Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a
Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a
transport vehicle?

A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is
still worked out from the vehicle?s fire points
(this will count as one model shooting through
that fire point if the power is used in the
Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight
and has a range or an area of effect that is
normally measured from the model using it, these
are measured from the vehicle?s hull, as
explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Q. My Imperial Guard or Black Templar Codex
says that dedicated transports can only be used
by the unit they?ve been bought for. Is that
overruled by the new way dedicated transports
work in 5th Edition?

A. No, if a Codex clearly says that dedicated
transports can only be used during the game by
the unit that bought them, that overrules the
general rule in the rulebook, as normal.
Obviously some armies are stricter than others
about transport regulations


LOL

ad1 danke für klarstellung.
ad2 einfach nur

BTL
Xun

Q. Can a unit go to ground if affected by attacks
that do not cause wounds (e.g. lash of
submission)?

A. You might, but such a move would be foolish,
as it would have no effect other than stopping the
unit from doing anything of its own volition in its
next turn. The rules are quite clear that anything
the enemy inflicts onto the unit works normally
so in the example above, the Lash of Submission
would still work normally onto the unit and the
unit would still be ?gone to ground? in its next
turn. In other words, the only benefit of going to
ground is to increase a unit?s cover save, so if you
don?t have to take any cover saves (e.g. you have
been hit by a flamer), don?t bother!

Deutsch: Auf den Boden werfen hilft nicht gegen Lash (Peitsche der Unterwerfung)

leck mich......me hates errata.......eínen schritt voru nd einen zurück..vor und zurück....

Q. On page 59, the rules for the arc of fire of
pintle-mounted (or bolt-on) weapons address
those mounted on turrets and those mounted
directly on the hull. But what about those
mounted on smaller structures (like a Rhino?s
cupola) that look like they can rotate 360?, even
though they aren?t proper turrets?
A. Remember that the rule is: if it looks like you can point the gun at it, then you can, even if it?s glued in place?. The rest is just a set of guidelines about the arcs of fire of weapons glued in place, and does not cover all possible weapons mounting and vehicles. If the structure the gun is pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of rotating 360?, like in the case of a Rhino?s cupola, then it should be treated as having a 360? arc of fire. However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360?, it won?t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback?s main turret, and so it will have a ?blind spot?. In the same way, the shuriken catapult mounted under the hull of a Wave Serpent, Falcon, etc. looks like it can rotate 360?, but it does not look like it can be fired through the main hull right behind it, so we normally play that it can be fired roughly in the 180? to the vehicle?s front, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

Juhu mein Rhino Sturmbolter hat wieder 360 Grad Sicht. und der auf meinen land Raider auch, denn da ist nichts im Weg auf dem Dach. Außer der Kopf vom Fahrer und den kann er ja einziehen