the concepts of; RAW & RAI. Being general, not everyone is going to agree with them and some people, even seeing the reasoning behind them, will still choose to interpret them differently. This FAQ is far from official and should be treated as what "a select group of people have decided to be the best course of action in their opinion" and nothing more.

I really don't want to see the FAQ thread being blown apart by rules debates. That's why we have the forum, if you disgaree with something in the FAQ, by all means create a thread to discuss it, but be prepared to come up with something tangible that hasn't already been mentioned in the FAQ. (Please look at the 'God of War' thread for an example of this, 100+ pages of people saying they disagree with the meaning and intent of a single word gets pretty tiring)

Just keep in mind; their plastic space men. :biggrin:
 
21 - 40 of 74 Posts
Top