Yup. As far as I know, they both still stack. If someone at CB wants to do something about it, they should do something about it.
Usually when a game company previews an upcoming rules change, that game company identifies it for what it is. :-/ If you make an announcement on a podcast that results in a thirteen page thread trying to figure out what the hell is going on, that's generally a sign that the person making the announcement messed up. Usually.
For what it’s worth, that’s because Full Auto was updated in Daedalus’ Fall, which means that the only printed book containing the rule, the DF new rules PDF and the wiki all say that it doesn’t stack. So it’s not a great example to use.
Agreed. GW came out with a big change to the Bolter rule a while back, it's technically in Open Beta. It's even called Beta Bolter Rules! And it was announced on the Warhammer Community blog. It's even noted that it may change when finally officially released.
They could use the front page of their website for this kind of thing, instead of just copy/pasting Google translated fluff from other sources.
Cb needs to differentiate between faqs and errata, and anybody else who is working with them should do the same, and tell them to do so. Is very confusing having explanation-like-faq changing the ruleset. A faqs should be an answer based on the ruleset, and errata or updates should be the ones changing the ruleset. Full auto was a good example of a bad performed change. It appeared, we knew of its combination with suppression fire the first day (really, we were discussing it in the old forum the same day we got the pdf), and what we got from some people from inside was "yup, that's how it is supposed to work". Months later we get a comment in the forum, and later a faq+errata document (for the interplanetary) with no mention about that comment or change, and then the change in the book. All that with an fluf-explanation for those rules interaction that was absurd once we got the second troop with FA2 (if feverbach can not enter suppression fire, how can be explained can it have the -3 from FA as beig the same malus as suppression fire?)
I'm thinking of adding this to the unsolved question thread, could you confirm me I have everything summed up : Question 1 : can all troopers in a core fireteam be replaced by wildcard trooper : 1- Yes no limitation 2- No at least 1 trooper must be a non-wildcard Example: is this Ghulam core fireteam legal (Qapu Khalqi) ? HAFZA Heavy Rocket Launcher / Assault Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 18) HAFZA Lieutenant Spitfire / Pistol, Knife. (1 | 22) LEILA SHARIF Hacker (Killer Hacking Device) Shock Marksman Rifle, D-Charges / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0 | 20) Open in Infinity Army Question 2 : can a wildcard Harris replace the harris model of an harris fireteam ? (same question for a wildcard duo in a duo fireteam) 1 - Yes no limitation 2 - No the harris trooper must be a non wildcard Example : is this Harris Djanbazan fireteam legal (Qapu Khalqi) ? ODALISQUE (Fireteam: Haris) Rifle + Light Shotgun, Nanopulser / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 25) ODALISQUE Rifle + Light Shotgun, Nanopulser / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 24) DJANBAZAN HMG / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 35) Open in Infinity Army
Maybe the wildcard rule could be changed to something like "this trooper counts as any other trooper when forming fireteams", if the intent is for them to substitute even the mandatory troopers for thar fireteam
@Arkhos94 @Armihaul Reminder - the official current rule for Wildcards and Fireteams: Core is: When creating a Fireteam: Core that includes Wildcard troopers, you must include at least one trooper from one of the units listed for that Fireteam in the Sectorial chart, or a trooper who counts as one of those units. So question 1 is not unsolved, and and they are not supposed to count as any other member.
Yes. I know, but at the same time that answer can bring new doubts or problems. Can the wildcard be a substitute for a mandatory trooper for a special fireteam? Does this only applies to core, but not to duo, haris or any other?
