Updates to the 6th ed rulings thread?

[Mannahnin]

Flamers:

Does a flamer using the Wall of Death rule have to worry about placing the template over allies?" No, because the template is never placed. Indeed, the enemy unit doesn't even have to be within range; Wall of Death Overwatch attacks are an exception to the usual rules for line of sight and range.”

Are they definitely an exception to the rules for LOS?  Range and template placement conform to what the book says, but I don’t see an exception for LOS.  So, for example, if a squad of flamers is straddling the solid wall of a ruin, with some on one side and some on the other, and a unit charges from one direction where they can’t be seen by half the unit of flamers, it appears to me that the half that can’t see wouldn’t be able to perform WoD, as it’s still a shooting attack.

Power Weapons:

Can I model whatever kind of power weapon I want on my guy?" A model can be equipped with whatever options it came with, per the package. Slapping axes on Death Cult Assassins is modeling for advantage, and the models would be removed at any tournament I'm judging.

Does this ruling still apply?  I’ve seen it played otherwise at pretty much every event I’ve attended since the Feast of Blades qualifier, although only a couple of those were at BG.  Deathcults with Sword & Axe seem to be part of the landscape, now.

Assaulting and terrain:

Do units that are not slowed by difficult terrain suffer an initiative penalty in close combat if they do not have grenades?" Nope, they can strike at their normal initiative.

This ruling is obsolete now, right? The GW FAQ contradicted it.

Skyfire/Death ray:
I think this is mentioned three times in the thread, but it's also been outdated by the GW FAQs ruling that the Death Ray can't hit flyers.

If a model has the Eternal Warrior special rule, it is thereby 'immune to the effects of Instant Death.'  Does this mean that FnP can be taken against ID wounds on a model that has Eternal Warrior?" Yes. Nurglings are badass.

While I agree with the ruling, it's another one that GW changed in the BRB FAQ.

Anyway, any updates to that thread would be awesome, just cleaning out obsolete rulings and clarifying calls on remaining ambiguities.

Thanks!

[Banosby]

Agreed, the rules thread needs some cleaning up after the most recent FAQ.

Also, a couple of questions:

If a non-scoring unit joins with a scoring unit (i.e. an IC and another unit), is the entire unit scoring, non-scoring, or are the models retain their original scoring status?

If a unit has a bonus for being in a deployment zone (from Warlord traits), does the bonus accrue when the entire unit is in the zone, when part of the unit is in the zone, when the majority of the unit is in the zone, or some other option?

[Chase]

I'll pass this along.

[Grimwulfe]

Agreed, the rules thread needs some cleaning up after the most recent FAQ.

Also, a couple of questions:

If a non-scoring unit joins with a scoring unit (i.e. an IC and another unit), is the entire unit scoring, non-scoring, or are the models retain their original scoring status?

If a unit has a bonus for being in a deployment zone (from Warlord traits), does the bonus accrue when the entire unit is in the zone, when part of the unit is in the zone, when the majority of the unit is in the zone, or some other option?

Joining an IC to a unit NEVER takes away the fact that the unit is scoring.

Since it is a warlord trait I would assume that the warlord would need to be in the zone not just part of the sqaud.  Once he is in that zone he would grant the trait. 

This is how I view them obviously Sam has final say.

[Sam]

Flamers:
Flamer templates do not require line of sight in any case, which is why there is no reference to line of sight in the Wall of Death rules.

Power Weapons:
That ruling has not applied since July 8th, 2012. http://www.battlegroundgames.com/forum/index.php?topic=4388.msg40527#msg40527

Assaulting and Terrain:
Follow the FAQ.

Skyfire/Death Ray:
Follow the FAQ.

Eternal Warrior:
Follow the FAQ.

That rules thread was mainly a stopgap until an actual FAQ appeared. If the official rules ever contradict my uninformed opinion from several months ago, go with the official rules. Maybe we should just unstick that thread and be done with it.

For Simon:
An IC is considered to be part of the unit it joins for all purposes, so yes, the entire unit is now scoring. You can snag that objective with the Librarian's toe.

The wording is nice and ambiguous. Given that it's a personal trait, it makes sense to just grant it when the IC is in the deployment zone.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Assaulting and terrain:

Do units that are not slowed by difficult terrain suffer an initiative penalty in close combat if they do not have grenades?" Nope, they can strike at their normal initiative.

This ruling is obsolete now, right? The GW FAQ contradicted it.

Where does the FAQ contradict this?

[the_trooper]

Assaulting and terrain:

Do units that are not slowed by difficult terrain suffer an initiative penalty in close combat if they do not have grenades?" Nope, they can strike at their normal initiative.

This ruling is obsolete now, right? The GW FAQ contradicted it.

Where does the FAQ contradict this?

It's pretty clear on page 3.

[Sir_Prometheus]

ah, I see it now, thanks. 

[Mannahnin]

Power Weapons:
Okay, revised power weapon ruling is:

For each undefined power weapon in your army, you may select one of the four options presented in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. The weapon must be modeled appropriately, and your selection MUST be included on your army list. Any power weapon not specified on your printed army list will be treated as a generic power sword.

Perfect!  I do now remember seeing this.  I had forgotten; mea culpa.

Flamers:
Flamer templates do not require line of sight in any case, which is why there is no reference to line of sight in the Wall of Death rules.

Where are you finding a rule saying template weapons don't need LOS?  I don't see that.  The basic rules for shooting are that each model needs to have LOS and range (p13) in order to fire, and the WoD rules (52) remove the range restriction for templates, but nothing ever appears to remove the LOS requirement.

That rules thread was mainly a stopgap until an actual FAQ appeared. If the official rules ever contradict my uninformed opinion from several months ago, go with the official rules. Maybe we should just unstick that thread and be done with it.

I think "uninformed opinions" is an unjust way to describe fair rulings made by a hardworking organizer, made in careful consideration of precedent and balance.  Those are important to have whenever there are gaps. 

I think the thread still has uses; there are definitely still ambiguities which could use rulings.  I think you’re right that the thread can be revised/trimmed now that the BRB FAQ and the second round of updated codex FAQs are out and have resolved some questions.

[Benjamin]

I think the thread still has uses; there are definitely still ambiguities which could use rulings.  I think you’re right that the thread can be revised/trimmed now that the BRB FAQ and the second round of updated codex FAQs are out and have resolved some questions.

I completely agree.

[Banosby]

This is probably less a question for Sam and more a question for people who know the rules better than I do, but what happens if I announce a charge and in overwatch all the models that can see the enemy unit die, but I still have models that can see the enemy? Does the charge fail because my unit cannot see the enemy, or does the charge succeed because line of sight is checked when the charge is announced and then ignored thereafter?

[Benjamin]

Yeah, I think you'd still be allowed to charge.

Check LOS.
If LOS, then declare the charge.
Resolve Overwatch.
Roll for random assault distance.
Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Seems legit.

[Banosby]

That's what I thought, but I figured I'd check with people.