Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the new dark eldar codex jetbikescan now fly over a unit and do hits to the unit. My question is do only the reavers that moved over the unit get their hits or does every reaver get its hits if only one model in the squad moves over an enemy unit. I saw a game where only 1 out of 5 reavers revers moved over an enemy unit. the other 4 could not due to not having enough movement. Do all 5 still get their hits?

The rule refers to unit, so the way it is written it looks like they would all get the attacks so long as at least one model overflies the target. Although the imaginary line thing makes it a little more complicated. Does the line come from the middle of the unit?

Every model in the unit hits you if even one model flies over you.

The line comes from anywhere you want, unless directed otherwise.

The rule states that the unit has to overfly. It also has you drawing a line between the unit's start and end position.

Not sure how you're supposed to determine the position of a multi-model unit though - the centermost model? the lead model? some sort of averaging to determine a center?

Although it isn't official FAQ (nor are the GW ones, but whatever), Gwar!'s FAQ answers your question Scott quite well.

I'd say as long as one model from the reaver unit overflies one model from the target unit the attacks are made.

The rule says to draw a line between the starting and ending position of the unit.

Firstly, we have nothing telling us how to identify a point which is the position of a multi-model unit.

Secondly, that line may be very different to the path the unit took (e.g. if the unit did not move in a straight line), so I would suggest that simply "overflying" is not an adequate method for determining this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morans wrote:Although it isn't official FAQ (nor are the GW ones, but whatever), Gwar!'s FAQ answers your question Scott quite well.

I like Gwar! and his FAQs but they are not official rule sources. Specifically, they are not official rule sources for this forum.

That is correct. Although it means that you could move the unit so that it does not overfly a specific unit and still be able to target that unit, as it is on the line between start and end points. I am not sure why this would be done, but it does fit the letter of the rule.

Morans wrote:Although it isn't official FAQ (nor are the GW ones, but whatever), Gwar!'s FAQ answers your question Scott quite well.

Which is 1) once again, only relevant if you choose to use Gwar's FAQ and 2) starting to verge on spam.

Either post an answer, or move on. Just posting that somebody answered this question elsewhere, in their own unofficial FAQ, is not an answer to the question and does nothing to further the discussion in any sort of positive way.

In the future, please stick to addressing the actual topic, and leave presenting Gwar's opinion of the rules to Gwar.

So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

Morans wrote:So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

I think it's more there is a seeming a collection of users who would either, defer to this 'Gwar' character than develop their opinions of the rules (note yakface hasn't even posted in this thread...) and seemingly more so, saying well this FAQ answer your question quite well. Which it doesn't as an FAQ is essentially a single or at best a collection of peoples opinions, much as whenever someone touts the INAT it's shot down fairly quickly by the mods.

Personally as the wording says "mark the start and end points" where it could have said mark the 'start and end point' I take it to mean the width of the unit.

Morans wrote:So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

INAT is also not mentioned in the list of valid sources for this forum.

Find an example of another user repeatedly referring people to the INAT while not actually adding anything to the discussion and I'll concede your point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Personally as the wording says "mark the start and end points" where it could have said mark the 'start and end point' I take it to mean the width of the unit.

That's an interesting way of defining it. However, it does not help us to draw a line (bearing in mind that a line has no width)

Scott-S6 wrote:

Morans wrote:So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

INAT is also not mentioned in the list of valid sources for this forum.

Find an example of another user repeatedly referring people to the INAT while not actually adding anything to the discussion and I'll concede your point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Personally as the wording says "mark the start and end points" where it could have said mark the 'start and end point' I take it to mean the width of the unit.

That's an interesting way of defining it. However, it does not help us to draw a line (bearing in mind that a line has no width)

(It's an "imaginary line" I'll imagne it with width even if it kills me!)
But seriously,

??

Morans wrote:So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

You weren't given a warning, AFAIK. You were given a tip on a way to contribute to the discussion more usefully.

As Scott said, neither the Gwar FAQ nor the INAT FAQ are considered "official" sources of rules answers for the purposes of this forum. Some folks reference the INAT FAQ, as it is used at a fair number of tournaments, including, prominently, Adepticon. That said, they are expected to include a caveat when doing so, since it's not from GW.

If you want to copy & paste an intepretation from the INAT or Gwar's FAQ, generally because you agree with the ruling/find it to be well-written, you can do that. Just be sure to include a caveat/credit for its provenance. Simply pointing people at one of these looks more like an advertisement than a useful contribution to the discussion.

Morans wrote:So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

Not sure if Gwar!...

Morans wrote:So why is Gwar's opinion less valid than yakfaces? I bet you don't give warnings to people of they quote the INAT, like you just did me.

4 things:
1: You weren't issued a warning. That will change, however, if you continue dragging threads off topic in this fashion.

2: Gwar's opinion is no less valid than Yakface's. And no more or less valid than that of anyone else on this forum.

3: You didn't quote Gwar's FAQ, you just mentioned that it contained Gwar's answer to this question. Which is as much use to the discussion as pointing out that it was answered on 'random internet person's' Blog. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion happening here. An actual quote (with the caveat Mannahnin mentioned), or presenting your own opinion, does.

4: I post more or less the same message to people who present the INAT as a source of rules for the discussions on this forum. It's only relevant if you actually use that FAQ in your games and so as Mannahnin said, it should be presented as such, rather than as an actual rules-based answer to the question. I would also expect people to quote the relevant passage, rather than simply spamming the forum by mentioning that it is addressed in there somewhere...


If you really wish to discuss this further, feel free to take it to PM with any of the mods.

I actually personally try to remind people that quoting the INAT for an answer to a rules question without any sort of backing rules reference or explanation is pointless...it is just the opinion of one group of gamers.

So saying 'Gwar's FAQ answers the question nicely' is misleading because Gwar's FAQ suggests (a very good) solution, but it is a solution that he essentially created in lieu of more explicit rules.

So its absolutely fine to follow his suggestion, but it needs to be understood that it *is* just one suggestion, just like a suggestion from the INAT would be the same thing...a suggestion of how to play unclear rules.


The answer is, there is no clear way to define where exactly to draw the line from, so you'll either need to both agree upon a suggestion (like Gwar's, for example) or come up with something else on your own.

I believe many here will give INAT more credence, because it is formulated by a committee of 9(?) people, with input from many many others, and has shown itself to be consistent over years of development; and is much more widely used that Gwars FAQ.

Morans, another issue, is that you have barely a dozen posts, and almost half are advocating, defending, or discussing Gwars FAQ.


I believe the best solution is to either approximate the center of the unit before and after. Or if over half of the models fly across the target unit.

ChrisCP wrote:(It's an "imaginary line" I'll imagne it with width even if it kills me!)
But seriously,

That's not a line.

However, it's a reasonably valid a way of working it out (and relatively easy to measure if you mark the edges of the starting position).

I meant in that diagram that that space is all vaild to contain the length of the line with each node placed somewhere along the widths.

ChrisCP wrote:I take it to mean the width of the unit.

Use the old rubber band rule (from 3rd and 4th ed terrain disputes)? Place an imaginary rubber band around the jetbike unit (using the bases, not the pole or part of the model) before and after moving, if you can draw a line from any starting point to any ending point that crosses over a unit then they get the hits. In this case you might need to actually lay down a string around the unit before moving it.

I thought it specified the model that flies over, however that is not the case. After re-reading, it is written, the unit inflicts X hits per Reaver after the line is drawn so only one of them need fly over a unit.

May the reaver unit fly over more than one opposing unit?

Given the reaver unit has enough movement to make the following maneuver, could the reaver unit fly "over" an opposing unit and return to the spot where it started? (e.g. Reaver unit begins its movement behind cover, flies over a unit within 12 inches and returns to the spot where it started the phases. The total movement would be 24 inches, 12 inches to the opposing unit and back)

Since this thread got a little bogged down with off-topic stuff, and there is now another thread discussing how the Reavers work, I'm going to lock this one for redundancy.