Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Ok, not a rules question exactly, but id just like to point something out...
In the latest FAQ:
Q. If an attack is obviously based on fire (such as a Dwarf Flame Cannon’s shot), but it was published before the term ‘Flaming Attack’ was formalised in seventh edition, does it count as a Flaming Attack or not?
A. We cannot answer this question with an all encompassing rule (as a few ruthless individuals out there would be sure to exploit it for their evil schemes!), but in three specific cases we can be more precise: hits from Flame Cannons, Warpfire Throwers and Salamanders’ ranged attacks all count as Flaming Attacks.
I find it very frustrating that GW cannot make up their mind on this subject! Since i began playing Fantasy, they have gone back on themselves atleast 3 times! (Salamanders specifically: Non, Flaming, Non, and now Flaming again)
PS, i love the fact that someone at GW is clearly determined to label themselves a muppet. A Character in a unit is unable to see the unit he is in? Hahaha...
Last edited by Phoenix; January 18th, 2009 at 10:47.
Well, its about time the Flame Cannon has flaming attacks. Always seemed stupid that they missed that one out. The name and description says it fires fire, but the rules say no. =/ All better now. Not that it is the most popular weapon. Shame really.
There are some very weird rulings in there, I particularly like the character failing a charge out of a unit and then marching with the unit. Ah well, still the best way I can think to spend a rainy Saturday afternoon.
My strange ruling award would go to them legitamizing the conga line. Know you can get your first turn fanatics out there.
I am right 94% of the time, why worry about the other 3%.
It would help if they just released any new rules edition and army books all in one go and took the time to properly playtest things beforehand so that nonsense like this doesn't happen. Mind you, it would also help if instead of just releasing a new errata/FAQ for the main rule book, they also released updated errata/FAQ for the army books at the same time.)
I know that they must use the staggered releases of the army books to drive sales and interest over a few years (rather than a big peak and then fall off if they released everything all in one go), but I'm sure this gradual release thing must put some people off buying into armies if a rulebook hasn't beeen released for the current rules edition. As an example, I'm currently trying to decide on a 2nd army for when I've finished building my HE one so that I get some variety in what I play. At the moment I'm considering Warriors of Chaos or Tomb Kings as I like the look of some of the models in those armies. I've bought the WoC book to look through but as TK's haven't been redone yet I'm not buying their book at the moment and not buying into an army that could potentially be screwed in a few months when a new army book comes out.