three questions

[Valenae]

1) If one unit have two warscrolls (same name) can I choose witch to use in Pitched Battles?

2) Some units (as Shades) deploy in shadows and set up after set up is complete. If I have one normal unit and 4 units of shadows and opponent have 3 units who will finished deployment first? Eg should I use my "set up" turn to put Shaded in shadows?

3) Unit counts in cover if it is within scenery. In FAQ is question "Must a model be 100% within scenery to gains cover and answer is Yes. But within means that model must be in equal or less distance. Why so?

[Melcavuk]

1) the most recent version of a warscroll is always considered the official and relevant one

 

2) I have always played it that you must "set up" these units (like Stormcast in celestial realm) so each time you put one off to the side uses one of your deployments so in your example your opponent would finish deploying first

 

3) wholly within means that no part of the model, unit, or base may be outside the cover if the unit is to gain benefits of cover. I.e. If half you base is outside the cover, you aren't in cover

[Nico]

On 3 - measuring base to base means that only the entire base need be on cover, not the long lance too.

[Valenae]

On 3 - measuring base to base means that only the entire base need be on cover, not the long lance too

I remind you, that measuring from bases is home rule.

In rules model counts in cover when it is within scenery. Not "wholly within".

My question was why FAQ insist that all model (or base) needed to be in cover? I think this should be ERRATA not FAQ.

1) the most recent version of a warscroll is always considered the official and relevant one

Can you give reference to GW source? why you think so?

 Because I didn't found any rules that some warscrolls counts as illegal.

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, Valenae said:

On 3 - measuring base to base means that only the entire base need be on cover, not the long lance too

I remind you, that measuring from bases is home rule.

In rules model counts in cover when it is within scenery. Not "wholly within".

My question was why FAQ insist that all model (or base) needed to be in cover? I think this should be ERRATA not FAQ.

1) the most recent version of a warscroll is always considered the official and relevant one

Can you give reference to GW source? why you think so?

 Because I didn't found any rules that some warscrolls counts as illegal.

To 1.) In open and narrative games there shouldn't be any illigal warscrolls. The only cases you get is, that you can only units in matched play with a pitched battle profile (which are made for the latest published warscroll in most cases) and perhaps this part of the FAQ

Quote

Q: I have two different warscrolls for the same unit, can I choose which to use, or must I use the most recently publiced version?

A: You can choose which warscroll to use, but it may be more convienient for your opponent if you use the most recently published version, especially if the earlier version is no longer readily available.

And some sort of balancing is only ensured if the latest warscroll is used with the latest points.

To three. I don't know if the question was correctly read or the question has a typo, when the answer was given.

Quote

Q: Must a model be 100% within scenery to gain cover?

A: Yes, all of the models must be within cover for the coverbonus to apply. Note that all of the models in a unit must be in cover for the unit to receive the modifier.

If you look at the complete answer, not only the "yes", there is no point saying that the entire model has to be in cover. Only that all models have to be in cover to get the bonus. Their could only be the point that the guy who answered didn't used the 100% or he thought unit instead of model. So the unit in picture 1 won't get coverbonus because of the model with the red cross and in the second picture they would get the cover bonus.

 

[Nico]

Quote

If you look at the complete answer, not only the "yes", there is no point saying that the entire model has to be in cover.

That is a rather confusing response as you say. It's as if it's a response to "Must a unit be entirely be in cover to...?"

[Valenae]

If you look at the complete answer, not only the "yes", there is no point saying that the entire model has to be in cover. Only that all models have to be in cover to get the bonus. Their could only be the point that the guy who answered didn't used the 100% or he thought unit instead of model. So the unit in picture 1 won't get coverbonus because of the model with the red cross and in the second picture they would get the cover bonus.

 In FAQ there are "A: Yes, all of the model must be within cover"

Model, not modelS

 

To 1.) In open and narrative games there shouldn't be any illigal warscrolls. The only cases you get is, that you can only units in matched play with a pitched battle profile (which are made for the latest published warscroll in most cases) and perhaps this part of the FAQ

Some units have two warscrolls with same name. And player may not even know that his warscroll was updated.

Example is Frostfire Phoenix

It have warscroll in free High elves book and warscroll in Order book. And it have cost for it in Pitched Battle profile.

In FAQ there are recommendation to use last warscroll, but not requirement.

[EMMachine]

33 minutes ago, Valenae said:

In FAQ there are "A: Yes, all of the model must be within cover"

Model, not modelS

Hm, english isn't my native language but "all of the model" in case of "all parts of the model" sounds pretty wrong to me. "all of the models" makes more sense to me for grammatical purposes. (And the question isn't varifiable that way with the rules)

Another point is, is this a question that was already in the 1.0 FAQ? Sometimes I had the feeling with such questions that someone without ruleknowlage had answered.

It's the same with the question:

Q: What is 'set-up' exacly?

The answer thats told to that question isn't varifiable by the rules. Even worse. The answer said that you can set-up units within 3" of enemy models in the movementphase, while the movementphase itself says that it's forbitten to move into 3". And in most cases this set-up counts as there movement in the movementphase, so it should have the same restrictions as normal movement.

Perhaps the questions of the 1.0 FAQ should be reworked (like the question if the unitsname or the keyword is used for a battalion. That question had the totally wrong direction in 1.0 and was changed in 1.1.

 

 

[Valenae]

The answer said that you can set-up units within 3" of enemy models in the movementphase, while the movementphase itself says that it's forbitten to move into 3". And in most cases this set-up counts as there movement in the movementphase, so it should have the same restrictions as normal movement.

Don't see any problem there.

Most "deep strike" units have words "set up within 9 of enemy."

If they don't have that words - you can set up it within enemy.

[Nico]

Quote

The answer thats told to that question isn't varifiable by the rules. Even worse. The answer said that you can set-up units within 3" of enemy models in the movementphase, while the movementphase itself says that it's forbitten to move into 3". And in most cases this set-up counts as there movement in the movementphase, so it should have the same restrictions as normal movement.

This isn't a problem. It's a good thing. There are times where a rule is intended to allow units to set up adjacent to enemy models (e.g. Horrors splitting when already in combat). It would have been far better had they always tacked on "a more than X" away" wording to any set up rules that needed it, rather than the complicated mess of rules that were both a set up and a move.

[Terry Pike]

2 hours ago, Valenae said:

In FAQ there are recommendation to use last warscroll, but not requirement.

If you are intending to go to any tournaments you would need to use the latest version of a Warscoll. This is noted in the tournament pack for the event.

[Squirrelmaster]

4 hours ago, EMMachine said:

Hm, english isn't my native language but "all of the model" in case of "all parts of the model" sounds pretty wrong to me. "all of the models" makes more sense to me for grammatical purposes. (And the question isn't varifiable that way with the rules)

"All of the model" refers to one model only — all parts of it. 100% of the model.

"All of the models" refers to more than one model. Every model in a unit.

That is how English grammar works.

The FAQ states 2 things:

1. All parts of a model must be entirely within cover for that one model to count as being "in cover". (1 model, 100% inside cover)
2. All models in a unit must be "in cover" for the unit to receive the modifier. (More than one model, every one of them inside cover).

In other words, every part of every model in the unit must be entirely in the cover to get the bonus save. If one guy has a leg sticking outside of the forest, the unit does not get the save.

8 hours ago, EMMachine said:

 

Both units in this diagram do not get saves.

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

The FAQ states 2 things:

1. All parts of a model must be entirely within cover for that one model to count as being "in cover". (1 model, 100% inside cover)
2. All models in a unit must be "in cover" for the unit to receive the modifier. (More than one model, every one of them inside cover).

In other words, every part of every model in the unit must be entirely in the cover to get the bonus save. If one guy has a leg sticking outside of the forest, the unit does not get the save.

The strange thing is, that the FAQ alters the coverrules (thats not what a FAQ should do, it should only clarify rules. Changing rules is the job of the errata).

The corerules only say that all models of the unit have to be within or on the terrain feature.

When we look at the rules, what is meant with "within", in most cases its the shortest distance beween the model and the measuring point.

So in case of 'within 1" ' the following is legit (the green line should be the 1" zone around the model.

 

When following the rules of the rulebook for cover the second picture would be legit.

The models are within the terrain like the the model is within 1" of the other model.

In that case, when following the rules the answer in the faq is incorrect because it didn't follow the given rules and changing rules is part of the errata not the faq.

When they want to change the rules, they should change them via Errata or give us new rules. But the FAQ Answer is simply wrong, by comparing them with the mechanics given by the rules. He made things up that aren't written in the rules.

[Squirrelmaster]

@EMMachine To be honest, it doesn't really matter if it's an FAQ or an Errata — it is GW's official ruling and you can expect most players to treat it as such.

The FAQ is clear; When measuring if a unit/model is within a certain distance of a measuring point, we only consider the shortest distance, but when measuring if a model is within cover, it must be wholly within cover.

[EMMachine]

7 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

The FAQ is clear; When measuring if a unit/model is within a certain distance of a measuring point, we only consider the shortest distance, but when measuring if a model is within cover, it must be wholly within cover.

The FAQ is counterproductive because it reisen more questions that clearing them. If the FAQ had answered the question like the rules said instead of making things up, we wouldn't even have this questions in the Thread. It was clearing before and not we have the conflict. 

Should I remind you that the first FAQ Where this question First showed up had created broken Battalions  (Seraphon Battalions only consisting Monsters because they have the Keyword Skinks) because the guy who answered said the Keyword counts not the Warscroll name (in the question, if Skarsnik could be Part of the Battalion while the Battalion only said Grot Warboss). These guys were making things up without even reading the rules and realizing the consequences their answered had.

The bad thing with the cover FAQ is, units that need the cover Bonus most (massinfantery with low save need never get the Bonus because there unit doesn't fit into cover while eliteinfantery that doesn't need it because of 3+ Save get the cover everytime.

Its quite bad for balance because of that error that was made in the faq.

The only thing I want is, that GW checked there FAQ for flaws, so the FAQ only clarifies the rules not alter them. And the parts where they want to alter the rules is by using the Errata. In that way, we will get less of these questions as forumposts.

[Valenae]

The FAQ is clear; When measuring if a unit/model is within a certain distance of a measuring point, we only consider the shortest distance, but when measuring if a model is within cover, it must be wholly within cover.

If model must be wholly within scenery to gain cover why it doesn't need to be wholly within distance of buffs to gain bonuses?

The wording is same isn't it?

 

Thanks for answers!

 

Offtopic:

Sad that not only FAQ have so many mistakes.

There are some battalions in Pitched Battles Profile that includes units that doesn't have Pitched Battles Profiles.

So there are totally useless in PB games but they have point costs....

And I think GH2017 add more problems than fixes....