HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 New FAQ up

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Erebus
HTMLaemonculus
avatar

Posts : 374
Join date : 2013-02-13
Location : Your nightmares

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 07:29

@Count Adhemar wrote:
Wonder how many people will try that one on?
How many Necron players are there?

_________________
Taming the shadows with questionable wit.
Back to top Go down
Vasara
Incognito assault marine
avatar

Posts : 1160
Join date : 2012-08-22
Location : Vantaa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 08:46

I just noticed the pun in the topic header Very Happy

_________________
New Dark Eldar in Tournaments: Wins: 17 Draws: 2 Losses: 8
ETC 2013 DE/Eldar player (4th)
ETC 2014 Coach (16th)
ETC 2015 Captain, Eldar/DE (10th)
Painting blog
Back to top Go down
Panic_Puppet
Wych


Posts : 506
Join date : 2012-12-30

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 08:52

I like how we can still put a weaponless grotesque onto a raider with splinter racks and twin-link every splinter weapon in the army...

_________________
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 09:23

I'll be honest, both the dark eldar changes make complete sense, logically at least. The only one I can't get my head round is the hammer of wrath clarification, it seems perverse.

Example: I charge a dreadnought with two squads of reaver jetbikes. One attacks from the front, the other from the rear. Both are identically armed and equipped and carry equal threat. How in hell's name is the dreadnought supposed to present its front armour facing to both squads at the same time???

Sorry, I'm not expecting an answer to that question, it's just the justification for the answer fails to make itself known to me. I could even have seen a little bit of justification if they'd said they both hit the side armour!

Oh well, I guess GW really do work on the basis that 1-3 = yes and 4-6 = no.

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
1++
Hekatrix


Posts : 1036
Join date : 2011-06-27
Location : Sydney

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 10:01

@Vasara wrote:
I just noticed the pun in the topic header Very Happy

Depends on your accent haha!!

_________________
"I'm alive from this pain!"
Back to top Go down
Maple Tiishay
Slave
avatar

Posts : 23
Join date : 2014-11-20
Location : Saskatchewan

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 15:19

To comment on the walker armour facing issue, I personally believe that the walker should only be able to present its front armour to anyone with a lower initiative than itself. I completely agree that regardless of its mobility, it still does have a rear facing, and just because it's in CC it shouldn't completely disappear, especially if the attackers are surrounding it, and are acting far before it's own reflexes allow.

_________________
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man, is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant: "If I live, I will kill you. If I die you are forgiven." Such is the rule of honor.
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 16:23

@Maple Tiishay wrote:
To comment on the walker armour facing issue, I personally believe that the walker should only be able to present its front armour to anyone with a lower initiative than itself. I completely agree that regardless of its mobility,  it still does have a rear facing, and just because it's in CC it shouldn't completely disappear, especially if the attackers are surrounding it, and are acting far before it's own reflexes allow.

This is a VERY good point, i think it should be added to the FAQ if only in the vain hope that GW read it and think it's a good idea, and then incorporate it into 8th ed ruleset

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
The Red King
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1234
Join date : 2013-07-09

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 20:21

Heh, I didn't even pun on purpose.

_________________
For Khaela Mensha Khaine!
Back to top Go down
nexs
Wych
avatar

Posts : 766
Join date : 2014-12-28

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 11 2015, 21:38

@Maple Tiishay wrote:
To comment on the walker armour facing issue, I personally believe that the walker should only be able to present its front armour to anyone with a lower initiative than itself. I completely agree that regardless of its mobility,  it still does have a rear facing, and just because it's in CC it shouldn't completely disappear, especially if the attackers are surrounding it, and are acting far before it's own reflexes allow.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, but I'm guessing that GW's reasoning would be something like walkers have to be superior to vehicles in CC, especially seeing as they get locked in combat.
It's just to make them more survivable. And to be honest, I'd prefer to fight their front facing in combat (HWG, who cares what facing we're on), than for GW to start decreasing their cost. Ain't no way I want to see more of them on the table!
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
avatar

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Thu Feb 12 2015, 08:24

@nexs wrote:
I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, but I'm guessing that GW's reasoning would be something like walkers have to be superior to vehicles in CC, especially seeing as they get locked in combat.
It's just to make them more survivable. And to be honest, I'd prefer to fight their front facing in combat (HWG, who cares what facing we're on), than for GW to start decreasing their cost. Ain't no way I want to see more of them on the table!

You do have to fight their front facing in combat, and always have - the debate was over whether Hammer of Wrath hit the facing next to the attacking model (HoW special rule) or the front facing (general rule governing walkers in combat).

My issue with their ruling is twofold.
1) It doesn't make logical sense, a walker should not be able to present its front facing to all HoW attacks no matter which direction they come from, it's just not practical, and
2) the faq now directly contradicts the usual rulebook approach in that the special rule (HoW) is superseded by the general rule (Walker in combat), whereas usually the special rule supersedes the general rule.

That being said, they've clarified it (beyond some very convoluted grammatical reasoning) and we have to play it as-is. It just means walkers dropped down the priority list of targets for reavers.

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
nexs
Wych
avatar

Posts : 766
Join date : 2014-12-28

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Thu Feb 12 2015, 21:29

"Games Workshop"
and
"Rules that make sense"


Something doesn't seem quite right with those two sentences being together.....
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Feb 15 2015, 00:30

I just have to point out here, despite the extraneous second 'are', the new Jink FAQ does say that Immobilised vehicles can't jink; the 'not' applies to the entire sentence, as per English grammar.
Back to top Go down
Erebus
HTMLaemonculus
avatar

Posts : 374
Join date : 2013-02-13
Location : Your nightmares

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Feb 15 2015, 01:11

That's not how the English language works. That "extraneous second 'are'" causes (that part of) the sentence to mean the complete opposite of what's intended.

_________________
Taming the shadows with questionable wit.
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Feb 18 2015, 22:53

But we know it's an unintended 'are' , so...........
Back to top Go down
Archon Rievect
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 132
Join date : 2014-08-03
Location : The WWP behind you!

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Thu Feb 26 2015, 20:08

I agree, let us bomb them with a 'FAQ Question Void Mine' AGAIN and keep at it.... GW has turned into such a bunch of tools to be honest and I guess they are failing at both a miniatures making company and a 'gaming company' ,which in the past they stated they were/are not.

I recently played against a guy with a daemon/CSM army, had some portal to generate more stuff, had a daemon princess-slaanesh- that some regenned a wound on a 2, had a lord with basically enough stuff to warrant a 'I just look at you and you die' .... some relic on a rhino which made his blob of 30 cultists fearless,etc,etc..........

My only bright spots were the court killing the uber lord.... 150 points of court can be nasty,they are worth it.... and the Tantalus survivved the game and killed like 30 daemonettes... but he made more....... Crappy anti armor rang still sucks, removing the ability to shoot all the ravager Dl's sucks, OH and the fact that all out basic transport and ravagers go down like flaming paper planes......

i still say they nerfed them so bad.. and the Equipment options that any of the HQ have are a TOTAL JOKE.

GW SHOULD REVERSE the changes to the Orbs,Wyches, Phantasm Grenade launch(actually gave a warrior and wych unit a chance to survive CC but noooooo..... I have turned the wyches to BDSM Warriors or burned them all... they are worthless....... Lhamies are better for same price..

Run 2 Archones and a boatload of them..... fun times with IG and Orks(for a turn anyway)

Sorry I thread jacked.... I may resend my FAQ list and tell them 'TRY AGAIN'
Back to top Go down
Omega1907
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 78
Join date : 2015-02-08

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Thu Feb 26 2015, 20:51

About the jinking FAQ:
Funny enough, in the german version it's very clearly written, immobilized skimmers can't jink. As long as they don't intend to write country specific rules, skimmers that are immobilized (can't move a single inch) can't jink Rolling Eyes

_________________
Beginnings of a kabal (and it's allies)
The Cabal of deceptive hope
Back to top Go down
Psylynt
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2015-02-04
Location : York Pa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Wed Jun 03 2015, 05:47

@Omega1907 wrote:
About the jinking FAQ:
Funny enough, in the german version it's very clearly written, immobilized skimmers can't jink. As long as they don't intend to write country specific rules, skimmers that are immobilized (can't move a single inch) can't jink Rolling Eyes

It is clearly written in the English version also. Immobile skimmers cannot jink. Not sure why everyone waits for a 2nd translation from another language. I know players who still think they can jink skimmers after they get immobile. Show them the faq and they still do not get it.

The Errata clearly states that if you are a heavy or immobile skimmer you cannot jink.

Its the same as saying If you are not heavy or immobile skimmer you can jink. Which is how they have written it.

The result is the same. Writing in the negative can cause issues in some people who have to reread the sentence over and over and still have trouble understanding it. But if you just restructure the sentence in the affirmative as i did in the first line it is much clearer. Both have the same meaning tho.

They do this because they get a affirmation that skimmers can jink, but also they get to add in a restriction to the skimmer that if its heavy or if its immobilized it does not, all in one line. That is all that line does.

"Skimmers that are not also heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the jink special rule"

"Skimmers that are not also heavy vehicles" - so heavy skimmers -

"or are immobilized" - skimmer that is immobile -

"Skimmers that are not" - either of those stated above - "have the jink special rule"

Sorry got on a rant, but had to clear this up a few times for players over the past few weeks.
Either players forget or just do not know.


Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7192
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Fri Jun 05 2015, 23:28

@Psylynt wrote:
@Omega1907 wrote:
About the jinking FAQ:
Funny enough, in the german version it's very clearly written, immobilized skimmers can't jink. As long as they don't intend to write country specific rules, skimmers that are immobilized (can't move a single inch) can't jink Rolling Eyes

It is clearly written in the English version also. Immobile skimmers cannot jink.

It's clearly not clearly written then because that's exactly what it doesn't say.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Duke Daedric
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 44
Join date : 2014-05-16

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 08:53

I'm with the Count Adhemar on this one.
It literary says that all skimers except heavy vehicles immobilised or no have jink special rule.
Sense or nonsense it is what is written. We can all choose how we play it tough.
Back to top Go down
Jimsolo
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3064
Join date : 2013-10-31
Location : Illinois

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 15:28

Dude, there is a minor bit of clunkiness in the wording. Arguing in the face of the FAQ that Immobile skimmers can still Jink is in the same league as arguing that when you perform an emergency disembark from an assault vehicle you can charge in your opponent's assault phase. Or the people who used to claim that face-mask Reavers couldn't shoot.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7192
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 17:09

I don't think anyone is realistically arguing that immobile skimmers can Jink (or more importantly that they cannot jink unless they are immoblised) but the fact remains that that is exactly what the idiots at GW have written in that FAQ. Does anyone play that way? Probably not. But it's a house rule NOT to do so, not strict RAW.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Psylynt
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2015-02-04
Location : York Pa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 22:02

Actually they are very clear in the FAQ. I explained above how the sentence is structured and why it is the way it is. I understand that the way it is written can confuse a certain portion of the population. But it is very clear. I am play with a editor for my local paper and author of several books. Also friends with a award winning writer who I communicate regularly with. I ran this buy them this week and they both came to the same conclusion. The wording they admit does take some thought, but as they said, you break it down into parts, like teacher taught us in primary school, and it becomes clear.

RAW is as I explained above. It states two conditions of skimmers that do gain jink. I clearly explained the RAW.

It's almost like the argument that flyers with more than 4 weapons do not get to fire the rest as snaps. It's clearly in the RAW and in the back of the book in the reference section, that they do. There is a table that states what type of vehicles can fire what at full BS. There is nothing about snap shots because it is understood that vehicles can fire all weapons, no matter the conditions, the only change is how many shots they get at full BS.

I know rules arguments can get contentious and I hate replying to theses threads. Even when I explaine that the RAW is written correctly and break it down like a teacher would to his class, there is still arguments in decent. I feel like this is just trolling.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7192
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 22:11

Sorry but if you break that sentence down into its component parts you get:

Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles have the Jink special rule

Skimmers that are immobilised have the Jink special rule

There is an extraneous 'are' in the sentence that changes the meaning of the second part.

Perhaps you would care to ask your editor pals what the sentence means if written:

"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule"

Because I don't really see how the above can possibly mean the same thing as what is written in the FAQ. I'd be very keen to hear their explanation.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Psylynt
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2015-02-04
Location : York Pa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 23:16

Here it it is. Skimmers that are not heavy or are NOT immobilized. That is how it is written.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7192
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 23:23

@Psylynt wrote:
Here it it is. Skimmers that are not heavy or are NOT immobilized. That is how it is written.

Except that's NOT how it is written. The FAQ says:

Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   

Back to top Go down
 
New FAQ up
Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Rules: Queries & Questions
-
Jump to: