whocares wrote:
But I remember the djinn blade having some wording like, "So long as you are equipped with the djinn blade..." in reference to the two additional attacks.

It doesn't have that wording. It's a power weapon that sometimes gives 2 extra attacks.

DarknessEternal wrote:

whocares wrote:
But I remember the djinn blade having some wording like, "So long as you are equipped with the djinn blade..." in reference to the two additional attacks.

It doesn't have that wording. It's a power weapon that sometimes gives 2 extra attacks.

Actually, the wording is poorly done here, so I could see some people arguing for whocares's interpretation. I fully expect it to be in the FAQ at some point, and more to the point I would never abuse the poorly worded description that way or allow my opponent to do so.

smithmyster666 wrote:and does anybody agree that running an Archon with Soul trap, Husk blade, djin blade, combat drugs and a shadow field is going to be the nastiest combo ever
7 attacks on the charge that are power weapon hits with ID cant wait till january when i can afford an army

I took something similar to that basically, Archon with soul trap, husk blade, blast pistol, and a shadow field. Ran with a group of 3 Incubi, had a lot of fun with some BA marines, we were playing at a 1000 pts and the BA player took a really small army with a storm raven a squad of assault marines a death company with a chaplain, a dreadnought and Mephiston. Mephiston charges my Archon, we both go at the same time and I managed to wound him once, while champing all of my saves. I could have sworn Mephie had eternal warrior or a invul save but he didn't and I insta killed him, to bad I got nothing but a pain token for it : /

Yeah, the Djinn blade doesn't use an actual game term and as such it's unclear if they just want one to have the wargear or accack with the wargear. The selected word however simply means to be in possesion of, not to be using it etc.

Moving a raider or venom 12" disembarking 2.9" from the prow, and then shooting your front loaded 18" blaster shots is a strong new strategy. That all totals up to just under 33" threat range, which is good enough to start them off-table in any game where you lost the roll to go first.

Is disembarkation not 2"? Where's this 2.9" and 3" malarky that I've seen recently coming from?

The extra bit is your base size, as you only have to have part of your base inside the disembarkment area.

Oh yes how if you disembark a terminator 2" from a point he's actually 90mm closer to his enemy.

DarknessEternal wrote:

whocares wrote:
But I remember the djinn blade having some wording like, "So long as you are equipped with the djinn blade..." in reference to the two additional attacks.

It doesn't have that wording. It's a power weapon that sometimes gives 2 extra attacks.

This is misleading and incorrect. The actual wording in the Codex makes clear: 1. A Djin Blade is a power weapon; 2. The bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat. You roll them separately, and if you roll a double when rolling to hit, the blade makes two attacks against the bearer. The difference here is in the Codex entry for the Archon he can replace his CCW and Splinter Pistol with several weapons; however, he can then additionally take a Djin blade (As it lists the Djin blade under "Take any of the following:")

DaveL wrote:Actually, the wording is poorly done here, so I could see some people arguing for whocares's interpretation. I fully expect it to be in the FAQ at some point, and more to the point I would never abuse the poorly worded description that way or allow my opponent to do so.

GhostRecon wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

whocares wrote:
But I remember the djinn blade having some wording like, "So long as you are equipped with the djinn blade..." in reference to the two additional attacks.

It doesn't have that wording. It's a power weapon that sometimes gives 2 extra attacks.

This is misleading and incorrect. The actual wording in the Codex makes clear: 1. A Djin Blade is a power weapon; 2. The bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat. You roll them separately, and if you roll a double when rolling to hit, the blade makes two attacks against the bearer. The difference here is in the Codex entry for the Archon he can replace his CCW and Splinter Pistol with several weapons; however, he can then additionally take a Djin blade (As it lists the Djin blade under "Take any of the following:")

Yeah, exactly.

If their intent wasn't to allow the bearer two additional attacks even if they are not using that weapon, why allow it to be taken additionally?

And if you are playing the rules as intended...how is that abusive? You pay for it out the nose, and it's only strength 3. I would never "abuse" this simply...cause it's not that great.

whocares wrote:

DaveL wrote:Actually, the wording is poorly done here, so I could see some people arguing for whocares's interpretation. I fully expect it to be in the FAQ at some point, and more to the point I would never abuse the poorly worded description that way or allow my opponent to do so.

GhostRecon wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

whocares wrote:
But I remember the djinn blade having some wording like, "So long as you are equipped with the djinn blade..." in reference to the two additional attacks.

It doesn't have that wording. It's a power weapon that sometimes gives 2 extra attacks.

This is misleading and incorrect. The actual wording in the Codex makes clear: 1. A Djin Blade is a power weapon; 2. The bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat. You roll them separately, and if you roll a double when rolling to hit, the blade makes two attacks against the bearer. The difference here is in the Codex entry for the Archon he can replace his CCW and Splinter Pistol with several weapons; however, he can then additionally take a Djin blade (As it lists the Djin blade under "Take any of the following:")

Yeah, exactly.

If their intent wasn't to allow the bearer two additional attacks even if they are not using that weapon, why allow it to be taken additionally?

And if you are playing the rules as intended...how is that abusive? You pay for it out the nose, and it's only strength 3. I would never "abuse" this simply...cause it's not that great.

Allowing you to take it additionally, instead of as a replacement was, I believe, done so that you could chose to use it or not - it wouldn't replace his existing weapons, so you could take another weapon, and then chose not to use the Djin blade and suffer the chance of wasting its extra attacks... fighting some lower points, weaker troops, for example, instead of fighting tougher ones or characters.

GhostRecon wrote:

whocares wrote:

DaveL wrote:Actually, the wording is poorly done here, so I could see some people arguing for whocares's interpretation. I fully expect it to be in the FAQ at some point, and more to the point I would never abuse the poorly worded description that way or allow my opponent to do so.

GhostRecon wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

whocares wrote:
But I remember the djinn blade having some wording like, "So long as you are equipped with the djinn blade..." in reference to the two additional attacks.

It doesn't have that wording. It's a power weapon that sometimes gives 2 extra attacks.

This is misleading and incorrect. The actual wording in the Codex makes clear: 1. A Djin Blade is a power weapon; 2. The bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat. You roll them separately, and if you roll a double when rolling to hit, the blade makes two attacks against the bearer. The difference here is in the Codex entry for the Archon he can replace his CCW and Splinter Pistol with several weapons; however, he can then additionally take a Djin blade (As it lists the Djin blade under "Take any of the following:")

Yeah, exactly.

If their intent wasn't to allow the bearer two additional attacks even if they are not using that weapon, why allow it to be taken additionally?

And if you are playing the rules as intended...how is that abusive? You pay for it out the nose, and it's only strength 3. I would never "abuse" this simply...cause it's not that great.

Allowing you to take it additionally, instead of as a replacement was, I believe, done so that you could chose to use it or not - it wouldn't replace his existing weapons, so you could take another weapon, and then chose not to use the Djin blade and suffer the chance of wasting its extra attacks... fighting some lower points, weaker troops, for example, instead of fighting tougher ones or characters.

That's possible.

Or it could have been done because the djinn blade grants extra attacks even when you use another weapon.

Guess we will wait for an FAQ on the djinn blade front...

whocares wrote:
That's possible.

Or it could have been done because the djinn blade grants extra attacks even when you use another weapon.

Ohhh. I see the confusion here now. I went back and looked at the entry in the codex, and I think the actual text of the entry makes it pretty clear though - I used parts of the wording earlier. The Djin blade makes an exclusive and specific mention that the extra two bonus attacks occur for "the bearer" - comparative to any other "real" weapon entry, like say the Agonizer which specifies "Agonizers are power weapons that always wound on..." etc.

The Djin Blade says "A djin blade is a power weapon. Furthermore, the..." and goes on to talk about the extra bonus attacks. It says THE BEARER makes the extra attacks - not that the WEAPON makes the extra attacks. This is an important rules delineation that seems to imply that it is possible for a person holding a Djin Blade to use its two bonus attacks in close combat WITHOUT having to actually "use" the Djin Blade - however, of course, its important to remember that those two attacks have a specific, additional caveat. (That if you roll doubles, the two power weapon attacks automatically hit the bearer).

It gives good modelling opportnities - having a kickass sword and a kickass whip/agoniser thing... convert that onto the old lelith.. [/url=http://th05.deviantart.net/fs41/PRE/f/2009/037/7/3/731cd4e5ad223fc24d959f2abb3a87a5.jpg]*spanky*[/url]

Despite everyone's legal wrangling with the wording, I highly doubt the Djinn blade is going to allow those extra attacks with another special weapons abilities. You're messing w/ a mechanic of the game that has been around since 3rd edition. You're just setting yourselves up for a heartbreak assuming that this special weapon will alllow you to combine its ability with another special weapon. While you may need to have a FAQ for it, it is quite understandable this is not an area GW intended to cross into, stop looking for loop holes in wording to exploit the game.

Also this is not YMDC, move it there if you have further issue with this...

InventionThirteen wrote:Guess we will wait for an FAQ on the djinn blade front...

Why? The Rules are crystal clear.

Do you need an FAQ to tell you what toughness Warriors are?

Gwar! wrote:Do you need an FAQ to tell you what toughness Warriors are?

But Gwar! didn't you know that we are all so stupid that we need a FAQ for everything.

Rymafyr wrote:Despite everyone's legal wrangling with the wording, I highly doubt the Djinn blade is going to allow those extra attacks with another special weapons abilities. You're messing w/ a mechanic of the game that has been around since 3rd edition. You're just setting yourselves up for a heartbreak assuming that this special weapon will alllow you to combine its ability with another special weapon. While you may need to have a FAQ for it, it is quite understandable this is not an area GW intended to cross into, stop looking for loop holes in wording to exploit the game.

Also this is not YMDC, move it there if you have further issue with this...

GW has broken plenty of general rules with specific rules in the codex. There is no reason to think they will not continue to do so.

And, strictly RAW, the djinn blade DOES give the bonus attacks, even if armed with another weapon. It's not even a good combo, so I would hardly accuse someone who was trying it of "breaking the game."

RAI is an entirely different story, and up for debate. (not going to say either way here, I'm sure if they feel like clearing it up one way or another in an FAQ, they will)

And the title of this thread is "dark eldar rules discussion." This is a dark eldar rule. We are discussing it.

This is a general rules discussion about all of the new DE rules. It doesn't need to get bogged down w/ people selectively trying to rules lawer a specific issue. Again, move it to YMDC. That forum is specifically for these issues.

Oh thanks GWAR... awesome.

I meant that in a half hearted joke.


Do you need an FAQ to understand humor?

Rymafyr wrote:This is a general rules discussion about all of the new DE rules. It doesn't need to get bogged down w/ people selectively trying to rules lawer a specific issue. Again, move it to YMDC. That forum is specifically for these issues.

Well, I know it's not a thread about what type of thread it is.

Unless it's a highly philosophical thread.

Self aware, even.

Personally I'd go with the voidraven, yes its expensive but the ravager although cheaper, is a con. Think about it, whats a ravager, a raider with three dark lances and no transport capacity. Why waste 105 points and a slot on the force orgonisation chart on a single extra armour point when you can simply stick 10 trueborn in a raider with 2 dark lances and 2 blasters before if need be dismounting and slaughtering the enemy in close combat? Is it worth the extra 45 points for one more armour point and less guns? I don't think so.

Welcome to Dakka.

But resurrecting a year old thread with nothing much to add is called threadomancy and frowned upon here.

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.