# IG FAQ is up...



## Exitus Acta Probat (Apr 23, 2009)

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

I don't think I saw this anywhere else here..


----------



## Trevor Drake (Oct 25, 2008)

Good find, so finally the mortar/MOO combo is illegal.


----------



## JokerGod (Jan 21, 2009)

Well I am glad to see they fixed the problem of people dropping terminators out of Valks


Also like to say I am happy about fleets not adding up! Now my demons don't have to fear guard as much.


----------



## Spot The Grot (Jul 15, 2008)

wow ive been waiting for this to come out.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Thank god, this fixes the MOO bullshit, the firing in your opponents turn, and especially the stacking advisers.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

my god, this is the first FAQ in years that actually answers questions asked instead of stupid things that are answered by common sense.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Very good FAQ it answear alot of questions that seem to come up. Glad it talked about the Inq codex and what they can get from the ig codex.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

JokerGod said:


> Also like to say I am happy about fleets not adding up! Now my demons don't have to fear guard as much.



I'm with you there. :good:


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Our own FAQ section Has just been updated


----------



## Widowmaker666 (Jul 30, 2008)

the codex says that a squad that has a vox may reroll a failed LD for orders as long as the squad giving them the orders also has a vox. how does this work when a squad gives itself an order?


----------



## Trevor Drake (Oct 25, 2008)

It wont ofcourse, you cant call yourself on the same phone. Thats a bit more common sense.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Thats logical, but common sense isn't always the be all and aend all in 40k!

Does the sending squad have a vox? Yes.
Does the recieving squad have a vox? Yes.
So I don't see why they wouldn't re-roll.


----------



## riskman (Mar 28, 2008)

Vendetta's now have the same transport capacity as valkyries... :shok:


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

well the valk cant transport ogryn or termies, but at least it does mean you can stick a squad of SOB's or PAGK's in there instead. and DH/WH can now use both types of sentinal squadrons. im glad its also cleared up the leman russ question, so i now know (and dont have to augue) that i can still use a standard russ.
but i bet some players will be pissed that they cant use the russ veriants with there DH/WH.


----------



## Inquisitor Einar (Mar 6, 2009)

It's a bit of a pity WH/DH can't use the other russes, still, to have our trusty russ back ( and now with super sponsons! ) is nice, so I'm not complaining.
We also got both sentinel types, which means we actually have some semi-decent walkers to add to our armies that we can actually control 
AND it's been cleared up that we CAN use the cool upgrade characters for inducted squads. So we have access to Al'Rahem and Chenkov.
Sadly, we didn't get veteran squads, which would have been nice, since they have BS 4 like the rest of our army and they'd be a cheaper option to get 2 IG troops so we can field sentinels/rough riders/lemons, now we need to field 2 infantry platoons, so have to spend at least 260 points on those before we can field the cool stuff. In all, I'm satisfied with the FAQ, clearing up a lot of mess we had as WH/DH and also with the new IG codex.


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

1 thing i have noticed, is the excuss they've used to deny FRFRF to hell guns
"Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally
suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot
lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire."
If the hotshot cannot substain a high rate of fire, then why have they made it a RAPID fire weapon, and not say assault 2?
If they allowed the order on hotshot lasguns, then ST would be worth the points you pay, at the moment there not to be honest.

now sits back and to be flamed..............lol


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> my god, this is the first FAQ in years that actually answers questions asked instead of stupid things that are answered by common sense.


Completely agree here! For once the FAQ is actually helpfull in the way one would hope that all FAQs would bek:


----------



## Trevor Drake (Oct 25, 2008)

fynn said:


> 1 thing i have noticed, is the excuss they've used to deny FRFRF to hell guns
> "Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally
> suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot
> lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire."
> ...


It is quite simple, being rapid fire is them firing at their maximum rate of fire. open and shut explaining on that, not much else to it.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> Thats logical, but common sense isn't always the be all and aend all in 40k!
> 
> Does the sending squad have a vox? Yes.
> Does the recieving squad have a vox? Yes.
> So I don't see why they wouldn't re-roll.


Agreed, simples. 

@Einar: You get ISTs...you hardly need Vets as well, :laugh:!



riskman said:


> Vendetta's now have the same transport capacity as valkyries...


They always did.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Trevor Drake said:


> It is quite simple, being rapid fire is them firing at their maximum rate of fire. open and shut explaining on that, not much else to it.


Actually the reason it doesn't work on hotshot lasguns is because Hotshot Lasguns are not 'Lasguns'. They are las-weapons, just like laspistols and lascannons, just like Storm Bolters, Boltguns and Heavy Bolters are all 'bolt weapons' but a storm olter is not a boltgun and a hotshot is not a Lasgun.
Look up Lasgun on the weapon table for IG.
Now look up Hotshot Lasgun.
Two different lines.
Ok, well, look them up in the Armoury
Humm...different listings. Hotshots aren't even mentioned under lasgun.

It's nothing to do with Rapid Fire because both weapons are Rapid Fire. It doesn't work because they're different weapons.

Meanwhile, it works on Gunslinger Legionnaires because they're still wielding lasguns, even if they have a different statline, it's still a lasgun.

I'm still glad they cleared it up though, I remember having long debates on both of those interactions.


----------



## Inquisitor Einar (Mar 6, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> Agreed, simples.
> @Einar: You get ISTs...you hardly need Vets as well, :laugh:!


Vets are Cheaper, have cheaper chimera's, can carry a heavy flamer, 3 special weapons instead of 2, carry a vox, use orders, and can be upgraded with Bastonne or Parker.
Oh, and lets not forget Democharges/meltabombs, and their other goodies.

Also, 2 squads of vets is cheaper than 2 infantry platoons, making it easier to deploy sentinels, rough riders and/or a russ.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I'd sooner throw away 5 (75 point) ISTs than 10 (100 point) Vets...


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Also remember ISTs are expensive (relatively speaking) and their hellguns aren;t the same as the Hotshots stormies get.

Given a choice I'd take Vets over ISTs. Hell, if you're playing WH you can get bolters and power armor for a point more on SOBs


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Only if you take an equivalently sized unit. I'd use them as Fire Dragons substitutes, so they'd be cheaper - jumping out of Valks to Melta stuff early game. That said, I really like SoBs too, if they were plastic, I'd play them.


----------



## Inquisitor Einar (Mar 6, 2009)

ISTs are a 'point filler' for me.. I generally field a squad of 5 with 2 plasma guns, it's a nice threat, good enough armour that bolter fire doesn't auto wipe them and cheaper than a squad of sisters ( a sister squad is 142 points, or 144 points, depending on if I take Flamer/HFlamer or Meltax2 )
I'd take the vets sooner, a basic 10 man vet squad is only a little bit more expensive, and has a full complement of 10 men. And as I said before.. 2 vet squads give me access to armoured chimera's and a russ, and would be a cheaper option than 2 infantry platoons.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

> The fifth sentence of the asterisked note should
> read:
> “Note that as the blast does not have a ‘centre of
> blast’, its full strength of 10 is used for armour
> ...


This made me happy. Nice to see that there are other pedants out there fighting the good fight!

Inquisitors are always breaking their inducted IG, so they probably aren't allowed any of the nice ones any more. Veterans are probably those IG who have made a career of not looking for daemons to fight.


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> Thats logical, but common sense isn't always the be all and aend all in 40k!
> 
> Does the sending squad have a vox? Yes.
> Does the recieving squad have a vox? Yes.
> So I don't see why they wouldn't re-roll.


*Groan*uke: This is why I only play with friends. Rules as intended always wins out over rules as written! Try and see how the designers would answer it...

As for the FAQ, that's a pretty damn good one as far as they go. I can see a lot of those situations come up.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

If they intended to to work a given way, why didn't they write it that way to begin with?

I must have an optimistic view of GW's abilities, because I choose to believe that they write everything exactly the way they intended to. It would just be silly to run a game company where you you write down one thing but really mean another and the only way to know which is which is to somehow divine the mindset of the people who wrote it. After all, how are people supposed to play if they can't just open the book and read the rules?

And since we have the exact same access to the designers (zero) and the exact same level of mind-reading capability (also zero, I presume), my opinion of what the designers intended carries exactly the same amount of hard, textual evidence (meaning none), and is therefore just as valid as yours...which makes it inherently meaningless.

In my world intent never wins out over written because while we can both pick up a book and see what was written (though fin debates are had over how it is *read*), nobody can ever know what was actually intended, barring psychic powers or personal access to busy game developers.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Galahad said:


> If they intended to to work a given way, why didn't they write it that way to begin with?


Because they're only human and make mistakes. This is why they need people who don't understand the game to write their rules - because the designers already know how a rule is supposed to work, but the meaning isn't always as clear to us when reading what they write. It's frankly pretty silly to think that GW always writes things perfectly. If they did, I doubt they'd need to clarify stuff with FAQ documents.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Galahad said:


> If they intended to to work a given way, why didn't they write it that way to begin with?
> 
> I must have an optimistic view of GW's abilities, because I choose to believe that they write everything exactly the way they intended to. It would just be silly to run a game company where you you write down one thing but really mean another and the only way to know which is which is to somehow divine the mindset of the people who wrote it. After all, how are people supposed to play if they can't just open the book and read the rules?
> 
> ...


QFT. I agree entirely. I don't see any other logical way to approach the game, in fact. :grin:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

In my world intent is the winner every time. You might like to look at some countries that write their laws in this way, like Sweden for example. Step 1: write what you intend the law to do; Step 2: write the law. If step 2 is ever challenged or does not seem to match quite right then seek the answer in step 1.

Everyone can always know exactly what was intended, regardless of the wording of the rule. Intent wins every time.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

That may work in Swedish law, but there's no way you can expect the same agreement in 40k. If that were the case, we'd never have rules debates at all. I'd bet if you and I sat down with a Rulebook each we'd find at least a dozen places we disagreed on intent, and we're both from the UK. Imagine the potential comploications when Americans, Australians, Spaniards, Scandanavians etc get involved with either different cultural understanding of words, or not even having English as a first language.

For example, Valkyries/Vendettas. Is the wing part of the hull?


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I don't think that language and culture make such a big difference in this case; although the ability of GW to make accurate translation for other countries is a factor. Most people speak english pretty well these days; English is my second language and Dutch my first.

I think the example you gave answers itself. If they are wings then they are not hull, and visa-versa. It is the same with weapons on models: is the assault cannon part of the body of the Terminator - no. Most things are very obvious.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Katie Drake said:


> Because they're only human and make mistakes. This is why they need people who don't understand the game to write their rules - because the designers already know how a rule is supposed to work, but the meaning isn't always as clear to us when reading what they write. It's frankly pretty silly to think that GW always writes things perfectly. If they did, I doubt they'd need to clarify stuff with FAQ documents.


Ah, but if something *isn't* addressed in an FAQ, shouldn't we assume that it was intentional? 

In short: Assume GW means everything they say *unless* they correct themselves later.

for the record, my post was intentionally over the top to show how silly people can be when they presume to know the minds of strangers (one way or the other)

The basic point, however, I think remains true. There's no way to prove intent. Two reasonable people can have a pitched argument about what they believe was intended without either of them being objectively right or wrong...so that makes the whole thing pointless. Best to stick to what can objectively be proven or disproved, which is what is actually written. I'm not saying your reading of the rules can't be informed by what you believe the intent was, but if all you have is opinion with no fact to back it up, you may as well not show up to the discussion.


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Because they're only human and make mistakes. This is why they need people who don't understand the game to write their rules - because the designers already know how a rule is supposed to work, but the meaning isn't always as clear to us when reading what they write. It's frankly pretty silly to think that GW always writes things perfectly. If they did, I doubt they'd need to clarify stuff with FAQ documents.


Couldn't have put it better myself.

On the odd occassion I've written up campaign packs and have written down special rules that have made perfect sense to me only to see someone misinterpret it entirely.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

El Mariachi said:


> Couldn't have put it better myself.
> 
> On the odd occassion I've written up campaign packs and have written down special rules that have made perfect sense to me only to see someone misinterpret it entirely.


Yep. It's why many companies hire people who have no idea what they're doing to write the instruction manuals and such.


----------

