Topic: BRB FAQ up

[Gorgash Redfang]

here  ...... http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710127a_Empire_v1.0.pdf


Warhammer FAQ, Errata and Amendments

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3000006&multiPageMode=true&start=3

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Note that the VC Errata & FAQ are also there.

[warhammerlord_soth]

And to say people have been bitching about GW not getting their FAQs up... 

[Athiuen]

Is it just me or is this new?


Page 83 – Monstrous Cavalry.
Add “MONSTROUS SUPPORT
Furthermore, the rider of a monstrous cavalry model can make
as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a
maximum of three.” to the end of the paragraph.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Just noticed that almost all races got an update, with the exception of Beastmen, Lizardmen, O&G and Skaven.

@ Athiuen: no, it is just you. 

[warhammerlord_soth]

Is it just me or is this new?


Page 83 – Monstrous Cavalry.
Add “MONSTROUS SUPPORT
Furthermore, the rider of a monstrous cavalry model can make
as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a
maximum of three.” to the end of the paragraph.

Not new, and unfortunately, bad for the demigryphs...

[Athiuen]

I don't get it? 

Ah yes because they suck... I get it now.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Because the Demigryphs do not get a supporting attack, which would be much more powerful.

[warhammerlord_soth]

The mounts don't get to make supporting attacks. So, DG second rank = 1 attack per model.


Edit : 30 secs late.

[Athiuen]

Indeed for a moment there I thought the knights were the ones doing something...how wrong I was.

[Darknight]

Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.

I'm sure this could have been written in a clearer fashion - took me a couple of reads to square it away.

Okay; so.... a detachment counts parent unit ranks for purposes of Steadfast UNLESS the parent itself is explicitly NOT Steadfast because it is i) in a combat and ii) has fewer ranks than the enemy unit it is fighting?

Well, that is - and I think Nought and Fidelis and Ratarsed and Calaison and the rest having that argument months ago will agree - absolutely NOT an interpretation ("may count parent ranks for purposes of steadfast") any of us were advancing. It was something many people said they would like to see, but - AFAIR - it wasn't anything any of us actually advanced as an interpretation.

The hell, GW? The hell?

[Darknight]

Oh, and someone owes me 2p.

Q: If an enemy chariot charges a Regimental Unit and one or more of its Detachments makes a successful Counter Charge, does the chariot still get to make Impact Hits? (p30)
A: Yes, though the chariot’s Impact Hits can only be assigned to the Regimental Unit.

[Athiuen]

Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.

I'm sure this could have been written in a clearer fashion - took me a couple of reads to square it away.

Okay; so.... a detachment counts parent unit ranks for purposes of Steadfast UNLESS the parent itself is explicitly NOT Steadfast because it is i) in a combat and ii) has fewer ranks than the enemy unit it is fighting?

Well, that is - and I think Nought and Fidelis and Ratarsed and Calaison and the rest having that argument months ago will agree - absolutely NOT an interpretation ("may count parent ranks for purposes of steadfast") any of us were advancing. It was something many people said they would like to see, but - AFAIR - it wasn't anything any of us actually advanced as an interpretation.

The hell, GW? The hell?

It's the interpretation I was advancing and playing the whole time.  It was the simply Rules as Intended answer.

[b0007452]

I'm very happy Games Workshop hav updated so many FAQ's, for a while I've been worried they had forgotten about them 

So I guess kudos to them.

I can only really mirror what's been said before, the steadfast clarification is really useful and appreciated. Secondly not only am I happy to hear about the monstrous cav. changes but it does kinda make sense to me  Just monstrous beasts that suffer now I guess.

Jim

[Darknight]

I know there were people playing it as that, but none of us having the detailed argument that went on for pages suggested it as anything other than a solution rather than a correct interpretation. It is utterly different to anything any of us suggested - it gives support to the Nought / Fidelis position that "steadfast = in combat / more ranks / defeated" by omission (it does NOT say detachments get steadfast from the parent, but rather that the ranks of the parent give steadfast - perhaps implying the parent is NOT steadfast unless defeated) but the end result contains (and in fact surpasses) the DK / Cal / Ratarsed position of "steadfast = combat / more ranks".

Cal, Ratarsed and I did not advance the idea the rules as interpreted (which is all one can really discuss) suggested one could get Steadfast on a detachment if the parent wasn't in combat.

This is a clear and simple-enough ruling; as can be seen, the original words in the BRB & AB were open to confusion.

[zifnab0]

We should also take this moment to thank GW for switching from the previously unacceptable A4 paper size to the now preferred A3 paper size.

Now, instead of having the option of printing one or two pages per sheet, I will always have to print two pages per sheet.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Contrary to Athiuen, we still have no way of knowing whether the FAQ solution was or was not the rules as intended (Iron Fist anyone? or Overrun after Crumble?). It certainly was not rules as written, but now that actually has become the case. I, for one, am perfectly happy with that.

[commandant]

Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.

I'm sure this could have been written in a clearer fashion - took me a couple of reads to square it away.

Okay; so.... a detachment counts parent unit ranks for purposes of Steadfast UNLESS the parent itself is explicitly NOT Steadfast because it is i) in a combat and ii) has fewer ranks than the enemy unit it is fighting?

Well, that is - and I think Nought and Fidelis and Ratarsed and Calaison and the rest having that argument months ago will agree - absolutely NOT an interpretation ("may count parent ranks for purposes of steadfast") any of us were advancing. It was something many people said they would like to see, but - AFAIR - it wasn't anything any of us actually advanced as an interpretation.

The hell, GW? The hell?

You realize that this is the answer that Ratarsed and co were advancing during that massive tread.   If the parent unit is steadfast then the detachment is steadfast, this is what it distills down to.

[Darknight]

Question; Fidelis; do you read the new FAQ as saying that the parent unit does NOT have to be in combat (that is, can be in or out) in order for its ranks to be counted by the detachment? My initial reading was that it did not have to be in combat, but when Ratarsed raised a question on another thread I had to re-read it and it is not explicit. I still believe the interpretation is that the parent does NOT have to be in combat (and have posted reasoning why) but I'd be interested to see what others say.

@Commandant : It is not - because I was part of that group of Ratarsed and co. We didn't say the regiment's ranks should be counted; rather that if the regiment was steadfast so was the detachment. The question hinged on the requirements for steadfast - we said it was just more ranks & combat, Fidelis and Nought said it was more ranks, combat, defeated.

[commandant]

Demigryphons hooooooooooo......and I think we will have some weeks of the Steadfast camp dancing....told ya so.


Steadfast opens up new formations

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
 
  xxxxx
  xxxxx
  xxxxx
  xxxxx
  xxxxx
  xxxxx

Not a good formation as the detachment is not steadfast.   The parent still needs to be in combat

@Commandant : It is not - because I was part of that group of Ratarsed and co. We didn't say the regiment's ranks should be counted; rather that if the regiment was steadfast so was the detachment. The question hinged on the requirements for steadfast - we said it was just more ranks & combat, Fidelis and Nought said it was more ranks, combat, defeated.

You do not count them against the unit the detachment is fighting but against the unit the parent is fighting (at least that was my reading)

[MrAbyssal]

Contrary to Athiuen, we still have no way of knowing whether the FAQ solution was or was not the rules as intended (Iron Fist anyone? or Overrun after Crumble?). It certainly was not rules as written, but now that actually has become the case. I, for one, am perfectly happy with that.

+1

Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.

I'm sure this could have been written in a clearer fashion - took me a couple of reads to square it away.

Okay; so.... a detachment counts parent unit ranks for purposes of Steadfast UNLESS the parent itself is explicitly NOT Steadfast because it is i) in a combat and ii) has fewer ranks than the enemy unit it is fighting?

Well, that is - and I think Nought and Fidelis and Ratarsed and Calaison and the rest having that argument months ago will agree - absolutely NOT an interpretation ("may count parent ranks for purposes of steadfast") any of us were advancing. It was something many people said they would like to see, but - AFAIR - it wasn't anything any of us actually advanced as an interpretation.

The hell, GW? The hell?

You realize that this is the answer that Ratarsed and co were advancing during that massive tread.   If the parent unit is steadfast then the detachment is steadfast, this is what it distills down to.

Except the current rule doesn't even need to the Parent unit to be steadfast, it just requires it to not be not steadfast. The detachment's steadfast status is now dependant on if the parent would be steadfast if it was in the detachment's place. Naturally taking into account the above regarding if the parent is not steadfast.

[commandant]

The current ruling requires the parent to be in a combat and steadfast in order for the detachment to get steadfast from the parent.

[Darknight]

And here we go again . . .

I disagree; the current ruling says "Always use . . ." not "if the parent is in combat, use . . ." The only exception given is if the parent is in combat AND has fewer ranks than its enemy.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

As Darknight points out, the wording still isn't a 100% clear (surprise, surprise). I agree that according to the FAQ the parent does not need to be in combat itself. However, as he also points out, it does seem that if the Regiment is in close combat and as a result is not steadfast itself, then the Detachment cannot be steadfast either, even if it would be steadfast on its own merit.
I guess, GW still has not thought this through.

@ Commandant: what Darknight says. Both main camps obviously held that for the Detachment to be steadfast, the Regimental Unit had to be steadfast in the first place.

[Darknight]

However, as you point out, it does seem that if the Regiment is in close combat and as a result is not steadfast istelf, then the Detachment cannot be steadfast either, even if it would be steadfast on its own merit.

I think the implication is that the detachment has no "own merit"; it lives or dies as an extension of the parent?