12265
Post by: Gwar!
(Title reedited by Gwar!)
First, the Legal Junk:
"The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ v0.5 by Gwar!" is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales Licence.
Please click and review the licence agreement before downloading "The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ v0.5 by Gwar!".
By downloading this document you agree to be bound by the above licence agreement.
I, the user of Dakkadakka.com known by the pseudonym “Gwar!”, have no affiliation with the owners of Dakkadakka.com, Adepticon or anyone on the INAT FAQ Council and this is NOT Part of the INAT FAQ nor am I aware of any approval or endorsement of this FAQ by them.
This FAQ is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.
Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos devices, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2009, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.
No challenge to the status of any other Trademarks, Registered Trademarks or copyrights is intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.
This thread is for feedback regarding the Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by Gwar!
The current version is 0.4 updated 14/Jan/2010.
To download the latest version, please read the disclaimer at the start of this post then click here.
If you are having trouble opening the PDF, please download the latest version of Adobe Reader. If you do not want to use Adobe Products, you can also use Foxit Reader or PDF-XChange Viewer. These three programs I have tested and so know work with the FAQ. If you are a Linux, Mac, Acorn, Amiga, DOS or FreeBSD user, I apologise for not being able to check compatibility. If you are using a program other than those listed here, please ensure they are compatible with Adobe Acrobat 9.0 files.
If you find any typos, or formatting errors, please respond here so that I may correct them in a subsequent release of this FAQ.
Do not post "XYZ Ruling is Incorrect", insults, flames, trolls or anything of that kind, please. If you feel something is incorrect, please PM me.
A friendly bump or questions are always appreciated.
And yes, I know it is nowhere near complete. I have yet to add in questions about biomorphs and the army list, mainly because I am busy with work and won't have time to do so until sometime next week. Until then, feel free to PM me questions for inclusion and to provide any and all constructive feedback. 
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Gwar, you're the RAW cultist of YMDC and you do a great job of doing these FAQ projects. However, I question why?
The SW faq came out and when certain rules do not mesh with your vision of RAW you piss all over them and say that you will not play it that way.
You joked that you were pissed that they only used half of your faq yet you push that faq are not errata and therefore do not need to be followed.
Do you see where I am getting with this? You push for a RAW interpretation of the rules, put them in a FAQ format, and then say that FAQ are useless that you won't even play by.
Like I said, nice arguments and great work in the various projects, but ease up on your hate for FAQ's when you are a chief FAQ provider.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Brother Ramses wrote:Gwar, you're the RAW cultist of YMDC and you do a great job of doing these FAQ projects. However, I question why?
The SW faq came out and when certain rules do not mesh with your vision of RAW you piss all over them and say that you will not play it that way.
You joked that you were pissed that they only used half of your faq yet you push that faq are not errata and therefore do not need to be followed.
Do you see where I am getting with this? You push for a RAW interpretation of the rules, put them in a FAQ format, and then say that FAQ are useless that you won't even play by.
Like I said, nice arguments and great work in the various projects, but ease up on your hate for FAQ's when you are a chief FAQ provider.
He doesn't "hate FAQs", he hates GWs stance on their FAQs, ie. GW doesn't consider the FAQs they themselves publish to be official. Basically he hates the silly wussy back-stepping attitude they treat their own FAQs with.
At least, that's what I gather from his rants.
1963
Post by: Aduro
That and I think he hates FAQs that disagree with his preconceived notion of how it should work.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Aduro wrote:That and I think he hates FAQs that disagree with his preconceived notion of how it should work.
Seconded.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Platuan4th wrote:He doesn't "hate FAQs", he hates GWs stance on their FAQs, ie. GW doesn't consider the FAQs they themselves publish to be official. Basically he hates the silly wussy back-stepping attitude they treat their own FAQs with.
At least, that's what I gather from his rants.
Pretty much. This and the fact that GW faqs have a nasty habit of either:
Breaking clear RaW
Changing the RaW without Errata
Answering Questions that were never asked
Totaly fething up clear RaW ( cf. Space Wolves FAQ)
21789
Post by: calypso2ts
All that said, thank you for taking the time to provide answers with RAW backup. Even if they do not always mesh with the GW FAQ, it helps provide resolution or clarification to rules conundrums (I like the bundled GK fan Codex  ).
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Saldiven wrote:Aduro wrote:That and I think he hates FAQs that disagree with his preconceived notion of how it should work.
Seconded.
You guys mean the preconceptions started by the GW authors, via their writing?
Nice.
Anyway, thanks Gwar!, for something to work with. I missed some obvious ones.
21202
Post by: Commander Endova
TYR.54.03
Isn;t the expression "Immovable Object meets Unstoppable Force?"
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
@ Gwar! Does "Hive Comander" stack with "Pheromone Trail" given that they are two separate rules for modifying the reserve roll? IIRC, the precedence is that bonuses from taking multiple units that grant the same rule don't stack in regards to reserve modifiers.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Commander Endova wrote:TYR.54.03
Isn;t the expression "Immovable Object meets Unstoppable Force?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence ("Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted, not even by God Himself?"). So there wyomingfox wrote:@ Gwar! Does "Hive Comander" stack with "Pheromone Trail" given that they are two separate rules for modifying the reserve roll? IIRC, the precedence is that bonuses from taking multiple units that grant the same rule don't stack in regards to reserve modifiers.
Nah, the precedent is that they do. (Autarchs) Then they don't. (Imperial Guard Astropaths) Gotta love GW! The answer is yes anyway as they are 2 different rules, but I'll remember to add that for version 0.2 xD
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
@ Gwar! Do venomthropes still grant (ie can they make use of) a 5+ cover save to MC Units even though the wargear does not state that MC units are obscured.
Similarily, given that GW errata the SW Storm Caller rule to target all "units", can vehicle units make use of the 5+ cover save even though the stormcaller rule does not mention that the unit is obscured.
22923
Post by: ghost11
There's wargaming and there's gwargaming.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Gwar! wrote:Gotta love GW!
No I don't. What I gotta do is buy more GW product because I have an unhealthy addiction to their plastic crack.
21202
Post by: Commander Endova
ghost11 wrote:There's wargaming and there's gwargaming.
I chuckled.
Ahh. As with most things, you are correct, it seems. I've just never heard it said that way. I guess I need more friends who are physicists.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
ghost11 wrote:There's wargaming and there's gwargaming.
Indeed. You should all Play GWarhammer. It will make you happy and make your organs bigger! And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!
@wyomingfox: I don't think it needs to. In any case, I can see why that would come up and I'll add it. The irony is I was looking for something wrong with the venomthrope and knew something was, but couldn't put my finger on it! Automatically Appended Next Post: Heh, noticed another one, this time regarding Tyrant Guard, Swarmlord and Swarmlord biting the dust. The other first two mentions of Hive tyrant are clear and mention that it includes the swarmlord as well, but the last one doesn't, which can imply that it doesn't happen if the Swarmlord dies. Automatically Appended Next Post: v0.2 Uploaded!
4183
Post by: Davor
If v0.2 is out, how come it's labled v0.1?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Because I am an idiot and forgot to change the version number! I'll fix it now 
4183
Post by: Davor
Gwar! wrote:Because I am an idiot and forgot to change the version number! I'll fix it now
LOL sorry to laugh that was funny when I read it. Great FAQ. Is this a record? I mean a FAQ before the codex is released for public sale? (not including pre orders).
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Davor wrote:Gwar! wrote:Because I am an idiot and forgot to change the version number! I'll fix it now
LOL sorry to laugh that was funny when I read it. Great FAQ. Is this a record? I mean a FAQ before the codex is released for public sale? (not including pre orders).
No, my Space Wolves FAQ was out 2 weeks before General Sale 
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
TYR.35.01
A: Yes. Remember that while the Tyrant Guard are not a Retinue, the Hive Tyrant is also not an Independent Character, so is treated as a normal member of the unit during the Assault phase, so can be “picked out” in a close combat. [Clarification/Rules Change]
That's just wrong, if you are ruling that the IC rules other than joining don't apply, he either can be picked out in both phases (because the rules saying he can't be picked out aren't in the section on ICs joining units) or he can't be picked out in either phase (because you choose to ignore the fact that nothing says he can't be picked out).
My main issue here is that, it's not a Clarification at all IMO, it's a ruling with no grounds in the RAW and thus entirely a Rules Change and should be labelled as such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TYR.45.01 – Q: Does the cover save effect of the “Spore Cloud” special rule allow Monstrous Creatures to benefit?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]
That isn't a Rules Change, the rule is quite clear "any friendly units within 6" of the [venomthrope unit], can claim a 5+ cover save against any shooting attacks."
Why would that not apply to an MC? Your ruling here actually matches up with the RAW. The fact is it grants them a certain type of save, not a status of being "in cover", it could just as easily say the units get a 5+ invulnerable save, and in that case the MC would most certainly benefit.
18474
Post by: Darth Bob
Drunkspleen wrote:TYR.35.01
A: Yes. Remember that while the Tyrant Guard are not a Retinue, the Hive Tyrant is also not an Independent Character, so is treated as a normal member of the unit during the Assault phase, so can be “picked out” in a close combat. [Clarification/Rules Change]
That's just wrong, if you are ruling that the IC rules other than joining don't apply, he either can be picked out in both phases (because the rules saying he can't be picked out aren't in the section on ICs joining units) or he can't be picked out in either phase (because you choose to ignore the fact that nothing says he can't be picked out).
My main issue here is that, it's not a Clarification at all IMO, it's a ruling with no grounds in the RAW and thus entirely a Rules Change and should be labelled as such.
He is not getting the IC rule for joining he is getting his own rule (through Shield Wall) that functions in the same wasy as the IC rule for joining.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Darth Bob wrote:He is not getting the IC rule for joining he is getting his own rule (through Shield Wall) that functions in the same wasy as the IC rule for joining.
I don't want to discuss why I think that argument is wrong here, but the fact remains, there is absolutely no grounds for him to be a seperate target in close combat, but not a seperate target at range, because he is definitely not following the rules for a non- MC IC joined to a squad, either because you think he doesn't follow the IC rules other than to join, or because he does follow those rules but is an MC. He should either be a seperate target in both instances, or in neither, if you are trying to follow some semblance of RAW.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
TYR.45.01 – Q: Does the cover save effect of the “Spore Cloud” special rule allow Monstrous Creatures to benefit?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]
That isn't a Rules Change, the rule is quite clear "any friendly units within 6" of the [venomthrope unit], can claim a 5+ cover save against any shooting attacks."
Why would that not apply to an MC? Your ruling here actually matches up with the RAW. The fact is it grants them a certain type of save, not a status of being "in cover", it could just as easily say the units get a 5+ invulnerable save, and in that case the MC would most certainly benefit.
It's a rules change because MC cover is determined exactly as vehicles. Vehicles only are allowed cover when obscured. As for TYR.35.01 I think i made a major FUBAR error there and a pretty nasty typo. That is supposed to say "Cannot be picked out" in assault! My ruling was supposed to essentially be "No, it cannot be picked out at all now go suck a lemon" Adding a quick question about Toxin sacs and will update 0.3 in a min (with the typo fixed!)
18474
Post by: Darth Bob
Drunkspleen wrote:I don't want to discuss why I think that argument is wrong here . . .
Oh, no, please do, because as far as I can see that argument is ( RAW wise) foolproof.
Drunkspleen wrote: . . . but the fact remains, there is absolutely no grounds for him to be a seperate target in close combat, but not a seperate target at range, because he is definitely not following the rules for a non-MC IC joined to a squad, either because you think he doesn't follow the IC rules other than to join, or because he does follow those rules but is an MC. He should either be a seperate target in both instances, or in neither, if you are trying to follow some semblance of RAW.
Wait. Is the hang up you are having that the wording in Gwar's FAQ says the Tyrant "can" be targeted in close combat. Because that threw me off as well, but I deduced that by saying he was part of the unit, what he meant to say was "can't" be targeted in close combat.
Edit: See above post, because Gwar! just confirmed this.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Darth Bob wrote:Edit: See above post, because Gwar! just confirmed this.
Yes yes I am a massive tool we know
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Gwar! wrote:TYR.45.01 – Q: Does the cover save effect of the “Spore Cloud” special rule allow Monstrous Creatures to benefit?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]
That isn't a Rules Change, the rule is quite clear "any friendly units within 6" of the [venomthrope unit], can claim a 5+ cover save against any shooting attacks."
Why would that not apply to an MC? Your ruling here actually matches up with the RAW. The fact is it grants them a certain type of save, not a status of being "in cover", it could just as easily say the units get a 5+ invulnerable save, and in that case the MC would most certainly benefit.
It's a rules change because MC cover is determined exactly as vehicles. Vehicles only are allowed cover when obscured.
But Monstrous Creatures are never obscured, you can't actually superimpose the vehicle cover RAW onto MCs without it being totally useless due to references to such things as "facing of the vehicle", and "glancing or penetrating hit"
Monstrous creatures are considered "In Cover" if they are 50% or more hidden from LOS of the firer, a unit gets a cover save if 50% or more of that unit is "In Cover", the Venomthrope bypasses that by simply granting a cover save, I am quite confident with regards to this that your ruling is actually RAW.
Gwar! wrote:As for TYR.35.01 I think i made a major FUBAR error there and a pretty nasty typo. That is supposed to say "Cannot be picked out" in assault!
My ruling was supposed to essentially be "No, it cannot be picked out at all now go suck a lemon"
That makes sense, while I still don't agree with the ruling myself, atleast from a Rules perspective it now matches one of the stances which logically can be argued for.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Heh, ya know I agree with ya there Drunkspleen (about the cover thing). See what happens when Work (even when at home :() gets in the way of making FAQS!
18474
Post by: Darth Bob
Gwar! wrote:Darth Bob wrote:Edit: See above post, because Gwar! just confirmed this.
Yes yes I am a massive tool we know
*Shakes fist angrily*
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Darth Bob wrote:Drunkspleen wrote:I don't want to discuss why I think that argument is wrong here . . .
Oh, no, please do, because as far as I can see that argument is ( RAW wise) foolproof.
I don't want to discuss it here because this is a thread about Gwar's Tyranid FAQ, if you would like to further discuss the issue with me, I suggest we do it in this thread
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Aaaaaaand v0.3 is up
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Can you elaborate your ruling in TYR.51.01? I've been asked this question and came to the same conclusion, but wasn't able to so definitely claim RAW status.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Can you elaborate your ruling in TYR.51.01? I've been asked this question and came to the same conclusion, but wasn't able to so definitely claim RAW status.
Nowhere does it state that you cannot deliberately cause a mishap. In fact, it outright implies it by prohibiting it only in the "Misplaced" result of the mishap table (to prevent an opponent forcing multiple mishaps). Furthermore, models are only prohibited from moving within 1" of an enemy model. Placing the Initial model is not moving (nor is Deep Striking in fact, the models only "count as" moving). If someone cries foul over "not being able to balance it", that is what Wobbly Model syndrome is for.
4183
Post by: Davor
I do have a request if it's not a big deal. Each time you make a new version, can you maybe at the top or bottom just say what rule you changed. This way I know what has been corrected, since looking through v.1-v.3 I can't tell what has changed.
If it's too much work, I understand since you are doing such an awsome job. Great work, and thank you for doing it.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Gwar! wrote:MasterSlowPoke wrote:Can you elaborate your ruling in TYR.51.01? I've been asked this question and came to the same conclusion, but wasn't able to so definitely claim RAW status.
Nowhere does it state that you cannot deliberately cause a mishap. In fact, it outright implies it by prohibiting it only in the "Misplaced" result of the mishap table (to prevent an opponent forcing multiple mishaps).
Furthermore, models are only prohibited from moving within 1" of an enemy model. Placing the Initial model is not moving (nor is Deep Striking in fact, the models only "count as" moving). If someone cries foul over "not being able to balance it", that is what Wobbly Model syndrome is for.
That was basically my argument. They then argued that that would let Marbo, who is placed by nearly exactly the same rules, come onto the field inside Impassible Terrain, which seems correct by RAW but against the "spirit" of the game. I was hoping there was a way both wouldn't be true.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
MasterSlowPoke wrote:That was basically my argument. They then argued that that would let Marbo, who is placed by nearly exactly the same rules, come onto the field inside Impassible Terrain, which seems correct by RAW but against the "spirit" of the game. I was hoping there was a way both wouldn't be true.
Correct. Marbo can arrive inside Impassible terrain. He just cannot then move. The same way you can deploy Artillery on top of Ruins or on Impassible terrain but they cannot move. If they don't feel it is in the "Spirit" of the game, then they don't have to use it, but tell them to GTFO if they try and stop you playing by the rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: Davor wrote:I do have a request if it's not a big deal. Each time you make a new version, can you maybe at the top or bottom just say what rule you changed. This way I know what has been corrected, since looking through v.1-v.3 I can't tell what has changed.
If it's too much work, I understand since you are doing such an awsome job. Great work, and thank you for doing it.
I plan on doing this from v1 onwards, same as I did on my SW FAQ (which went through a similar v0.x phase, just not public because no-one liked me back then likes me but I don't care anymore
10335
Post by: Razerous
What what what.. Space wolf FAQ.. LOVE IT. Everything answered to a degree my friends will accept!
Ahem, hope the Tyranid codex is a little more.. concise?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Razerous wrote:What what what.. Space wolf FAQ.. LOVE IT. Everything answered to a degree my friends will accept!
Ahem, hope the Tyranid codex is a little more.. concise?
It will be, for the simple reason that Cruddace actually knows how to fething write, unlike Kelly.
10335
Post by: Razerous
Triple special CCW "behind enemy lines" Wolf Scouts led by a WGPL. Awesome. Kinda wanna modify Loganwing now..
4736
Post by: airmang
I think you're doing a great job with this FAQ Gwar. although i do have to ask: were people actually trying to say that if you roll a triple for the Tervigon, that you could still make gants after that, because it's not a double?? And kinda in the same vein, are you going to add anything about the Nid CCW either being/not being special CCW's (causing you to have to choose which one to "use")?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
airmang wrote:I think you're doing a great job with this FAQ Gwar. although i do have to ask: were people actually trying to say that if you roll a triple for the Tervigon, that you could still make gants after that, because it's not a double??
Yes.
And kinda in the same vein, are you going to add anything about the Nid CCW either being/not being special CCW's (causing you to have to choose which one to "use")?
Eventually. The Gwarnalasis machine only has a limited amount of pterasquirrels per nanotube, and a problem of that magnitude gums up the works no end
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Drunkspleen wrote:But Monstrous Creatures are never obscured, you can't actually superimpose the vehicle cover RAW onto MCs without it being totally useless due to references to such things as "facing of the vehicle", and "glancing or penetrating hit"
No but GW sure can : Pg 51 "Cover for them works exactly as for vehicles (see page 62).
I guess just call it a "clarification" for people like me who GW poor technical writing can easily confuse !
9142
Post by: Axyl
Here's something for you to add Gwar
Deathleaper has the Pheremone Trail special rule. Now when you go to read the special rules for pheremone trail they state that you only get +1 to reserves if a lictor is in play. In addition units do not deviate if deepstriking within 6 inches of a lictor. Strictly speaking...pheremone trail has no effect if you only take the death leaper as it is not a lictor although I'm sure it's safe to say that that was not the intent of the writer. Pheremone trail should read ...'a lictor or deathleaper...'
11
Post by: ph34r
Why oh why would you compress a 118kb pdf into a 114kb rar?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Axyl wrote:Here's something for you to add Gwar
Deathleaper has the Pheremone Trail special rule. Now when you go to read the special rules for pheremone trail they state that you only get +1 to reserves if a lictor is in play. In addition units do not deviate if deepstriking within 6 inches of a lictor. Strictly speaking...pheremone trail has no effect if you only take the death leaper as it is not a lictor although I'm sure it's safe to say that that was not the intent of the writer. Pheremone trail should read ...'a lictor or deathleaper...'
Great find! I guess it is the same issue as the Swarmlord being killed with Tyrant Guard eh? Will add that to the local copy now. ph34r wrote:Why oh why would you compress a 118kb pdf into a 114kb rar?
Several reasons. 1) To save bandwidth (Duh!) 2) Just because. 3) I feel the humble zip file is becoming neglected nowadays, abandoned in favour of it's sexier sister the Rar and it's burly brother 7zip. As such, I wish to show my love for this classic format.
11
Post by: ph34r
I'd think that the 3% reduction in file size would not be worth the hassle of decompressing (not that it is much, but it is more actions required to access the pdf), unless you are expecting hundreds of downloads per day. Zip is nice and all, but there's a reason that people use rar, namely that it's better
13395
Post by: apwill4765
TYR.34.02 – Q: Is the bonus to reserves granted by “Hive Commander” cumulative if you have more than one Hive Tyrant?
A: No. [Clarification]
• This is going to be a bone of contention, no doubt about it. However, due to its wording being essentially identical to the
Imperial Guard wording, which does not stack, neither should the Hive Tyrants. It seems Autarchs really are that special!
GWAR!, I don't understand your argument here. Isn't it your own argument that rules from another codex / FAQ have NO bearing on the rules in another book? I've seen you argue that point like a thousand times. Why the change in thinking?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
apwill4765 wrote:TYR.34.02 – Q: Is the bonus to reserves granted by “Hive Commander” cumulative if you have more than one Hive Tyrant?
A: No. [Clarification]
• This is going to be a bone of contention, no doubt about it. However, due to its wording being essentially identical to the
Imperial Guard wording, which does not stack, neither should the Hive Tyrants. It seems Autarchs really are that special!
GWAR!, I don't understand your argument here. Isn't it your own argument that rules from another codex / FAQ have NO bearing on the rules in another book? I've seen you argue that point like a thousand times. Why the change in thinking?
No change in thinking. I am just explaining it for the masses who do not share my exact line of thought. It's much easier to write "Just do it this way because it works this way elsewhere" rather than go into a 7 page treatise about why they don't stack.
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
A couple points of contention on other forums, with suggested answers:
Q. Do Tyranids have to choose which special close combat weapons to use, as only a single one may be allowed at a time?
A. No. Page 33 of the Tyranids codex states that they carry NO close combat weapons and simply fight with their claws and talons. Tyranid weapon biomorphs are simply wargear which change the fundamental nature of their CC attacks. (RAW)
Q. Can a Tyranid model opt to not use a biomorph at a given point in time?
A. No. Most biomorphs describe their effect as affecting all of a Tyranid's attacks or otherwise. If you don't want to use it, don't take it. (RAW)
Q. Does the Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech ability work on units embarked in vehicles?
A. Yes. Spirit Leech is a special rule that affects ALL units within 6". It is not a psychic power, it does not target units or models, and it does not require line of sight. You should probably back away while you have the chance. (RAW)
Q. Does the Doom of Malan'tai gain the 3+ invulnerable save from Warp Field despite not being a Zoanthrope (as the description of Warp Field denotes)?
A. Yes. (RAI)
Q. Does Deathleaper have to deploy via Chameleonic Skin despite not being a Lictor (as the description of Chameleonic Skin denotes)?
A. Yes. (RAI)
Maybe something about Old One Eye and Living Battering Ram, too. (Answer: O1E has Initiative 3 on rounds he charges but strikes at Initiative 1, like a powerfist. This is important for things like Acid Blood.)
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Heh, I had pretty much all of them in my local copy already, except the first (the Gwarlinister is still computing and the pterrasquirrels are acting up again). Thanks for the feedback in any case
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
Gwar! wrote:Heh, I had pretty much all of them in my local copy already, except the first (the Gwarlinister is still computing and the pterrasquirrels are acting up again). Thanks for the feedback in any case
Not a problem. Everything else looks good. Oh! Don't forget to mention that Mycetic Spores taken by Troops count as scoring!
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Broken Loose wrote:Gwar! wrote:Heh, I had pretty much all of them in my local copy already, except the first (the Gwarlinister is still computing and the pterrasquirrels are acting up again). Thanks for the feedback in any case
Not a problem. Everything else looks good. Oh! Don't forget to mention that Mycetic Spores taken by Troops count as scoring!
That one I DIDN'T have
I've also added a clarification (actually, it's RaW, but you know what I mean) about how the Spores interact with Subterranean Assault. Models that opt to arrive via Deep Strike can instead use the Subterrainian Assault rule instead of Deep Striking, but the Spores must ALWAYS deploy via Deep Strike, thus preventing them using the Subterranean Assault rule.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Gwar! wrote:Razerous wrote:What what what.. Space wolf FAQ.. LOVE IT. Everything answered to a degree my friends will accept!
Ahem, hope the Tyranid codex is a little more.. concise?
It will be, for the simple reason that Cruddace actually knows how to fething write, unlike Kelly.
Too bad he can't handle making reasonable points costs for units, 90 points for the Doom of Malan'tai, yeah right...
4736
Post by: airmang
Gwar! wrote:
I've also added a clarification (actually, it's RaW, but you know what I mean) about how the Spores interact with Subterranean Assault. Models that opt to arrive via Deep Strike can instead use the Subterrainian Assault rule instead of Deep Striking, but the Spores must ALWAYS deploy via Deep Strike, thus preventing them using the Subterranean Assault rule.
Oh! didn't even think about that one. That would be funny. It would be as if the Trygon laid a giant egg, containing a Carnifex!!! 
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Broken Loose wrote:
Q. Does the Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech ability work on units embarked in vehicles?
A. Yes. Spirit Leech is a special rule that affects ALL units within 6". It is not a psychic power, it does not target units or models, and it does not require line of sight. You should probably back away while you have the chance. (RAW)
 I thought that per the BRB, models being transported aren't on the table and therefore are not able to be affected by such situations regardless if power is indescriminate or not.
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
wyomingfox wrote:Broken Loose wrote:
Q. Does the Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech ability work on units embarked in vehicles?
A. Yes. Spirit Leech is a special rule that affects ALL units within 6". It is not a psychic power, it does not target units or models, and it does not require line of sight. You should probably back away while you have the chance. (RAW)
I thought that per the BRB, models being transported aren't on the table and therefore are not able to be affected by such situations regardless if power is indescriminate or not.
The models themselves are physically removed from the table, but can still be affected by events on the table, using the vehicle's hull for measurement. If this weren't true you wouldn't be able to fire out of the top of a Chimera.
4736
Post by: airmang
What about old one eye and battering ram? Since he comes with Crushing Claws and the Living Battering Ram rule, is the Batteriong Ram rule just a mistake, as the Crushing Claws rules seem to override it?
1478
Post by: warboss
Broken Loose wrote:wyomingfox wrote:Broken Loose wrote:
Q. Does the Doom of Malan'tai's Spirit Leech ability work on units embarked in vehicles?
A. Yes. Spirit Leech is a special rule that affects ALL units within 6". It is not a psychic power, it does not target units or models, and it does not require line of sight. You should probably back away while you have the chance. (RAW)
I thought that per the BRB, models being transported aren't on the table and therefore are not able to be affected by such situations regardless if power is indescriminate or not.
The models themselves are physically removed from the table, but can still be affected by events on the table, using the vehicle's hull for measurement. If this weren't true you wouldn't be able to fire out of the top of a Chimera.
i'm going to have to disagree with that also. since you're calling it RAW, can you give show in the rules where it says you can affect them or simply give another example of anything in all of 40k that can affect an enemy unit while IN a transport? you're saying that it affects all units within 6" but that is no different than shooting; a large blast exploding on the transport affects all units within 2.5" but doesn't catch them either.
@gwar: did you have the creative commons disclaimers about not copying up with the SW faq originally?
4736
Post by: airmang
Got another question. Ymgarl Genestealers: Their dormant rule says that models that can not be placed in the terrain because of Impassable, or 1" from enemy models, they are destroyed. Does the "They" in this rule mean just the models that can't be placed, or the whole unit?
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
airmang wrote:What about old one eye and battering ram? Since he comes with Crushing Claws and the Living Battering Ram rule, is the Batteriong Ram rule just a mistake, as the Crushing Claws rules seem to override it?
Crushing Claws are basically powerfists for the purposes of Old One Eye's initiative, but unoptional. His Initiative is ACTUALLY 3, but he strikes at 1. When you piece apart a hive tyrant and take 4 Acid Blood checks, you'll thank me for pointing this out.
warboss wrote:i'm going to have to disagree with that also. since you're calling it RAW, can you give show in the rules where it says you can affect them or simply give another example of anything in all of 40k that can affect an enemy unit while IN a transport? you're saying that it affects all units within 6" but that is no different than shooting; a large blast exploding on the transport affects all units within 2.5" but doesn't catch them either.
There isn't any rule like it in existence. Half of this is a judgment call. Keep in mind that it's NOT a psychic power, it's a special rule that affects ALL enemy units (that have a Ld value) within 6" regardless of cover or location. RAI states that you can fire out of the transport, so what's preventing your soul from getting sucked out through that window (while a guy huddling in a nearby building with no windows suffers the same fate)? On the contrary, find me a rule that states your unit is completely immune to any effects while embarked on a vehicle.
For the record, you still have to take Wraithsight checks while embarked on a vehicle (using the vehicle's hull to measure psyker/Spiritseer range). If you fail the check, the entire Wraithguard unit is destroyed in the case of a crash. That's the closest analogue we have so far.
airmang wrote:Got another question. Ymgarl Genestealers: Their dormant rule says that models that can not be placed in the terrain because of Impassable, or 1" from enemy models, they are destroyed. Does the "They" in this rule mean just the models that can't be placed, or the whole unit?
"They" in this sentence refers to the subject of the sentence. "If any models cannot be placed, ... they are destroyed."
9988
Post by: Budzerker
@GWAR
I'm surprised (you being RAW King to most people and all) that you didn't go with the RAW and 2 Tyrants getting to stack the +1 to reserves. RAW is clear that they do. Yet the reasoning you went with was "because its the same wording as the IG dex". Which we know was FAQ'd by GW to not stack.
Is this because you think this is the way GW will swing, and you don't want your FAQ to have another disagreement? Be a Rebel.
The only difference with the Autarch ability is that you get to choose to get the +1. Which of course does stack.
4736
Post by: airmang
Broken Loose wrote:
Crushing Claws are basically powerfists for the purposes of Old One Eye's initiative, but unoptional. His Initiative is ACTUALLY 3, but he strikes at 1. When you piece apart a hive tyrant and take 4 Acid Blood checks, you'll thank me for pointing this out.
Ok, I didn't think about that.
Broken Loose wrote:
"They" in this sentence refers to the subject of the sentence. "If any models cannot be placed, ... they are destroyed."
Yeah, this is the way I read it too, was just wanting to see how others were reading it, because I still see alot of people discounting them, saying that the whole unit is destoryed if there is an enemy model in the terrain.
Thanks!
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Broken Loose wrote:
There isn't any rule like it in existence. Half of this is a judgment call. Keep in mind that it's NOT a psychic power, it's a special rule that affects ALL enemy units (that have a Ld value) within 6" regardless of cover or location. RAI states that you can fire out of the transport, so what's preventing your soul from getting sucked out through that window (while a guy huddling in a nearby building with no windows suffers the same fate)? On the contrary, find me a rule that states your unit is completely immune to any effects while embarked on a vehicle.
There is no rule that directly covers this issue, so neither side can cite one to support their position.
Your citation that models in a vehicle can shoot out of it, so therefore must be affected by DoM is a reach, at best, and is comparing apples to oranges.
A player may generate effects that apply to units/models controlled by that player. For example, I may choose a unit of mine to fire out of one of my transports. I can take a psyker within a transport and use a power on the unit within that transport. I can choose to disembark that unit.
Now, as a player, I can't think of much that I can do to directly affect a unit that my opponent controls that is inside one of his transports. I cannot shoot at that unit. I cannot cast Doom on that unit. I cannot use Lash of Submission or Pavane on that unit. I cannot launch an assault on that unit.
This is why your comparison breaks down; just because I can choose to take an action with a unit I control that is inside a transport does not mean that you can choose to directly affect one of my units that is inside a transport. There is little to nothing in the rules to support this.
Now, the closest comparison are such passive things as Runic Weapons, Shadow in the Warp, and other passive abilities that affect enemy units within range. If such abilities are determined to affect enemy units while those enemy units are embarked on a transport, that this would (to me) be support for DoM to affect embarked units as well.
edit: clarity's sake.
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
Well, runic weapons and hoods work from within vehicles.
Another considerable piece of evidence is that, in the official Orks FAQ, Grotsnik may board a vehicle if doing so will result in him getting closer to an enemy (Grotsnik and his unit suffer from a special version of Rage). In addition, said vehicle also must end each turn closer to the nearest enemy.
If Grotsnik weren't considered to be on the board while embarked in a vehicle, this would be an illegal move (because off the table is further away from the nearest enemy than on the table).
In addition, there's also the Sanctuary rule which works while embarked on a vehicle, or the Shrouding rule which affects units embarked on vehicles, both of which can be found in your local Daemonhunters codex.
edit: Actually, just forget everything I said and only consider The Shrouding because it's the closest thing we have to Spirit Leech (a passive special rule that affects all enemy units within its radius, regardless of position of said units). If you're embarked on a vehicle, do you ignore The Shrouding to fire at Grey Knights?
8854
Post by: Homer S
Comments:
TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.
TYR.43.01 - While not an errata, the Eldar FAQ resolves a Tempest Launcher's attacks as a multiple barrage. This seems the same to me.
Homer
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.
Urgh. TYR.43.01 - While not an errata, the Eldar FAQ resolves a Tempest Launcher's attacks as a multiple barrage. This seems the same to me.
As you said, it's not Errata. Budzerker wrote:I'm surprised (you being RAW King to most people and all) that you didn't go with the RAW and 2 Tyrants getting to stack the +1 to reserves. RAW is clear that they do. Yet the reasoning you went with was "because its the same wording as the IG dex". Which we know was FAQ'd by GW to not stack.
Actually, from the very start I had maintained they do not stack RAW, well before the GW FAQ came out. I cba looking for the thread. So yeah, I am going with RaW.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Broken Loose wrote:Well, runic weapons and hoods work from within vehicles.
Another considerable piece of evidence is that, in the official Orks FAQ, Grotsnik may board a vehicle if doing so will result in him getting closer to an enemy (Grotsnik and his unit suffer from a special version of Rage). In addition, said vehicle also must end each turn closer to the nearest enemy.
If Grotsnik weren't considered to be on the board while embarked in a vehicle, this would be an illegal move (because off the table is further away from the nearest enemy than on the table).
In addition, there's also the Sanctuary rule which works while embarked on a vehicle, or the Shrouding rule which affects units embarked on vehicles, both of which can be found in your local Daemonhunters codex.
edit: Actually, just forget everything I said and only consider The Shrouding because it's the closest thing we have to Spirit Leech (a passive special rule that affects all enemy units within its radius, regardless of position of said units). If you're embarked on a vehicle, do you ignore The Shrouding to fire at Grey Knights?
Yes, runic weapons work FROM within vehicles. But, do they work on enemy psykers who are within a vehicle? I think this is something that we've always just assumed is a "yes," even though there is nothing that specifically states that it is so.
Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.
8854
Post by: Homer S
Gwar! wrote:Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.
Urgh.
Does that mean that I am right or wrong?
Homer
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Homer S wrote:Gwar! wrote:Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.
Urgh.
Does that mean that I am right or wrong?
Homer
It means "I already gave an explanation as to the multiple different viewpoints this question possess in the red coloured blurb"
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
In addition - mycetic spores taken with troops are NOT scoring, as iut states in their rules that they are never scoring....
12265
Post by: Gwar!
nosferatu1001 wrote:In addition - mycetic spores taken with troops are NOT scoring, as iut states in their rules that they are never scoring....
And this is why I need to sleep more! Also Ninjad, I was just about to say this >.<
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Of course you were G!
8854
Post by: Homer S
Gwar! wrote:Homer S wrote:Gwar! wrote:Homer S wrote:TYR.35.01 - I see nothing that would override BRB pg. 49.
Urgh.
Does that mean that I am right or wrong?
Homer
It means "I already gave an explanation as to the multiple different viewpoints this question possess in the red coloured blurb"
Interesting. You watch, they will address all of this stuff in the FAQ portion of the Tyranids FAQ in late-March. That will leave us all wondering how to play it...
Homer
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
Saldiven wrote:Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.
By the same logic, if you stay 6" away from the Doom, Spirit Leech has no effect on your army whatsoever.
9988
Post by: Budzerker
Gwar! wrote:Actually, from the very start I had maintained they do not stack RAW, well before the GW FAQ came out. I cba looking for the thread. So yeah, I am going with RaW.
I'd sure like to see a RAW explanation as to why 2 Tyrants (separate individuals) each separately granting a +1 to reserves doesn't amount to a +2. Especially since the only wording in the rule is "While the Tyrant is alive you get +1 to reserve rolls". With no further wording.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Broken Loose wrote:Saldiven wrote:Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.
By the same logic, if you stay 6" away from the Doom, Spirit Leech has no effect on your army whatsoever.
You still haven't addressed the principal point that there are rules in place that prevent enemy effects from affecting models in your transports and none that specify that the DoM does affect models in an opponent's transports.
In general (if only by precedent), one player's units may not directly affect models within an opponent's transport.
This is easily a gray enough area that it is silly to simply assume that the DoM affects embarked models. Automatically Appended Next Post: Budzerker wrote:Gwar! wrote:Actually, from the very start I had maintained they do not stack RAW, well before the GW FAQ came out. I cba looking for the thread. So yeah, I am going with RaW.
I'd sure like to see a RAW explanation as to why 2 Tyrants (separate individuals) each separately granting a +1 to reserves doesn't amount to a +2. Especially since the only wording in the rule is "While the Tyrant is alive you get +1 to reserve rolls". With no further wording.
I would assume his argument would run along the lines of the following...
The rule does not say, "For each Tyrant that is alive, you get +1 to reserve rolls."
As written, if two Tyrants are alive, merely getting a single +1 satisfies the statement of the rule:
Tyrant one is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so the rule is satsifed.
Tyrant two is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so that rule is satisfied, as well.
9964
Post by: Broken Loose
Saldiven wrote:Broken Loose wrote:Saldiven wrote:Also, Shrouding, while close, isn't the same. Shrouding is close to what I'm looking for, it isn't quite the same. Shrouding does not cause any direct affect on any enemy unit; if I choose to not shoot at a Shrouded unit, Shrouding has no effect on my army at all. DoM has an effect on my units whether I take an action or not.
By the same logic, if you stay 6" away from the Doom, Spirit Leech has no effect on your army whatsoever.
You still haven't addressed the principal point that there are rules in place that prevent enemy effects from affecting models in your transports and none that specify that the DoM does affect models in an opponent's transports.
In general (if only by precedent), one player's units may not directly affect models within an opponent's transport.
This is easily a gray enough area that it is silly to simply assume that the DoM affects embarked models.
And you haven't bothered to mention which rules those are. We can't assume anything.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
But the burden is on those claiming that DoM does affect embarked units; theirs is the burden of proof to show that this is possible.
The rules for shooting attacks state specifically that you can't target embarked units. Rules for things like Doom, Pavane, Lash, etc. cannot be used on embarked units. You can't assault embarked units.
By the way, I've mentioned all of the above in previous posts.
All I'm looking for is something that states that DoM does affect embarked units, as this would be a departure from precedence for how one player may affect their opponent's units when those units are embarked on a vehicle.
The only assumption I'm making is that a rule should make clear if it varies from established rules. There are many examples of rules throughout 40K that differ from the normal rules of the game and explain how they differ in their own text. Should not this one do the same?
Gwar!, I'll appeal to your opinion. While I don't always agree with some of your interpretations, I can usually follow and appreciate your reasoning. Do you think I am being unreasonable in wanting more clarity before allowing DoM to affect embarked units? I'm not asking for you to make a "ruling," but merely your opinion on my position.
9988
Post by: Budzerker
Saldiven wrote:
I would assume his argument would run along the lines of the following...
The rule does not say, "For each Tyrant that is alive, you get +1 to reserve rolls."
As written, if two Tyrants are alive, merely getting a single +1 satisfies the statement of the rule:
Tyrant one is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so the rule is satsifed.
Tyrant two is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so that rule is satisfied, as well.
There is nothing to "satisfy". They both have the same rule, coming from different sources. The rule doesn't need to explicitly state that the effects are cumulative. The Autarch power sure doesn't. And we play that one as cumulative. Each model is giving a +1. If a dude named John gives you a cupcake, and then another dude named John gives you a cupcake, then you now have +2 cupcakes. Now your satisfied.
I assumed the argument was as such, thanks for pointing it out. Seems to be one of those things that can be "explained" either way. So until there is an FAQ, I'll be following the most logical assumption. That 1+1=2.
4183
Post by: Davor
What is DoM? If this is about the debate of effecting units in a transport, technichcally there are in the transport so if the transport is within 6" and the rules say any units within 6" is effected, those inside the transport would be affected as well.
Since they can fire from the transport and effect things outside the transport, then anything outside the transport should be able to effect any units inside the transport. Otherwise if they can't be effected inside the transport because the troops are not within 6" then they can't deembark the transport since they are not within the transport then.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
DoM is a creature with an area of effect special rule called Spirit Leech. It affects all units within 6" of the DoM. It does not require LoS, nor is it targeted like a shooting attack. As the rules allow you to measure to embarked models, Spirit Leech indeed does let you attack units inside transports. Broken Loose is correct.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Budzerker wrote:Saldiven wrote:
I would assume his argument would run along the lines of the following...
The rule does not say, "For each Tyrant that is alive, you get +1 to reserve rolls."
As written, if two Tyrants are alive, merely getting a single +1 satisfies the statement of the rule:
Tyrant one is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so the rule is satsifed.
Tyrant two is alive, and I got +1 to my reserve rolls, so that rule is satisfied, as well.
There is nothing to "satisfy". They both have the same rule, coming from different sources. The rule doesn't need to explicitly state that the effects are cumulative. The Autarch power sure doesn't. And we play that one as cumulative. Each model is giving a +1. If a dude named John gives you a cupcake, and then another dude named John gives you a cupcake, then you now have +2 cupcakes. Now your satisfied.
I assumed the argument was as such, thanks for pointing it out. Seems to be one of those things that can be "explained" either way. So until there is an FAQ, I'll be following the most logical assumption. That 1+1=2.
Actually, Saldiven is correct. it is the same argument that I used for the IG codex and it is what the rules say.
3872
Post by: paidinfull
@Gwar Do you have a copy of the Codex to confirm RAW for subterranean assault in 51.01? If Subterranean Assault - Allow the Mawloc to be placed in impassable terrain - Allow the model to be placed on top of an enemy model - or Follow a different deep strike process, IE you are placing a template first instead of a model http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/273600.page I'm not sure how you came to this as a RAW conclusion. You can't place a model on top of another model unless it has a special rule that permits it.
9988
Post by: Budzerker
Gwar! wrote:Actually, Saldiven is correct. it is the same argument that I used for the IG codex and it is what the rules say.
It's what the rules ( FAQ) says for the IG codex.
Not for the Eldar codex and not for this codex. So until there is an official FAQ on this matter, the simple logical interpretation for this rule is the correct one. Again, 1+1=2.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Budzerker wrote:It's what the rules (FAQ) says for the IG codex.
Errrm... No? It's what the actual rules themselves say and the FAQ had this question included because some people couldn't figure it out? Automatically Appended Next Post: paidinfull wrote:@Gwar
Do you have a copy of the Codex to confirm RAW for subterranean assault in 51.01?
If Subterranean Assault
- Allow the Mawloc to be placed in impassable terrain
- Allow the model to be placed on top of an enemy model
- or Follow a different deep strike process, IE you are placing a template first instead of a model
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/273600.page
I'm not sure how you came to this as a RAW conclusion.
You can't place a model on top of another model unless it has a special rule that permits it.
And as has been said many, many times, you are not placing the model on top of another until after the deep strike scatter has been resolved, at which point you roll on the Mishap table.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
In regards to an autarch and astropath these units are a clear indication that what applies to one codex does not necessarily apply to another. GW was very clear in regards to these rulings since one can stack while the other cannot.
G
3872
Post by: paidinfull
@Gwar
BRB p95 wrote:First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice.
The Mawloc is placed on the table first.
I've been asking for a quote... is there a different Deep Strike rule that the Mawloc is following? From what I have read it is only the mishap rule that is effected.
No model may be placed on the table in the first step of the Deep Strike rule so that it is on top of another model unless it has a special rule that prohibits this.
Does the Mawloc have a special rule that allows them to be placed on top of another model, or perhaps in impassable terrain?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
paidinfull wrote:@Gwar
BRB p95 wrote:First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice.
The Mawloc is placed on the table first.
I've been asking for a quote... is there a different Deep Strike rule that the Mawloc is following? From what I have read it is only the mishap rule that is effected.
No model may be placed on the table in the first step of the Deep Strike rule so that it is on top of another model unless it has a special rule that prohibits this.
Does the Mawloc have a special rule that allows them to be placed on top of another model, or perhaps in impassable terrain?
-Sigh-
You place the model on the table, but it is only a marker. If it were actualy meant to be on the table, you would be forced to take a Dangerous terrain test if you placed it inside difficult terrain, before you scatter.
Also, note how the "Misplaced" result of the Deep Strike Mishap Table has to explicitly forbid you causing another mishap. This means that causing an intentional mishap by Deep Striking on top of other models is permitted.
3872
Post by: paidinfull
It's only a marker is it?
Your misplaced quote does nothing to support your claim, you might want to re-read it.
If you don't place a model on the table per the Deep Strike rule you are not following RAW. Not sure where you read that the model placed is a "marker", clearly the rule is pretty straight forward.
Place a model where you want the unit to arrive and in what position, ie facing, then roll the scatter...
You wouldn't take a dangerous terrain check as that rule specifically says "models arriving via deep strike treat all difficult as dangerous" The only point at which the models are considered to have "arrived " for that rule to take place is after the scatter dice has been rolled.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Ok, this isn't going anywhere. I kindly ask you stop trying to derail my thread.
3872
Post by: paidinfull
Isn't going in your direction you mean.
That's fine, the majority of your SW was incorrect too, I imagine the same will be the case here.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
paidinfull wrote:Isn't going in your direction you mean.
That's fine, the majority of your SW was incorrect too, I imagine the same will be the case here.
Way to dig that hole a little bit deeper, lol.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Version 0.4 released.
99
Post by: insaniak
For the sake of keeping the thread civil and on topic, it's probably better for people wishing to debate the actual rulings in this FAQ to start a thread on the issue rather than derailing the thread here.
Otherwise, the thread's just going to get bogged down in multiple RAW debates.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
0.4 needs a password. Didn't find it. Help!
Another little question which is maybe covered in there, but I ask:
Can spore mines assault? I haven't found anything that prevents them and the description implies it somewhat. It still seems strange.
Greets
Schepp himself
5873
Post by: kirsanth
And run.
^^
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Schepp himself wrote:0.4 needs a password. Didn't find it. Help!
It shouldn't need one. What program/OS are you using? It has an edit password. Try updating to the latest version of Adobe Reader (or something that supports Adobe Reader 9.0 files). Can spore mines assault? I haven't found anything that prevents them and the description implies it somewhat. It still seems strange.
...
Holy hells bells...
Not only can Spore mines make assault moves, they can actually move in the movement phase.
Hear me out! The nid codex says "At the beginning of the Tyranid Movement phase, each Spore Mine moves D6" in a direction determined by rolling the scatter dice (Tyranid player chooses the direction if a hit is rolled)."
AT NO POINT DOES IT STATE IT REPLACES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT RULES. Thus, RaW, Spore Mines drift D6" at the start of the phase, then the 'Nid player can move them (because they are Infantry) up to 6". In addition, while it states that "Spore Mines are not subject to Instinctive Behaviour, never go to ground (voluntarily or otherwise), run or fall back" it does not prohibit the making of assault moves (again, they are infantry).
Schepp, you deserve a cookie! Think of it as a consolation for not being able to open the FAQ
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Heck, you are right. My common sense made me not thinking about that the drifting is not replacing their normal movement. Silly common sense, that is a GW codex!
Mh...I'm using foxit reader and have windows 7... The first version was ok to read, though.
Greets
Schepp himself
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Schepp himself wrote:Heck, you are right. My common sense made me not thinking about that the drifting is not replacing their normal movement. Silly common sense, that is a GW codex!
Mh...I'm using foxit reader and have windows 7... The first version was ok to read, though.
Greets
Schepp himself
Hmm.. that's odd. It should work. Keep an eye out for 0.5 and let me know if that works or not (I honestly haven't changed anything between versions, it SHOULD work). I also noticed that Spore mines MUST move at the beginning of the 'Nid movement phase and SO HELP YOU IF YOU FORGET!!!!! At least they stopped them haemorrhaging KPs.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
That spore mine deal is actually a really good find. It makes biovores incredibly accurate. If they miss you place spore mines down. So fire Miss , who cares you get to assault with the spore mine.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Hmm, actually, I think they do still give up KP :(
"Spore Mines are always ignored for the purposes of any and all mission objectives."
A Mission Objective is not the same as a KP :(
9158
Post by: Hollismason
The whole spore mine entry is wonky as well. They follow the deepstrike rules.
So, do you place them individually or do you place one place all others with in base to base contact and then move them?
Do they have to maintain coherency?
Do they move as a group or do they move individually?
There are some inherent problems if they do have to maintain coherency, their movement is wonky. So you shoot one spore mine it explodes sets off the next spore mine etc...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Kill Points is the objective in a Kill Points mission
2633
Post by: Yad
Gwar! wrote:Hmm, actually, I think they do still give up KP :(
"Spore Mines are always ignored for the purposes of any and all mission objectives."
A Mission Objective is not the same as a KP :(
Disagree on this point. "any and all mission objectives" != Mission Objectives. Mission Objectives is an explicitly defined game rule mechanic. The sentence regarding spore mines is a generic application to all mission objective [types]. That is to say there are two types of mission objectives, Kill Points and Objectives. Spore mines to not count towards either.
-Yad
4183
Post by: Davor
I thought Spores couldn't run or assault either. Since I don't have the codex yet, and imagine we don't know anything about previous version of the codex, how would a newbie understand the rule of Spores?
If someone can write it out, (if it's allowed of course) I can give it to my wife to read and then see how she understands the rule or rules. If it can't be posted, how about a PM then? Would that be allowed?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
They could always run. (as they were infantry)
In the 4e codex, they could not assault.
That part was left out of the 5e version.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
They cannot run now (it is explicitly forbidden) but Assaulting is not forbidden.
I've ruled that they cannot assault, until such time as GW makes it clear, as I well and truly believe this is a massive oversight.
8854
Post by: Homer S
The rule on spore mine placement is fairly specific. See page 48 under Spore Mine Launcher. From then on they are independent units, so no coherency. I will admit their rules are very scattered...
Homer
9777
Post by: A-P
Yad wrote: The sentence regarding spore mines is a generic application to all mission objective [types]. That is to say there are two types of mission objectives, Kill Points and Objectives. Spore mines to not count towards either.
-Yad
*Sigh* GW and their writing...Why didn´t they just state that "Spore mines don´t give Kill Points" if that was their intention? Seriously.
Gwar!: Keep the Good Fight going . Hopefully this FAQ won´t become as bloated as the SW FAQ did.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
A-P wrote: Gwar!: Keep the Good Fight going . Hopefully this FAQ won´t become as bloated as the SW FAQ did.
You say that as if the bloat was my fault! 
9142
Post by: Axyl
This may be related to Schepp's issue, but when I go to open the Adobe file it says it cannot be decrypted. Just odd cause V0.2 and V0.3 worked fine on the same PC. If no one else has had the same issue then it will probably be safe to assume it is something with my work computer here. I'll check out some adobe updates in the mean time...
5544
Post by: sirisaacnuton
A-P wrote:Yad wrote: The sentence regarding spore mines is a generic application to all mission objective [types]. That is to say there are two types of mission objectives, Kill Points and Objectives. Spore mines to not count towards either.
-Yad
*Sigh* GW and their writing...Why didn´t they just state that "Spore mines don´t give Kill Points" if that was their intention? Seriously.
Their intention was that they don't give up Kill Points or Victory Points, they can never control or contest objectives, table quarters, what have you....whatever the objectives of your mission are (in other words, however you determine who wins) they don't count. It seemed pretty clearly worded to me. That way, they cover the no KP's thing, while also preventing the abuse of being able to take non- KP units (or create them) that can contest objectives.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Voted Spore Mines most useless unit in the entire game. If they scatter into terrain they have to take a dangerous terrain check if one suffers a wound then it blows up. Killing all the others.
So you could literally just throw away points before the game even started.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
sirisaacnuton wrote:Their intention
HI ROBIN! WHY DID YOU LET SPORE MINES ASSAULT?
Also, I just realised Spore Mine Clusters (i.e. the Fast attack ones) are absolutely pointless. They are 3-6 strong, but they must deep strike before anything else deploys. if they scatter onto terrain, they take dangerous terrain tests. More than likely 1 will take a wound, detonate, wound another one, cause IT to detonate, and start a chain reaction and wipe out the rest of the spores
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
That is just hillarious
8248
Post by: imweasel
Saldiven wrote:But the burden is on those claiming that DoM does affect embarked units; theirs is the burden of proof to show that this is possible.
The rules for shooting attacks state specifically that you can't target embarked units. Rules for things like Doom, Pavane, Lash, etc. cannot be used on embarked units. You can't assault embarked units.
Are you saying a sw runic weapon would not work on a psychic power that is being used from inside a transport?
GW actually had to change the eldar faq so that you could not doom a unit inside a transport.
5544
Post by: sirisaacnuton
Gwar! wrote:sirisaacnuton wrote:Their intention
HI ROBIN! WHY DID YOU LET SPORE MINES ASSAULT?
Anyone with even a basic grasp of the mechanics of 5th edition shouldn't have any trouble determining what they meant by that sentence. You don't have to have a one-on-one conversation with the guy who wrote the rule to understand what "never counts toward mission objectives" means in the context of the rules and spore mines. It mines my Biovores don't create a new KP every time they fire, but also that I can't simply fire contesting units near your objectives every turn from 48" away.
What I stated is no different from your response that you believe spore mines shouldn't be able to assault and that it was an oversight. The only difference is that I didn't preface my statement with "I belive their intention..." but it's probably a reasonable assumption that my statement was my opinion of the intention as opposed to an absolute infallible knowledge of the inner workings of Cruddace's mind. I don't really see the benefit of replying with sarcasm because someone doesn't give a disclaimer on each statement that the statement is derived from logic and experience rather than omniscience.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
wyomingfox wrote:That is just hilarious
No, what is hilarious is that I did not realise just how bad they were. I am Up to 10 Questions on Spore Mines alone and I have more to do yet. Nothing else is that bad in the codex so far!
9777
Post by: A-P
sirisaacnuton wrote:
Their intention was that....( words ).. It seemed pretty clearly worded to me.
Well, not to me . Something this important ( not scoring, no KP´s etc ) should be spelled out clearly. Space in the Codex can´t be a problem. Every Codex has some redundant fluff text that can make room for the more important stuff like rules.
OK, enough of this topic. The movie is beginning , bring on the cold beer.
8854
Post by: Homer S
The reason they said it does not count WRT to objectives is they are free to change those objectives in the next release of the rulebook.
Homer
5544
Post by: sirisaacnuton
A-P wrote:sirisaacnuton wrote:
Their intention was that....( words ).. It seemed pretty clearly worded to me.
Well, not to me . Something this important ( not scoring, no KP´s etc ) should be spelled out clearly. Space in the Codex can´t be a problem. Every Codex has some redundant fluff text that can make room for the more important stuff like rules.
Well, I don't see how stating that they never count toward mission objectives does not clearly spell out that whatever the mission objective(s) is/are, they never count toward it/them. If it's a mission objective, they don't count for it. KP, VP, objective marker, table quarter, surviving units, most expensive unit, least expensive unit, unit marked for death, unit that picks up the beer and runs off the table with it...whatever objective is being used to determine who actually wins the game, they don't count toward it, ever. It couldn't be spelled out more clearly than what they said.
Now if they had instead said "Spore Mines never yield Kill Points or Victory Points, can never be scoring units, and cannot contest objectives," you have a rule that seems at first more specific, but it ignores the fact that many tournaments used modified rules as the objectives for missions. Say you're in a tournament mission and the objective is to have the most units within 6" of the center, regardless of scoring status. Would the Spore Mines count for that? Under the more explicit rules, yes, they would still work for this wonky mission, because nothing in the prohibitions says anything about counting as a unit within 6" of the center of the table. But with the rules they actually have, they don't count, because it's the objective of the mission, and they never count for mission objectives.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
If it had said "Never count for Victory Conditions" that would have covered the lot of them.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
v0.5 uploaded
15582
Post by: blaktoof
While I don't agree 100% with all the rulings you make, i see where they come from RAW and logically usually.
I would like to take the time to thank you for putting together an unofficial FaQ that is well spoken and sane 
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Gwar! wrote:wyomingfox wrote:That is just hilarious
No, what is hilarious is that I did not realise just how bad they were. I am Up to 10 Questions on Spore Mines alone and I have more to do yet. Nothing else is that bad in the codex so far!
I have another one.
Movement:
You have to deploy them per the deepstrike rules, but they move individually in a random direction ? or do they move as a group ?
If they move individually then what happens when they move back onto their own unit. It just says friendly unit does ones own unit count as a friendly unit? Automatically Appended Next Post: IE
Does the group deepstrike (hopefully survive) but in the movement phase one moves into the others and detonates? or is it destroyed?
Does destroyed mean it detonates on friendly units?
3872
Post by: paidinfull
@hollis
To continue that... is there a unit coherency for them?
The way it appears is they would move in a huge block all in BtB(concentric circles after they deep struck) with 1 scatter roll.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Hollismason wrote:You have to deploy them per the deepstrike rules, but they move individually in a random direction ? or do they move as a group ?
Covered in the Spores rules. They count as individual units.
If they move individually then what happens when they move back onto their own unit. It just says friendly unit does ones own unit count as a friendly unit?
Yup, if they move into another spore they are removed.
Does the group deepstrike (hopefully survive) but in the movement phase one moves into the others and detonates? or is it destroyed?
Does destroyed mean it detonates on friendly units?
Nope. Again, covered in the Spores rules, if it comes into contact with a friendly model it is removed from play (it doesn't explode) Automatically Appended Next Post: paidinfull wrote:@hollis
To continue that... is there a unit coherency for them?
The way it appears is they would move in a huge block all in BtB(concentric circles after they deep struck) with 1 scatter roll.
No. Individual Spore Mines are counted as individual units, as stated in the codex.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
This is what i am getting and tell me if we are on the same page.
When placing the unit from Deepstrike one model must be placed then the other models placed in base to base contact with it correct?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Hollismason wrote:This is what i am getting and tell me if we are on the same page.
When placing the unit from Deepstrike one model must be placed then the other models placed in base to base contact with it correct?
Yup.
Just realised my lovely in-depth description of how to resolve deep striking into terrain was not needed, since Deep Striking Spores don't work anyway!!!!!
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Its just not really clear to me on the deployment of them whether they become independent units AFTER being deployed or they are deployed AS independent units.
8248
Post by: imweasel
So by RAW spore mines don't work.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Because by that account their in BTB and the living bomb rule comes into effect and they are all removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now if they are deployed AS independent units when deepstriking it works. If its after yeah , it broked.
2633
Post by: Yad
@Hollismason: Beat me to it
Orbital Deployment - Spore Mine Clusters are always deployed in the following manner. After both sides have selected their deployment zones, but before any units are deployed, all of your Spore Mine Clusters must deep strike onto the board. If any scatter off of the board or into impassible terrain, they are immediately removed from play. After they have landed they are treated as individual Spore Mines per the Living Bomb rules.
It makes absolutely no sense to place one spore mine from the cluster and then surround it (in BTB) with the others. It would immediately explode. Rather, you should deep strike each mine separately and roll for scatter. This is the conclusion that our group came to, and until we get a FAQ/Errata, that's how we'll play it.
-Yad
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Yeah Ill play it that way as well it is pretty funny though.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Special Rules:
Living Bomb: Spore Mines are ignored for all mission objectives. They are not subject to IB, never go to ground, and never fall back. At the start of the Tyranid movement phase, each cluster moves D6" in a direction determined by a scatter die (if a hit is rolled, the Nid player chooses where they go). If the spores touch an enemy model, impassable terrain, or suffer a wound, place the center hole of a large blast marker over the model, and resolve it as a S4 Ap4 attack. Spore mines that drift off the table or into friendly units are immediately removed from play. Orbital
Deployment: Spore mines never deploy normally. Instead, after deployment zones are determined, but before models and placed, the spore mines deep strike onto the table. If they scatter into impassable terrain or off the table, they are destroyed. Once the game starts, they move as in Living Bomb.
They only die if they scatter off the table or into impassable terrain.
They blow up "If the spores touch an enemy model, impassable terrain, or suffer a wound".
They do work.
2633
Post by: Yad
Doh! It's the 'drift into friendly' that knocks them out. Thanks agnosto.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
You have to place them in Base to base in order to deploy them. The way its worded is very poor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah basically you place them they move all random and back into each other and are removed.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Yad wrote:Doh! It's the 'drift into friendly' that knocks them out. Thanks agnosto.
So simple act of placing them wouldn't count as 'drifting', thus not triggering the LB rule.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
No but when its the start of your turn they randomly move so theres a pretty good shot at them just moving into each other and being removed unless you roll a "hit".
It's almost a 50/50 shot when you think of it.
It's hard to describe basically its easiest if you just "play" it out take a arrow dice put them in base to base and start rolling for your movement. if you roll a hit you are okay. if you roll a scatter and that scatter even remotely points in the direction or even remotely crosses the base of the cluster its removed.
8248
Post by: imweasel
Hollismason wrote:No but when its the start of your turn they randomly move so theres a pretty good shot at them just moving into each other and being removed unless you roll a "hit".
It's almost a 50/50 shot when you think of it.
It's hard to describe basically its easiest if you just "play" it out take a arrow dice put them in base to base and start rolling for your movement. if you roll a hit you are okay. if you roll a scatter and that scatter even remotely points in the direction or even remotely crosses the base of the cluster its removed.
So spore mines suck.
4183
Post by: Davor
Ok, Guar, say I am a newbie here. I don't know nothing about 4th edition or any other edtion. By reading the rules for Spores, this is my take what I read on the net, since I don't have the codex yet.
1) They move randomly d6" unless a hit is marked then I can move it in what ever direction I want.
2) (maybe I missed this) can they run in the shooting phase?
3) They can assault.
Since what I have read, there are no rules that say they can't run or assault.
If it is a big oversite on GW part, we shouldn't be changing the rules for them even if it's their intent. Your FAQ was good until you are putting what your idea is to be. Once you do that, that can mean it's an over site of Carnifex being so expensive and people should be changing the points to be lower, as an example.
Please stick to what is written in the codex and not what is not written in the codex and should have been. We have no prove of this, and we all know GW will not admit it was an oversite, so Spores should be able to run and Assault as it is written, not as it should have been written.
Other than this great job my friend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just read something on BoLS forum. What are the stats of the Spore Mine? If they have no stats for A, then I guess they can't Assault then. That would mean they have an Attack of Zero. But then again, Maybe they can assault, they just can't hit anything, but if something hits it and causes a wound, then it explodes. Lets see, no WS, no A, so is it considered like a vehicle that it can't assault? I havn't played many games, so not shure how no WS no A works in Assault. I know you can attack a vechicle in CC, so does the vehicle fight back in CC? Never happened to me, so I don't know.
What do you guys think of this?
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Spore mines cannot run. It seems like they can assault, but explode as soon as they move into base contact. There is no prohibition from assaulting if you don't have a WS or A characteristic.
They also replace their movement with a random D6" drift. The rules don't explicitly state this, but I feel the rule "Random and Compulsory Movement" rule on page 11 of the rulebook keeps them from using their regular movement.
99
Post by: insaniak
Davor wrote:If it is a big oversite on GW part, we shouldn't be changing the rules for them even if it's their intent. Your FAQ was good until you are putting what your idea is to be. Once you do that, that can mean it's an over site of Carnifex being so expensive and people should be changing the points to be lower, as an example.
I'm not sure what you're expecting this FAQ to be...
Players are free to change whatever rules they feel like. This FAQ is nothing more than Gwar's interpretation of how the codex is supposed to be played. Your version may be different. That's entirely up to you. As is the decision to use, or not, this FAQ either in part or in its entirety.
4183
Post by: Davor
insaniak wrote:I'm not sure what you're expecting this FAQ to be...
Players are free to change whatever rules they feel like. This FAQ is nothing more than Gwar's interpretation of how the codex is supposed to be played. Your version may be different. That's entirely up to you. As is the decision to use, or not, this FAQ either in part or in its entirety.
I am still fairly new to the forums. I thought Gwar made the FAQ to be semi official. I didn't know it was his version of what it should be. The title did say "The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by GWar" so I thought it would be non biased.
Maybe the title should be FAQ Codex: Gwar's Tyranids. I didn't know it was his version of what he thinks it should be. It is still a great FAQ, and basically then he is just making his own home made codex then. But still I believe from what I have been reading, he does take critisim very well and encourages it.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
It is as official as the sky being mauve. He is putting them together for another view point on some FAQ's. He is putting forth his "house rules" much the same way GW does with their FAQ publications.
The only truly "Official" part of a real GW FAQ is the Errata.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
adepticon faq is best faq.
4183
Post by: Davor
What is adepticon?
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Just to inform you Gwar!, I can open version 0.5 again.
Greets
Schepp himself
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Hollismason wrote:adepticon faq is best the most widely-used, non-GW, faq.
ftfy.
Davor-- Adepticon is a large con that includes several tournaments over the course of a weekend, the next one being in March.
They also put out an FAQ for their event, and this FAQ is pretty widely used.
Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But, it does allow for a standard for tourney play, and is readily accessible.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Davor wrote:insaniak wrote:I'm not sure what you're expecting this FAQ to be...
Players are free to change whatever rules they feel like. This FAQ is nothing more than Gwar's interpretation of how the codex is supposed to be played. Your version may be different. That's entirely up to you. As is the decision to use, or not, this FAQ either in part or in its entirety.
I am still fairly new to the forums. I thought Gwar made the FAQ to be semi official. I didn't know it was his version of what it should be. The title did say "The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by GWar" so I thought it would be non biased.
Maybe the title should be FAQ Codex: Gwar's Tyranids. I didn't know it was his version of what he thinks it should be. It is still a great FAQ, and basically then he is just making his own home made codex then. But still I believe from what I have been reading, he does take critisim very well and encourages it.
Good point I am changing.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Frazzled wrote:Good point I am changing.
No, please do not change. Edit: Am changing back. Anyone who thinks an Unofficial FAQ is "Semi Official" has bigger problems I imagine. What next, are we gonna Rename the INAT FAQ "Warhammer 40k as according to Yakface"?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Wait you're changing what a Mod just did?
This thread is closed.
|
|
