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.
One question that I'd like to see answered that I didn't find in the FAQ is whether the +3 to Leadership while manifesting psychic powers applies to making any tests for Perils.
Check out my list building app for 40K and Fantasy:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576793.page
whigwam wrote: I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
The problem is that not ALL Troops are Obj Sec. I think that what everyone trying to point out to Blackmoor. That can happen if someone takes GK as an desperate allies or apoc allies so none of GK has Obj Sec. The ruling is correct. Unyielding Anvi don't automatic grant you Obj Sec that does not mean you can't gain Obj Sec by being a troop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: From the ETCFAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.
From that wording, If GK was my desperate allies or apoc allies i will gain Objective Secured? Codex > BRB.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/22 18:49:00
"those who know don't speak; those who speak don't know"
whigwam wrote: I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
The problem is that not ALL Troops are Obj Sec. I think that what everyone trying to point out to Blackmoor. That can happen if someone takes GK as an desperate allies or apoc allies so none of GK has Obj Sec. The ruling is correct. Unyielding Anvi don't automatic grant you Obj Sec that does not mean you can't gain Obj Sec by being a troop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: From the ETCFAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.
From that wording, If GK was my desperate allies or apoc allies i will gain Objective Secured? Codex > BRB.
You need to look at the Grey Knight FAQ to see that they cleared that up. (3rd page, right column errata for page 22).
whigwam wrote: I don't know why they ruled Unyielding Anvil like they did (iBook vs actualBook seems likely), but you can also look at it as a 'conflict' between an outdated codex/new edition.
Using the wording Blackmoor quoted, it seems clear: units elected to be Troops are Troops, and Troops have ObjSec. Pure and simple RAW...just like with the Phase Shifter/CCB. But strangely, I don't hear anyone here (or anywhere) championing the CCB getting a permanent 3++ save. That might be because it is A) obviously overpowered and B) flies in the face of the original RAI. An update in editions made a previously unremarkable piece of wargear into something amazing. Oops! Then everyone agreed to fix it. OK, all better now.
So with Unyielding Anvil: ObjSec on your entire army is incredibly powerful. Maybe too powerful. And, either way, definitely not in line with the RAI when the book was written way back in 5th. By not making Unyielding Anvil units ObjSec, sure, one of your many rules is now useless. But that's what happens when you're playing a book that's 2 editions old. S**t breaks, and if it breaks in your favor, prepare to get ruled against.
In short, to me it's a fair ruling. It's not RAW, and that's OK, because (as we've all seemed to agree on the CCB) sometimes RAW is stupid.
The problem is that not ALL Troops are Obj Sec. I think that what everyone trying to point out to Blackmoor. That can happen if someone takes GK as an desperate allies or apoc allies so none of GK has Obj Sec. The ruling is correct. Unyielding Anvi don't automatic grant you Obj Sec that does not mean you can't gain Obj Sec by being a troop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: From the ETCFAQ: 20. A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from the Objective Secured rule.
From that wording, If GK was my desperate allies or apoc allies i will gain Objective Secured? Codex > BRB.
You need to look at the Grey Knight FAQ to see that they cleared that up. (3rd page, right column errata for page 22).
no really. only thing that clear up is that Unyielding Anvil can't be use but if somehow unyielding anvil came into play then from that wording i will gain Objective Secured.
BAO ruling just trying to cover everything since they do run stupid stuff like beerhammer and might need to use that faq for some crazy stuff. only gods know what they are trying to pull. i think your first read you thought GK can't gain Obj Sec, which is not the case here.
"those who know don't speak; those who speak don't know"
Come on let's cut the Grey Knights some slack. You can argue endlessly like YMDC... It's totally pointless and trolling. The truth is the old grey mare ain't what she used to be.
This is both a little bit funny and a little bit over complex.
A unit benefiting from Unyielding Anvil will also benefit from Objective Secured. That does not mean every unit given Unyielding Anvil also gains Objective Secured, since not all Detachments gain Objective Secured on their Troops.
Keep in mind that not all Troops get Objective Secured (i.e., the Ork Horde), so a GK detachment without the Objective Secured rule [for its troops] would not confer Objective Secured to units within the detachment given the Unyielding Anvil rule.
A GK Detachment *with* the Objective Secured rule [for its Troops], on the other hand, would confer Objective Secured to units within the detachment given the Unyielding Anvil rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/23 00:27:38
Hollismason wrote: Wish I could make this but can't looks great!! Can't wait to see the pictures, battle reports , and to see how things shake out.
Prediction :
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Tyranid
I would say that you are really missing the bar by not including Tau, and I hope to prove that, or that someone else will. IMO Nids wouldn't make the cut.
Hollismason wrote: Wish I could make this but can't looks great!! Can't wait to see the pictures, battle reports , and to see how things shake out.
Prediction :
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Tyranid
I would say that you are really missing the bar by not including Tau, and I hope to prove that, or that someone else will. IMO Nids wouldn't make the cut.
Drop Pod Marines
Eldar
Knights/AM
Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato
Hollismason wrote: Wish I could make this but can't looks great!! Can't wait to see the pictures, battle reports , and to see how things shake out.
Prediction :
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Tyranid
I would say that you are really missing the bar by not including Tau, and I hope to prove that, or that someone else will. IMO Nids wouldn't make the cut.
Drop Pod Marines
Eldar
Knights/AM
Eldar
Daemons
Tau
If jy2 was playing Crons I would strongly consider putting them over Tau, but since he isn't, I'm not convinced.
How prevalent are Imperial Knights at tournaments? 1-2 as allies or 4-5 entire army?
IMO IKs are overrated. Now that is biased a little by the fact that I play a full melta Farsight Bomb so I chew one up and spit it out every turn. Seriously though. If you avoid close combat, there is not that good of an armor ment on it. It's not worth taking 3 to me just to overkill infantry and not be able to touch most tanks. (Unless you take the Melta Knight but most people don't take it if you field 1 or 2
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
.
