Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

41 - 60 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
hey guys i need a lil help im sure u guys know of the apoc data sheets and if so or nottheres a data sheet for chaos called emporors children warband it costs 100 points to use it and what it does is basicly ets u use all the noise weapons on dreads tanks and troops at pretty good point costs but what i was wanting to know was could i viably use that datasheet in a tourny rdy army????? or is it strictly for apocalypse? if u guys can help me out that would be great ty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
The above question is a perfect example of a question which should be asked in the rules forum, and not in the FAQ thread.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
Yes, it is. But we must still be courteous...

Any Apoc datasheet is strictly for Apoc games, or friendly games (with opponents consent). Unless the TO has cleared them of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
ty deathklokk and sorry i just didnt know where to post it exactly and it seemed viable that i could ask it in this thread sorry pauly i guess my dream of oblitorating my opponant with god know how man 20 point noiseys is gone lol thx guys ill just have to keep my apoc army on the apoc tournys lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
(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)
100+ pages? You mean posts? xD Also I'll fight till the end. Then again I follow RAW, over RAI most of the time. In my mind what in the book is on hard paper while RAI is you attempting to think of what the writers meant to say. Sometimes it's obvious (such as swooping hawks having swooping hawk wings), but most of the time following RAW is cleaner way to go. I think presenting both sides would be the best way to go, and allowing people to decide which to use for themselves. More, or less providing a synopsis of each side.

Thanks,

~MC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
Hope you guys don't mind but this particular rule has always bothered me and always felt it should be in a errata.


PG 65, Venerable, The first line should be changed at reprint to.

If a Venerable Dreadnaught suffers a glancing or penetrating hit,
you may have your opponent re-roll the result roll on the vehicle damage chart.
You must accept the result of the second roll, even if it is worse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
If that needs changing for your opponent to do it, you don't need to be playing that person/asshat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
I agree :laugh:

I just think it should be changed so people can't pull that kind of
$#!% and seeing as there is more than enough people out there that would do so I think its warrented but hey just an opinion :victory:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
There's some errata out from GW regarding the Imperial Guard giving orders on other people's turns which seems to contradict the first post on the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
bump...

I was looking here to see if I can put Terminators in a Drop Pod... seems like many could benifit from getting some life back into this thread.

So my 4th edition codex says I but I've been told by others that only SW can..? Can some one let me know the real deal? I thought I could put 6 Termys in drop pod.. can I not?
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
You can put terminator characters in a drop pod as there is nothing stopping terminators from being in pods, but there is also no way to get a normal terminator into a pod since they cant have their own and cannot enter another DC before the battle begins (ie never enter a pod thats not their own).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Since Terminators have DS I guess the whole Drop pod thing is pointles for them? Is that why they cant take one as a Designated Transport?
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
Yes, terminators are meant to teleport into battle (standard marine tactic). SW use termies in pods because they dislike using technology in general and teleportation in particular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I have a question that has been herasing my mind as well as a good battle buddy. We both play Necrons and have been at odds over a weakness (in my mind) of the Monilith.

The Monilith makes all melta weapons use only a single D6 instead of the close range 2D6 which I agree on. It's just that I belive that melta bombs do not suffer this penelty because it dose not use an additional D6, but a constent base 2D6. Also The Melta Bomb is not Classified as a melta weapon, but just a grenade. My freaind however belives the opposite. So please FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THATS UN-HOILY WHAT...IS...THE ANSWER!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
I have a question that has been herasing my mind as well as a good battle buddy. We both play Necrons and have been at odds over a weakness (in my mind) of the Monilith.

The Monilith makes all melta weapons use only a single D6 instead of the close range 2D6 which I agree on. It's just that I belive that melta bombs do not suffer this penelty because it dose not use an additional D6, but a constent base 2D6. Also The Melta Bomb is not Classified as a melta weapon, but just a grenade. My freaind however belives the opposite. So please FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THATS UN-HOILY WHAT...IS...THE ANSWER!
"In practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what."

That's the last line of the living metal rule, so melta bombs are still stuck on rolling one D6. If you can't find this line in your codex, remember there are TWO printings of it, and rather stupidly GW didn't FAQ the rule change when they reprinted the newer version of the codex. So, if you can't see that line in the book, know that it should be there :)

Anyway, hope that helps :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
From the FAQ Errata

Orders
Question: Under the heading "Imperial Guard Orders", on page 29, it sates that officers have the "ability to issue one or more orders each turn". By my understanding of the rules for turns, on page 9 of the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, it states that "Whenever a rule uses the word ‘turn’, both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means ‘player turn’, otherwise it will clearly state ‘game turn’". Does this mean that I am able to issue this order during both my turn and my opponents turn, and potentially fire 6 Lasgun shots during each Game Turn?
Answer: Yes, is the answer. As it clearly states in the Rulebook, Turn refers to Player Turn, hence the Imperial Guard orders can be substituted to read "ability to issue one or more orders each player turn". While there is contention over the background as to the reasoning for this, the rules are clear. However, there is nothing to stop your opponent rushing to declare his targets, at which point the start of the shooting phase has passed, and you may no longer give orders.

Sorry, but according to the GW FAQ sheet August 2009 the answer is No.

"Q. Can an Imperial Guard Officer issue orders during his opponents turn?

A. No. You may only issue orders during the shooting phase of your own turn."


IG FAQ
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470041a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
Of course you could ahve just read the other posts on the thread that A- point this discrepancy out and B- explain why it exists.... this thread is far far older then the IG FAQ and that ruling is RAW, unlike the FAQ which basically just erratas it (makes it fit the writers intent, not what they actually wrote).
 
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
Top