Known existing questions in need of a FAQ?, suggestions?

The way I worded them, I don't think that FAQ answer was sufficient to resolve them. The questions need the quallifying statement "in a unit" added somewhere as that specified why the question was being asked in the first place. Indeed, the FAQ answer doesn't really answer it even the way you have worded them, it only states you can't hit other models in the unit even though the hits are normally distibuted as shooting, the FAQ answer doesn't state you can single out models you wouldn't normally be able to (i.e. Characters in units).

I'll also point out it is the top question in the section on Characters from that Warseer thread DaemonReign posted a link to, so it seems there are a lot of other people having similar issues with this.

Team thanks for the ongoing input.

List in first post editted today.
I will be limited to phone reviews the next few days so won't comment much (same issue most of this week.)

Questions to be added
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=103230

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=103080

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=103844

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.ph...dde6f4&start=60

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=106106

regarding failed instability tests, are daemonic units required to take the re-roll from the BSB?

I called GW headquarters today and asked about the Flamers ballistic skill.
They said it is BS 5, and that it will be included in an upcoming FAQ.

The reason was that flamers now have multiple shot-rule and that kind of makes them like they were.

Anyone else heard or read anything about this?

That's just.. nuts.
Ok so Flamers are indeed BS 5. That cancels out the penalties for multiple shots. It would actually make them Worth taking now that they're a Special Choice. But..
... the only way to make the Pyrocaster anything but a joke (in that case) would be to give the Pyrocaster BS6..

I don't doubt for a second that this is what you were told Sandpeople. But you have to agree it sort of doesn't add up..
- Why introduce the penalty for multiple shots and raise the Ballistic Skill at the same time. What's the Point of such a zero sum game?

The plot thickens.. haha Kinda like in Fight Club: The Movie continues but (now) nobdoy in the audience has any idea what's going on.

The seemingly good news is that (yes!) Flamers do need to BS5 (or to ignore those penalties for multiple shots) in order to have a Place in anyone's list..

Definately interesting news Sandpeople. Thanks for cheering.

**sigh**

Now we're waiting for an Update to the FAQ for an addition to our list that came out in a White Dwarf but easily could have been just added to a FAQ in the first place?



Pardon the snark, but I was originally a WE player, so I guess I thrive on disappointment from a model company that also publishes rules so we buy more models to play our little army games.

Nice to hear they are going to BS 5 though (someday),

So at short range (1" to 9") we hit:

3's (Base 2 -1 for multiple shots) if No moving
4's (Base 2- 1 multiple shots, and -1 moving)
5's (Base 2- 1 multiple shots, -1 moving, -1 vs. skirmishers OR Soft cover)
6's (Base 2- 1 multiple shots, -1 moving, -1 vs. skirmishers AND Soft cover OR -2 vs. Hard cover)

So at long range (10"-18") we hit:

4's (Base 2 -1 for multiple shots, -1 Long range) if No moving
5's (Base 2- 1 multiple shots, -1 Long range, and -1 moving)
6's (Base 2- 1 multiple shots, -1 Long range, -1 moving, -1 skirmishers OR Soft cover)

(I'd probably take those chances to wipe out a character vs. the chances of a look out sir... Maybe, that's a whole new set of calculations to figure out though.)

AND an extra 1 in 6 chance of giving the Enemy unit a 6+ Regeneration! Yay! Which I can live with, it's funny and could make for an epic moment in a game, certainly more interesting.

Giving them BS5 and penalties for multiple shots is a zero sum game, isn't it?
Would have been exactly the same to just let them remain BS4 and keep the exception from those penalties.

Or wait.. Are you sure you can actually hit on 2+ with Shooting? Isn't 3+ as good as it ever gets?

brb p40

Another for my list
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=107046

Knowing where you're coming from Maynard I understand why you'd want an 'official' ruling on this issue, but the Army Book clearly says 'may' (as you've pointed out yourself in the past) and thus anyone arguing that you 'must' re-roll a failed instability check is just being a douche.
I know I'm a fluff-Bunny and Everything but in this particular case those TO's are just plain wrong and unless GW puts out an Errata that Changes the actual wording of our Army Book making this an actual FAQ-issue is giving these people waaay too much credit.

@ gjnoronh: You last posted link is definately something GW should Clean up. On the one hand the rules say that you may accidentally hit friendly units or units engaged in combats with ranged weapons, on the other hand they seem to say that you cannot attempt a shot where such a 'risk' is present.
It really is a mess.

The english language is clear enough imo for instability test BSB re-rolls, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in getting one if you have a chance of getting a worse result (aka, not helpful).

It just seems like people are reaching for an excuse here, as on warseer, you sort of have to sit back and shake your head when people go into semantic arguments on the definition and meaning of the word may. At the risk of insulting someone, it's just plain moronic and the epitome of stupid to argue the point.

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.ph...0bfb215ef2d1d52

Palanquin mounted characters are infantry?
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=110042