# New Round of FAQ's Up



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Most armies have had FAQ Updates. Get them here:

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-40k-faqs-are-up-lots-of-updates.html



In regards to Tau, They confirmed that Crisis Suits can indeed take two of the same non-twinlinked weaponry as long as they pay the appropriate costs and tell their opponents accordingly.

Necrons had minor confirmations, such as being allowed to use the Infinity Gate after Deep Striking and hitting fliers/FMC's with Imotekh's Lightning.

Also, Mind War can now be Look out, Sir!'d, which is a pretty large nerf if you ask me.

As far as I can tell, only Tyranids, Sisters, Space Wolves and Black Templars didn't get an update.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

The Sturk said:


> Most armies have had FAQ Updates. Get them here:
> 
> http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-40k-faqs-are-up-lots-of-updates.html
> 
> ...


Blood Angels also didn't get an update. 

Good catch! +Rep!


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

I just noticed RIGHT after I posted this that there was already a topic in Rules Discussion...D:


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

Removed from play counts as being removed as a casualty - so crons always get Reanimation now


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

The Sturk said:


> I just noticed RIGHT after I posted this that there was already a topic in Rules Discussion...D:


Still good to post it here. Not everyone visits the rules section afterall. :grin:

EDIT: They fixed Invunerable Saves for vehicles. I guess someone got tired of Dakka starting shit.


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Don't quite understand that. Invuln Saves seemed pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Aaaarg no change on the Exalted Flamer statline. As long as there was no Daemons FAQ I could have hope. They did change the "Mark of Khorne" on C DPs of Khorne that I emailed in about, though...

Huh, Abaddon is immune to the extremes of the Boon Table. Makes him marginally better. Fiends reduce to I1 only (yaaay clarification!), blasts can wound people out of line of sight (finally!), gun emplacements always count as stationary and can't be fired by vehicles, blasts can only ID 1 Swarm base per hit, etc


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The Sturk said:


> Don't quite understand that. Invuln Saves seemed pretty straight forward to me.


There was no actual rule that said vehicles could take Invuls, one for the RAW tragics.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

Not sure what is the Exalted Flamer statline issue, but most of the others were common sense changes, or "rational play". Does the Removed as a casualty now allow you to FNP Jaws?


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Creon: as a passenger in a chariot with 2 Heavy Weapons, the Exalted Flamer can only ever snap fire if he moves. Couple that with the fact that 1 of the weapons is a flamer (w/ Torrent, admittedly), so can't fire if he mores, and the other has a dead short 18" range, means the fragile-as-hell chariot basically needs to move super close to an enemy unit in order to have to wait a turn before it can shoot properly. It's... tragic.

It makes the model nearly unplayable. You have to move within charge range of the enemy or they'll be able to scoot a few inches and get entirely out of range... or they can just blow you to bits with a stray sneeze. If you could make a suicide dash with the chariot and zap something in one turn, it might be playable. As is? Nope.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

Ahhh, I don't use chariots in my Daemon Army, so hadn't noticed. I someday will build my Lawnmower of Slaanesh, perhaps, but that will be it.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Creon said:


> Does the Removed as a casualty now allow you to FNP Jaws?


No as it is still not wounding.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

They still didn't FAQ when this rule takes effect:
P.83 BRB
If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no
models are left underneath it.

There are only 2 occurrences in the game when this can happen; Deep Strike and Apocalypse Lifta Droppa.

I read this as Skimmers being immune to Deep Strike Mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models, allot of people disagree but can't mention when this rule takes effect so simply say no codex in the game takes advantage of this rule yet...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Well a Deep Strike scatter is forcing the skimmer to be over other models so I don't see why it wouldn't apply.


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

Because there are those who would say otherwise. 

I personally am in favor of the partial immunity. It would give my Monoliths an easier time while Deep Striking.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Well a Deep Strike scatter is forcing the skimmer to be over other models so I don't see why it wouldn't apply.


The thing the naysayers say is that Deep Strike isn't movement. It counts as having moved but isn't movement in of itself.

The thing I say when I heard that is "that would mean a veiltek holding the relic could deepstrike to anywhere on the board with the relic as the didn't actually move, he deep struck (or would that be Deep Striked?)".

I've had a few threads about it here and on Dakka, gotten shouted down pretty furiously.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

MadCowCrazy said:


> The thing the naysayers say is that Deep Strike isn't movement. It counts as having moved but isn't movement in of itself.


Yes I've heard that one before on a number of occasions. I am still waiting for some one to prove to me that a unit that is "over there" and is now "over here", could have done so without moving. 

Either way the counter is that all it has to do is "end it's movement" even if it didn't move (which it obviously did) it's movement has to end at some point.



MadCowCrazy said:


> The thing I say when I heard that is "that would mean a veiltek holding the relic could deepstrike to anywhere on the board with the relic as the didn't actually move, he deep struck (or would that be Deep Striked?)".


The latest FAQ has cleared that possibility up but even without that i reckon you agree with me that a unit that was "over there" and is now more than 6" away from "over there" can't have done so without moving more than 6".

I'd go with Deep Striked because it is a two word concept.



MadCowCrazy said:


> I've had a few threads about it here and on Dakka, gotten shouted down pretty furiously.


That's all Dakka is capable of because none of their bollocks stands the test of rational debate.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

Honestly, if you look at the third paragraph in Deep Strike, it says something like "No FURTHER MOVEMENT in the movement phase". You can't have "further" movement if you didn't perform movement in the first place.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Creon said:


> Honestly, if you look at the third paragraph in Deep Strike, it says something like "No FURTHER MOVEMENT in the movement phase". You can't have "further" movement if you didn't perform movement in the first place.


Yep for sure, however part and parcel of any argument based on bollocks is to only read the bits of a rule that fit your preconception.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

I disagree Magpie_Oz.

While you may live in a part of the world that does not teach rhetoric, it is not universally true that part of any argument is to only read the bits that fit your preconception.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

MadCowCrazy said:


> The thing the naysayers say is that Deep Strike isn't movement. It counts as having moved but isn't movement in of itself.
> 
> The thing I say when I heard that is "that would mean a veiltek holding the relic could deepstrike to anywhere on the board with the relic as the didn't actually move, he deep struck (or would that be Deep Striked?)".
> 
> I've had a few threads about it here and on Dakka, gotten shouted down pretty furiously.


Remember that according to the most recent FAQ, if the model holding the Relic is removed from the board for any reason (i.e. deep striking) it drops the Relic. So apart from that, your analogy holds, and I rather agree with you.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Could everyone just email the FAQ department asking about this question, I'm tired or arguing about it. So could everyone here who has any opinion about it just send in the below message?

Copy paste this message and send it to them, they might consider answering if enough people email them about it.

Email: [email protected]
Topic: *Do skimmers mishap from deepstriking onto friendly or enemy models?*
Message:


> This question has caused allot of heated arguments and anger. Do skimmers mishap if they deepstrike scatter onto friendly or enemy models?
> 
> P.83 BRB
> If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy
> ...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> I disagree Magpie_Oz.
> 
> While you may live in a part of the world that does not teach rhetoric, it is not universally true that part of any argument is to only read the bits that fit your preconception.


I never suggested that it was but "any argument based on bollocks", as my post reads, does require a certain selectiveness in its quotes and references.

Or are you just reading the bits of my post that make it suggest that I am suggesting that it applies to ALL arguments ? :grin:


----------



## nevynxxx (Dec 27, 2011)

MadCowCrazy said:


> Could everyone just email the FAQ department asking about this question, I'm tired or arguing about it. So could everyone here who has any opinion about it just send in the below message?
> 
> Copy paste this message and send it to them, they might consider answering if enough people email them about it.
> 
> ...



I doubt it will ever bother me, but sent on General principal that I think the rulebooks could be written in a much more sensible fashion. From two email addresses if that helps...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

nevynxxx said:


> I think the rulebooks could be written in a much more sensible fashion.


What would we argue about then?


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> ...are you just reading the bits of my post that make it suggest that I am suggesting that it applies to ALL arguments ? :grin:


It was indeed satire.


----------



## nevynxxx (Dec 27, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> What would we argue about then?


People (i.e. my wife) manage to argue about the rules of Chess. I'm sure we'll cope... :wink:


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

nevynxxx said:


> People (i.e. my wife) manage to argue about the rules of Chess. I'm sure we'll cope... :wink:


Pfft, that's childs play. Lets argue about the rules for: Rock, Paper & Scissor

There is no frickin way paper can beat rock, unless the paper is a signed document to nuke Rock from orbit... it's the only way to be sure...


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

I think it all depends on the type of rock. I think scissors can beat pumice stone. And paper stands a chance against safety scissors. 

Why am I typing this?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Archon Dan said:


> I think it all depends on the type of rock. I think scissors can beat pumice stone. And paper stands a chance against safety scissors.
> 
> Why am I typing this?


Because Keyboard beats Paper but loses to Rock.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Deathklokk beats ALL!!!!


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

MadCowCrazy said:


> Pfft, that's childs play. Lets argue about the rules for: Rock, Paper & Scissor
> 
> There is no frickin way paper can beat rock, unless the paper is a signed document to nuke Rock from orbit... it's the only way to be sure...


Especially true if your rock happens to be infested with xenomorphs!


----------



## Purge the Heretic (Jul 9, 2009)

Rock beats CM punk but loses to John Cena...

Am I playing the game right?


----------



## Adramalech (Nov 10, 2009)

This, to me, suggests that the armies that haven't gotten FAQ's yet are due for new Codexes and models, but then again they might get FAQ's in the near future. So we'll just have to be patient and wait and see.


----------

