ok so having pondered what kashka said last night, i wish to discuss this more. because i think i know what hes saying, although i think hes wrong.

as written

"When shot at, flying vehicles follow the same rules as skimmers moving over 12", so all penetrating hits against them are always downgraded to glancing hits."


the second part describes both flyers and skimmers moving over 12", that means both get glancing.
this means that flyers have glancing.
if the rule is accepted as correct then when we play apoc then skimmers that move over 12" get glancing because thats what it says as written but since the knew rule book say skimmers that move over 12" get a cover then they also get cover but since rules as written says "When shot at, flying vehicles follow the same rules as skimmers moving over 12", then they both are the same so they both get glancing and 4+ cover. so is that what we want?

i think its a question of intent and we can fight about that for hours. it apears to me that if there intent was for fyers to always glance they would have just said " When shot all penetrating hits are downgraded to glancing hits." but by as written they tie the rules for flyers to the rules for skimmers and since the rules for skimmers changed so did the rules for flyers.

Agreed on the intent. It could have been worded better if they fully intended glancing no matter what.

I wanted to comment further but I guess I'm not completely following your direction on how both rules would occur. So I'll keep my input limited.

Flyers follow skimmers. The first part makes that very clear. Skimmers only ever get 4+ now in 5th. The sentence doesn't read "Flyers follow skimmers AND all penentrating hits against them are always downgraded." There is really no way to interpret it any way as such. If the sentence had an AND or an even OR in it, this would be a completely moot point. However since it's a "so", there aren't two different/distinct things being said in the sentence. There's one point that's following the pre-defined definition of the other.

You simply cannot separate the sentence into two parts. It would read like this:

"Flyers follow skimmer rules and thus get a 4+ cover save when moving over 12" so all penentrating hits against them are always downgrade to glancing hits."

See how that doesn't make sense? The "so" completely makes that impossible to do with this sentence. If I had to argue intent, which I don't like doing anymore, it's completely obvious that they intended for only one rule period, and it was glancing at the time.

I'm not sure if I followed your logic path or not. :)

I just got my IA apoc books and the second book has an appendix in it for flyers.

Cover save for obscured. 4+ cover save.

that is settled. As is Destroyer hits on Gargantuans. Immune to instant death.. 1 wound.

Kashka wrote:
I just got my IA apoc books and the second book has an appendix in it for flyers.

Cover save for obscured. 4+ cover save.

that is settled. As is Destroyer hits on Gargantuans. Immune to instant death.. 1 wound.

In IMperial Armor Apocalypse 2? I haven't picked it up yet. Care to comment on whether or not it is worth buying?

Imperial Armor Apocalypse 1 was pretty much not worth anywhere near the $50 that I spent on it.

the new formations are cool, but alone not worth a new book.

but in my opinion yes worth buying. Why?
a) apoc errata
2) Apoc Missions!

Hmm. The formations in IA:A1 were terrible too: "Have you ever wanted to buy 40 Death Korps Rough Riders? If so, THERE'S A FORMATION FOR THAT!"(and it's really, really, really bad to boot!).

I'll have to throw the book on my next FW order, if only to get the rules for Dad's new FW Lord of Change that we got him for Christmas. I hear his rules are absurd(and they should be, for 999 points).

Normally, I don't consider FW rules errata to be law, since they really have nothing to do with the design studio, but in this case it sounds like they went with the "common sense" answers and I'm cool with that. I wonder if Adepticon is going to accept these for Gladiator this year...

of course you take FW rules with a grain of salt, but they did seem very sensible.. and its apocalypse.. GW wont errata it but this will work for friendly games.

A-couple of the new formations are cool, and will be used(broadside formation sweet!)I was not that impressed with the lord of change... he's good and cool.. but mostly anti-psychic powers... and the model is only so-so

Tyler keeps telling me a new Gladiator FAQ should be out soon

That was one of the formations that caught my eye when I looked the FW entry for the book.

What do they do in a pinch? I imagine they can combine their railguns to do D shots?

Kashka wrote:

Tyler keeps telling me a new Gladiator FAQ should be out soon

It was supposed to be out the beginning of January. I think that is part of why Gladiator hasn't sold out yet, unlike all of the other 40k events at Adepticon. I know that it is why I am holding out...

The Word Bearer wrote:

I'll have to throw the book on my next FW order, if only to get the rules for Dad's new FW Lord of Change that we got him for Christmas. I hear his rules are absurd(and they should be, for 999 points).

If only you had known which type of absurd the rules were.