# Wh40k Faqs Back Up



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

The warhammer 40k FAQS are back up and then main 40k rules seem to be the only one majorly chnaged with ammendmnets added (though nothing in that section as yet).

Not sure if many things had chnaged as I hadn't looked at it in a while but there was this little one I noticed -

"Q: Who gets a cover save when two units are
intermingled? (p21)
A: The unit with the model closest to the enemy that is
firing does not have a cover save."

Anyway they are back up once again on the site - 
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_FAQ_40Krulebook_version1_1.pdf


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Q: If a model fires a template weapon out of a vehicle, will
the vehicle be hit if it is underneath the template? (p66)
A: No it will not be hit.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

Heres one: Firing a rocket launcher out of a Rhino

According to the rules it's legal, but I think that in reality you'd probably end up giving the entire crew sever shell shock and blowing up the vehicle along with anybody in it.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Q: Does a unit that successfully passes its counter-attack
Leadership test count as charging for all purposes? (p74)
A: No. They just gain the +1 assault bonus to their Attacks.

Thought this one would help all those idiots trying to pull FC along with this rule up in CC, a much needed idiot clarification.

Q: If a vehicle has a weapon with a limited amount of
shots, and it has none left, for example a hunter-killer
missile that has already been fired, does it count as a
weapon that can be destroyed by a Damaged - Weapon
Destroyed roll on the Vehicle Damage table? (p61)
A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again during
the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged -
Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle Damage table
are concerned. 

Another needed clarification too makes those who argue that it was still a weapon quiet


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

The only one that I did not see was the BA FAQ. If anyone needs it I have it on a PDF. Send me a PM.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

they took down the dark eldar too, so im assuming they are doing it up again


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it
moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Ouch, that's got to hurt for the dark eldar.


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

holf jesus titty fucking christ!! (i love team america) and im scared to use my Valkrye like i normally do now :s

omg storm raven!!


----------



## goobi2 (Jun 1, 2009)

Finally an answer to the Scout Moving Vehicle Dilemma! (No smoke answer, but who really needs that?)


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

They did mention that even if immobolised you can pop smoke, what was the smoke question that's still a dilema?


----------



## goobi2 (Jun 1, 2009)

popping smoke in the scout move if you have 1st turn... What happens?


----------



## Munky (Oct 2, 2008)

Damn goodbye fast transports lol ouch


----------



## Cyphereclipse (Aug 8, 2008)

Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover
save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.


So would i be right in thinking that a nilla marine scout squad with tellion would not need to purchase camo cloaks to benefit from stealth?


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

One question that did not get answered is :

What happens if a Skimmer transport lands on impassible terrain and is destroyed in the enemies turn, what happens to the passengers.

I would say they all die but what if the terrain was say a small pole and you could technically place every single model except the first one where the skimmer had been?

Q: What happens when a unit arrives from reserves but is
unable to completely move onto the board? (p94)
A: The unit is destroyed and removed from play.

I can see this being used to bait outflanking units. Say you place your troops like this ......./ \...... there is a small gap you have left with say a large unit of 30 gretchin you have lined up at the board side edge. Your opponent outflanks with 8 genestealers and try to place them there. Only 7 fit without being within 1" from your gretchins, so the entire unit of genestealers is destroyed 
Then again is your opponent allowed to change his mind as to where he walks on? The above ruling would suggest he is not, so once he starts moving onto the board on one location and notices he can not move all his units onboard, does this mean he cant just change is mind and move them on further down or up the side edge so that he can move onto the board with all his models?



Necrosis said:


> Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it
> moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
> A: They are removed as casualties.
> 
> Ouch, that's got to hurt for the dark eldar.


Hasnt it always been like this? This is how we have always played it at our gaming club, hasnt it always been stated in the rulebook they all die if the transport is destroyed?


----------



## deathwatch27 (Dec 30, 2009)

No normally we would just remove the vehicle and the people inside would get out excluding crew of course. Didn't know about the flatout thing mind.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

Since we are talking about rules, here is some Dark Eldar cheese Ive asked Darrell from Beats of War about but he could not say for sure.

You can pick up a WWP for your HQs, what happens if I say drive up to a Land Raider, jump out and in my Shooting Phase place the portal on top of your Land Raider?
Basically in base contact with my HQ but also covering some of your Land Raider.
From how Ive read the rules there is nothing preventing me from doing this and its done in the Shooting Phase (does not say its a shooting attack though).
From the BRB point of view this would result in the Land Raider and all units embarked on it being instantly destroyed as the WWP counts as Impassible terrain.

I think I have found the Dark Eldars "Doom of Malan'tai" cheese that will need an answer in their FAQ.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Necrosis said:


> Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it
> moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)
> A: They are removed as casualties.
> 
> Ouch, that's got to hurt for the dark eldar.


This isn't much of a change, and it's still only in the PLAYER turn that it happened in.
However, the difference is that it says 'destroyed', not 'wrecked', that means that if your vehicle explodes in the same turn it moved Flat Out, the guys inside still die, instead of falling out.


This FAQ is a HUGE step forward for GW, they've answered so many questions, they're changing rules, in the introduction they basically say they're going to tweak and balance codices post-release.

The biggest thing for me is that in a unit including a model with the Stealth USR, EVERY model has it.
Guess what this means? Karandras joining a unit of Guardians, who have a Warlock with Conceal, they have a 4+ Cover save wherever they go :biggrin:


----------



## Malekhit (Nov 9, 2010)

Still Nid FAQ need to be redone or updated there is milllions of unanswered questions !


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Winterous said:


> This isn't much of a change, and it's still only in the PLAYER turn that it happened in.
> However, the difference is that it says 'destroyed', not 'wrecked', that means that if your vehicle explodes in the same turn it moved Flat Out, the guys inside still die, instead of falling out.


I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. It said turn not player turn. Thus if you move flat out and got shot down, your gone.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Necrosis said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. It said turn not player turn. Thus if you move flat out and got shot down, your gone.


Turn always refers to player turn unless it says game turn.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> Turn always refers to player turn unless it says game turn.


Where does it say that?


----------



## Thoughtweaver (Sep 13, 2010)

Necrosis said:


> Where does it say that?


BRB, page 9.



> Game turns and Player Turns
> 
> 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'.


So, unless I'm a really silly Archon and decide to park my Raider or Venom on top of difficult terrain, things will be just fine.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Thoughtweaver said:


> BRB, page 9.


I would actually like a quote, sorry for not being clear on that.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Malekhit said:


> Still Nid FAQ need to be redone or updated there is milllions of unanswered questions !


Like what?



Necrosis said:


> I would actually like a quote, sorry for not being clear on that.


Top-right of the page.

"Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this book and in the Codexes (Codices), it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Top-right of the page.
> 
> "Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this book and in the Codexes (Codices), it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."


I stand corrected. Huza, my dark eldar are saved.


----------



## Thoughtweaver (Sep 13, 2010)

*Looking at my previous post, and at Winterous' a short time later.* Ummm...I believe I posted the same thing...although I did edit it a little bit to put it in a "Quote" box a few minutes later. Anyway, I'm just as happy my DE didn't just get a gut-check by the FAQs. Talk about a sweet pain that the heamonculi would absolutely ~love~.:laugh:


----------



## Lord Pestilice (Jan 21, 2008)

I'm loving the clarification about Telion adding Stealth to scouts for my Crimson Fists. And what surprised me was the fact dreads count as being stationary when arriving via Drop Pod and then shooting ALL weapons. Wow.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Lord Pestilice said:


> And what surprised me was the fact dreads count as being stationary when arriving via Drop Pod and then shooting ALL weapons. Wow.


They've always done that.
Page 72, BRB, under 'WALKERS SHOOTING'.
"Walkers can move and fire all of their weapons, just like a stationary vehicle."


----------



## Malekhit (Nov 9, 2010)

like does enemy have cover save from bikes against hive guard ?
does Doom of Malantai is synaps creature cause it have all abilities as zoanthrope?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Malekhit said:


> like does enemy have cover save from bikes against hive guard ?


Uh, yes, if you're referring to the Turbo-Boost cover save.



> does Doom of Malantai is synaps creature cause it have all abilities as zoanthrope?


No. It's not a Zoanthrope, it's the Doom of Malan'tai. If GW intended for it to have all the Zoanthrope abilities it'd be in the entry.


----------



## Malekhit (Nov 9, 2010)

well In hive guard section it specifficly says that unit can have cover only if it is in cover or is touching the cover therefore not turbo boosting.

Also what happens when tervigon is removed from play by jaws should I take casulties on nearby termagants ?

Also In FAQ it says that doom counts as a zoanthrope so if im correct he should be able to give synapse


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Malekhit said:


> well In hive guard section it specifficly says that unit can have cover only if it is in cover or is touching the cover therefore not turbo boosting.


There's an important difference between being IN cover, and having a cover SAVE.
Being in cover means there is terrain or models obscuring the line of fire, THAT is what the Hive Guard ignore.



Malekhit said:


> Also what happens when tervigon is removed from play by jaws should I take casulties on nearby termagants ?


Another question which doesn't require an FAQ, no, it is not removed as a casualty, it isn't 'slain' (ie: killed), it's removed from play, so no.



Malekhit said:


> Also In FAQ it says that doom counts as a zoanthrope so if im correct he should be able to give synapse


He counts as a Zoanthrope for the purposes of Warp Field.
He does not have the Synapse rule, so he doesn't have it, pretty simple.


----------



## XxDreMisterxX (Dec 23, 2009)

Wait.... so if a unit that has a model with stealth rule confers it to the whole unit? so is giving one guy in a scouts squad one camo cloak, allows the rest of the squad to benefit from him so the whole squad would have stealth?


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

XxDreMisterxX said:


> Wait.... so if a unit that has a model with stealth rule confers it to the whole unit? so is giving one guy in a scouts squad one camo cloak, allows the rest of the squad to benefit from him so the whole squad would have stealth?


Yes, that would work.
But you can't do that, since the whole unit needs to have it.
Tellion can grant the whole unit Stealth.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

XxDreMisterxX said:


> Wait.... so if a unit that has a model with stealth rule confers it to the whole unit? so is giving one guy in a scouts squad one camo cloak, allows the rest of the squad to benefit from him so the whole squad would have stealth?


No, because cloaks need to be bought for the entire unit or not at all. A better example is taking Telion for a unit of Scouts. Telion and his entire unit will benefit from _Stealth_, exactly as if they'd bought cloaks.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Lord Commissar with Camo-Cloak attached to an Infantry Platoon blob?
Hmmmm.....


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> Lord Commissar with Camo-Cloak attached to an Infantry Platoon blob?
> Hmmmm.....


Yeah, somehow I think they'll change it again to exclude ICs from the rule :biggrin:


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

I see noone can solve my DE rules question, does this mean its allowed?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

KingOfCheese said:


> Lord Commissar with Camo-Cloak attached to an Infantry Platoon blob?
> Hmmmm.....


oooh....yummy.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

So Telion has just had his points cost essentially halved.

Why take camo cloaks for 30pts (full squad) when for 20pts more you can get Telion who will give you the same benefit with added extras?


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

Maybe they haven't sold enough Telion models?


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

bishop5 said:


> Maybe they haven't sold enough Telion models?


Pretty much.

Seems to be GW general approach to things.
If they dont sell enough of them, then make the rules for them better.
If they sell a shitlod of them and they pass the peak turnover, then make the rules shit so people need to buy more of a different model (carnifex anyone?).


----------



## Kinglopey (Sep 10, 2008)

MadCowCrazy said:


> One question that did not get answered is :
> 
> What happens if a Skimmer transport lands on impassible terrain and is destroyed in the enemies turn, what happens to the passengers.


Skimmers can't land on Impassible Terrain; they can fly past it.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Winterous said:


> This isn't much of a change, and it's still only in the PLAYER turn that it happened in.
> However, the difference is that it says 'destroyed', not 'wrecked', that means that if your vehicle explodes in the same turn it moved Flat Out, the guys inside still die, instead of falling out.


but it doesnt say "explodes" either, im under the impression that if its anything that in effect makes it dead (so a 5+ on the damage chart)



Necrosis said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. It said turn not player turn. Thus if you move flat out and got shot down, your gone.


i think its supposed to be like such, since if i move a tank 12" & it get shot & immobilized its still gets auto-hit in the assault phase; speaking of this does this mean that if @ I4 it gets immobilized does an I1 PF auto hit? besides GW never screws up wordage do they?


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

As others have pointed out… yeah for no more debate about Telion’s Stealth.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

bishop5 said:


> Maybe they haven't sold enough Telion models?


That, or it's the way that they intended it to begin with and are only just now confirming it. Either one is equally likely.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Fallen said:


> but it doesnt say "explodes" either, im under the impression that if its anything that in effect makes it dead (so a 5+ on the damage chart)



It's always been the case that if you were wrecked while moving Flat-Out that passengers were destroyed, because they can't disembark. However, it used to be the case that if the vehicle Exploded rather than was wrecked, then the occupants were fine, as they just got placed in the crater left by the vehicle. It was a very silly situation, where getting an exploded result was better than being wrecked.

As such, the new ruling just brings both Wrecked and Destroyed into line, so that both results will cause the occupants to die, in a flat-out incident on your turn. That's why he mentioned that it only changes for "Exploded" results, because the rule was always like that for wrecked.

It still only has an affect if you get shot down during your turn, as it only counts for that Player turn, and so by the time the enemy turn rolls around, it's just business as usual.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Kinglopey said:


> Skimmers can't land on Impassible Terrain; they can fly past it.


Page 71 of the BRB, paragraph 2 under the header of "*MOVING SKIMMERS*"

"Skimmers can move over all terrain, ignoring all
penalties for difficult terrain and tests for dangerous
terrain. However, if a moving skimmer starts or ends its
move in difficult or dangerous terrain, it must take a
dangerous terrain test. A skimmer can even end its
move over impassable terrain if it is possible to actually
place the model on top of it, but if it does so it must
take a dangerous terrain test"


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

another stealth question

IG tanks can have Camo cloak things, can i give one cloak to one tank and it'll hide the other 2 or am i being really dumb


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Hellados said:


> another stealth question
> 
> IG tanks can have Camo cloak things, can i give one cloak to one tank and it'll hide the other 2 or am i being really dumb


You _would_ be able to use that, IF there was an option to give only one vehicle in a squadron cammo-netting. "The entire squadron can take..." is the wording used, so it's all or none if you choose it.


----------



## oblivion8 (Jun 17, 2009)

> You would be able to use that, IF there was an option to give only one vehicle in a squadron cammo-netting. "The entire squadron can take..." is the wording used, so it's all or none if you choose it.


now if there was only Independent character vehicles :biggrin:


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

pah it was a good idea


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

shame you can't join a commie lord to them, then his cloak could hide 3 tanks.


----------



## Roujheh (Jan 13, 2010)

How exactly does one get their own flat out moving transport destroyed in their own turn? I dont understand the point of this :S . Also are you guys saying that if a waveserpent moves flatout with some guys in it and I wreck it in my shooting phase that the guys inside die because they cant disembark from a vehicle that has moved flatout??


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Roujheh said:


> How exactly does one get their own flat out moving transport destroyed in their own turn? I dont understand the point of this :S .


Take a Blood Angel Rhino for example (fast vehicle, not a skimmer). It moves Flat Out while ramming an enemy vehicle. It suffers a hit strong enough to penetrate its armor and when rolling on the damage chart it suffers a destroyed result. The passengers then die as they're unable to disembark. Another example would be a fast skimmer that ends its move in difficult terrain after moving Flat Out then rolls a 1 for its dangerous terrain test. It would immediately be destroyed and the passengers would die as they cannot legally disembark.



> Also are you guys saying that if a waveserpent moves flatout with some guys in it and I wreck it in my shooting phase that the guys inside die because they cant disembark from a vehicle that has moved flatout??


No, because if your enemy shoots down your Wave Serpent he does it doing _his_ turn, rather than yours.


----------



## Roujheh (Jan 13, 2010)

How does it make sense that if you move flat out to ram or get a 1 when you stop in terrain you die, but when you crash and burn to the ground your all good? I just read the rule book and dont you count as moving flatout until your next turn? So if its player a's turn and he moves flatout with a transport with a squad inside, and on player b's turn said transport get wrecked, why dont the occupants die? They are still inside a transport that has moved flatout so how do they disembark when they cannot? Also thanks for the repy katie and sorry for repeating myself, Ive been up for a long time and am pretty tired thats probably why I cant make sense of it lol!


----------



## Roujheh (Jan 13, 2010)

Also what if I have a unit in reserve that has one of the terminator or MC sized bases, and said unit has slow and purposeful and I rol. snake eyes for my movement onto the table. I cannont get my whole base on the table with just one inch, so is the unit destroyed?


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Roujheh said:


> Also what if I have a unit in reserve that has one of the terminator or MC sized bases, and said unit has slow and purposeful and I rol. snake eyes for my movement onto the table. I cannont get my whole base on the table with just one inch, so is the unit destroyed?


Correct.

Stupid GW. :laugh:


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Yeah, gotta agree with Max, it might be in the FAQ, but I couldn't be assed finding it.
Anyway, I'd just play it as you still move a random distance, but you can move a minimum of how far you need to go in order to be fully on the board.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Yeah, gotta agree with Max, it might be in the FAQ, but I couldn't be assed finding it.
> Anyway, I'd just play it as you still move a random distance, but you can move a minimum of how far you need to go in order to be fully on the board.


Be careful what you agree with - After checking up, I was wrong :shok: that's twice today - I blame it on the stress because I'm leaving the country tomorrow 

my fault for remembering a rule before checking it! you ignore rules that force you to move in a certain direction, or that would stop you moving at all, but you don't ignore things that just slow you down.... so technically, oblits coming in from reserves that roll a 1... die :shok:

that is a silly oversight....

They get to the very edge of the board, then:


----------



## Roujheh (Jan 13, 2010)

Oh I would simply put my model on the table touching the edge if I rolled snake eyes unless the other player said something


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

maddermax said:


> that is a stupid oversight....


And that's exactly why I just recommended what I did


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Winterous said:


> And that's exactly why I just recommended what I did


Indeed, common sense is what's needed here. And, if your opponent doesn't have it, beat it into him


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

anyone who would make me kill a unit for rolling a 1 when they come in with SnP Id shoot them in the head


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> anyone who would make me kill a unit for rolling a 1 when they come in with SnP Id shoot them in the head


Why? It's clear cut that's the way RAW works. So you'd be shooting them in the head for following the rules. So when they say, oh, I don't actually need to check LOS for anything so you can't claim cover saves, they can shoot you in the head for playing by the rules that you get cover saves.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> Why? It's clear cut that's the way RAW works. So you'd be shooting them in the head for following the rules. So when they say, oh, I don't actually need to check LOS for anything so you can't claim cover saves, they can shoot you in the head for playing by the rules that you get cover saves.


because its a retarded oversight of a rule. OH I FAILED TO MOVE ONTO THE BOARD, IM DEAD!

Im all for following the rules, but retarded oversights like that are... well retarded


----------



## Darkblade (May 10, 2009)

_Q: Can you ram a building? (p79)
A: No. The vehicle will simply stop if it contacts a building._

I find this a bit tame. Basically, your massively huge land raider crusaider can be stopped by a wooden outhouse, instead of say, just charging tru it and turn whatever was in it into a gory red paste.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Darkblade said:


> _Q: Can you ram a building? (p79)
> A: No. The vehicle will simply stop if it contacts a building._
> 
> I find this a bit tame. Basically, your massively huge land raider crusaider can be stopped by a wooden outhouse, instead of say, just charging tru it and turn whatever was in it into a gory red paste.


I assume that this one is for a few reasons.
1. Most buildings you play with will be bunkers, or other tough buildings; why do you think there are ruins around? Because they got blown up, a bunker won't get blown up so easily.
2. A bunker really isn't something you should try and run over.
3. While a Land Raider probably could do that, this rule is for every kind of vehicle, they've kept it simple.
4. WHEN THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO WANT TO RAM A BUILDING??


----------



## Darkblade (May 10, 2009)

1. Not always, i can predict alot of scenario's where you fight in a urban region or even in the jungle.
2. no dur.
3. So? it just means that your weaker tank has more chance of wrecking himself.
4. Uhh, lets say, 9 guards are in a small shred (av7-9), wouldnt you want to run it down?

The idea of ramming buildings is sound, seeing as you're not always fighting in a zone that has reinforced buildings round. There is no reason why you wouldnt be able to, ram a building, unless, in case of a sunked bunker, it has no rammable sides.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Winterous said:


> 4. WHEN THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO WANT TO RAM A BUILDING??


It's in the way?


----------



## Darkblade (May 10, 2009)

That, and ramming the outhouse while someone is on it is a special kind of saying HELLO WERE HEEEERREEE!


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Ok, conceded, ramming buildings should be in.

One thing I've never understood though, why do buildings EXPLODE?


----------



## Styro-J (Jan 20, 2009)

The pilot light went out, then the sparks from the ensuing collision triggers an explosion.

There is a stupid amount of fuel/explosives in the building, read as above.

All materials used for warfare in 40k have a natural affinity for wood as better to decimate planets and instill panic, still read as above. 

Maybe those little shacks are secretly the equivalent of a TARDIS


----------



## oblivion8 (Jun 17, 2009)

> Why? It's clear cut that's the way RAW works. So you'd be shooting them in the head for following the rules. So when they say, oh, I don't actually need to check LOS for anything so you can't claim cover saves, they can shoot you in the head for playing by the rules that you get cover saves.


I see you point wolf_lord, but sometimes you just ave to take a step back and question whether something as ridiculous as that was because the game designers made it that way or whether it was an over sight. In games as complicated as 40k, you sometimes have to see things in a broader view, not nitpicking on things that are going to ruin the game.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Ok, conceded, ramming buildings should be in.


In game terms, I can see why it's not though. "You can't drive through that thin wall, but this reinforced bunker is fine". That doesn't stop it being _cool _though, so it's a tossup.



Winterous said:


> One thing I've never understood though, why do buildings EXPLODE?


40k apparently has the same laws of physics as hollywood movies. Even wood and rock are potential explosives under the 4th law of hollywood thermodynamics ("shit explodes, no matter how inflammible it might actually be")


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

maddermax said:


> under the 4th law of hollywood thermodynamics ("shit explodes, no matter how inflammible it might actually be")


is that the Law michael bay wrote?


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1 cover
save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.

YES!!! Finally this has been answered, and exactly how I wanted it to be, perfect


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

oblivion8 said:


> I see you point wolf_lord, but sometimes you just ave to take a step back and question whether something as ridiculous as that was because the game designers made it that way or whether it was an over sight. In games as complicated as 40k, you sometimes have to see things in a broader view, not nitpicking on things that are going to ruin the game.


Don't worry, I would never do something like that, but being that aggressive towards someone playing by the rules (hell, it may have been GW intention that it works that way. Unlikely, but possible ) just sounds like a down right stupid thing to do.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> Don't worry, I would never do something like that, but being that aggressive towards someone playing by the rules (hell, it may have been GW intention that it works that way. Unlikely, but possible ) just sounds like a down right stupid thing to do.


usually people who would nit pick about something like that is not looking for a fun game anyway but looking for an easy kill point, or removal of said unit from the game to make their own time easier. Sure, its totally how the rules work through wording, but sometimes, you need to give some leeway, especially with something as stupid as your destroyed for coming in from reserve and roll low on your move onto the board thanks to SnP


----------



## oblivion8 (Jun 17, 2009)

> Don't worry, I would never do something like that, but being that aggressive towards someone playing by the rules (hell, it may have been GW intention that it works that way. Unlikely, but possible ) just sounds like a down right stupid thing to do.


ya no worries, I get that probably 90% of players wouldn't follow that rule, but you are right that there is a possibility of it being an intentional rule, but I have a feeling that the game designers are a little more sensible then to allow a unit from entering the game because it is slow and purposeful


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

oblivion8 said:


> but I have a feeling that the game designers are a little more sensible then to allow a unit from entering the game because it is slow and purposeful


the reason I said Id get violent with anyone enforcing such a stupid rule


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

maddermax said:


> 40k apparently has the same laws of physics as hollywood movies. Even wood and rock are potential explosives under the 4th law of hollywood thermodynamics ("shit explodes, no matter how inflammible it might actually be")


That's because in Hollywood, all the vehicles, buildings, trees, roads, animals and sometimes people are made from a rare element called "Explodium" which is only found in certain places (like movie studios) by mixing Narrative Causality with a Large Special Effects Budget, and has been in common usage since 1968 with the first true Car Chase Scene (tm).


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

oblivion8 said:


> ya no worries, I get that probably 90% of players wouldn't follow that rule, but you are right that there is a possibility of it being an intentional rule, but I have a feeling that the game designers are a little more sensible then to allow a unit from entering the game because it is slow and purposeful


They're slow alright? They get lost sometimes, it's not their fault


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

I reckon if I was facing someone who had a slow and purposeful model, and he or she didn't roll high enough to bring the model into play, I'd treat it the same as a deep striking mishap, so it would go back into reserve and they could try rolling for it the next turn. That to me seems like the logical thing to do,and I hope whoever is responsible for writing the sixth edition rule set reads this and takes it into consideration. Also when and if I move into a house large enough to house my own gaming table I'll propose making it a house rule with my opponents. At the moment I play at the local GW store so house ruling things is a bit of a no no.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

That FAQ answer seems to be an answer to what happens if you Arrive from reserves but cannot move onto the table (board edge blocked or whatever). You make your reserve roll, your unit arrives, you can't move on, you explode. Guess Slow and Purposeful units with large bases get caught in the crossfire, poor them.


----------



## oblivion8 (Jun 17, 2009)

> They're slow alright? They get lost sometimes, it's not their fault


lol, like maddermaz said earlier, they just decide to give up and go home :laugh:



> I reckon if I was facing someone who had a slow and purposeful model, and he or she didn't roll high enough to bring the model into play, I'd treat it the same as a deep striking mishap, so it would go back into reserve and they could try rolling for it the next turn.


That actually seems quite reasonable and fair.


----------

