Well, first of all, the Legal junk you all know and love:

The "Unofficial FAQs by Gwar!" are all 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 any of the "Unofficial FAQs by Gwar!".
By downloading any of the following documents 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 2000-2010, 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.

Right, now that's out the way, it was suggested to me that I should collect all of my FAQs into a single thread and maintain them all there, rather than spread them over multiple threads.

As that was a cracking idea, here it is, the new home of the Unofficial FAQs by Gwar!. All the other threads containing my FAQs will no longer be maintained, and all updates will be announced in this thread and this thread alone.

The FAQs in the Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! series are:

The Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves FAQ by Gwar!
Current Version: 2.2
Updated: 17/June/2010

The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by Gwar!
Current Version: 1.5
Updated: 08/July/2010

The Unofficial Codex: Blood Angels FAQ by Gwar!
Current Version: 2.3
Updated: 08/July/2010

The Unofficial Codex: Dark Eldar FAQ by Gwar!
Current Version: 1.0
Updated: 04/November/2010

To download the FAQs, please read the disclaimer at the top of the post, then click here

Troubleshooting (also known as the FAQ for the FAQs! )

I have been living under a rock for the past seven and a half years. What is a PDF and how do I open it?
A PDF is a Portable Document Format. The PDF is a file format created by Adobe Systems in 1993 for document exchange. In order to read it, you need a PDF reader. The most used PDF reader is the official one from Adobe itself, and is available for almost every OS imaginable, including Linux and Solaris. There also multiple other free ware alternatives available. Use Google (because all other search engines suck, and you know it!) to find them.

Ok Gwar!, now I know how to open it. But when I try and open it, it asks me for some password! Why did you not tell us you big meanie!
If you are being asked for a password when you open it, this is because you have done something wrong. By that I mean you are using an outdated PDF reader. Please update your software to the latest one. If you are not using the official Adobe PDF reader, use it, since this is the only one I use and the only one I can guarantee it works on.

Well, that's all well and good, but I found a mistake in your FAQ/have a question that you didn't answer/want to send you e-licorice. What should I do oh mighty Gwar!?
Please, reply to this thread with the mistake you found/question I have not answered/e-licorice of Doom! Not only will this allow me to correct the mistake/add the question/have a delicious snack, but it will bump the thread and give it more publicity!

So, that's all there is too it. I sincerely hope these FAQs help you and the community at large. I do, however, have a request! As you can tell, the Tyranid FAQ is a little on the small side. I would appreciate it if you could have a look though it and post any questions I have not answered about your Tyranids here for me to add to it.

Always the humble servant,
Gwar!

Here's another one for the FAQ: Where do the bonus attacks from the Blood Talon go during a multiple combat, and how do they have to be declared?

The original discussion here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/296363.page

Aha, very Nice.

So, to be added to the next edition of the BA FAQ:
Blood Talons vs ICs/Multiple Units
Dante's Death mask vs ICs with a Retinue.

Blood Angels and Space Wolves both updated to v2.1!

did you make faqs for the other codexes? i thought you had more then just the three that are listed here?

He Who Stood wrote:did you make faqs for the other codexes? i thought you had more then just the three that are listed here?

I believe the link is in his sig.

He Who Stood wrote:did you make faqs for the other codexes? i thought you had more then just the three that are listed here?

Hi there HWS!

No, Sadly I have not made FAQs for other armies. The first one I made was for the Space Wolves codex, which if I am to be honest, I only wrote because I am a Space Wolves player at heart and was disgusted at the poor writing, which inspired me to release the first version of the FAQ a whole 2 weeks before general release.

However, since it was accepted somewhat well by the Dakka community and others, I felt compelled to write another FAQ when the Nid codex came out, and again for the Blood Angels.

I do not, sadly again, have any plans to go back and do comprehensive Unofficial FAQs for the other codexes, though I might do so for the remaining 5th edition codexes (Dæmons, Space Marines and Imperial Guard) if I have the time to maintain them.

Now that I think about it, you might be thinking of my wiki, which I no longer maintain. In any case, the best FAQ for the other codexes would have to be the INAT. Despite my personal views on it, it's a damn good piece of work and well worth a read.

Another update, this time I added a whole TON of stuff to the Tyranid FAQ, as well as 2 more questions to the Blood Angels FAQ.

As always, let me know if I missed anything/make any errors.

Some truly weird stuff there, that is things that need fixing, not your fixes

p.s. Just a small thing, On Q60.01

"For example, a Furioso Dreadnought with Blood Talons assaults a unit of Tyranid Warriors with two attached Tyranid Primes. After all pile in moves are made, the Dreadnought finds itself in base to base contact with both Tyranid Primes and the Termagants."

Where did these Termagaunts come from!

They came from a supermagical place!
It's a typo, woops. I'll fix and throw up a stealth update!

Hey Gwar, thanks for all of your work so far.

I've got a question regarding Lemartes... one of your other answers may have also answered this one but I'll ask anyway;

For the sake of taking a Death Company Dreadnought, you need 5 DC models... does Lemartes count towards this?

The arguments I've seen are that since Corbulo counts as one of your 3 SP's that Lemartes etc etc... Though I'm guessing R.a.W. leans more the other way.

Gunzhard wrote:Hey Gwar, thanks for all of your work so far.

I've got a question regarding Lemartes... one of your other answers may have also answered this one but I'll ask anyway;

For the sake of taking a Death Company Dreadnought, you need 5 DC models... does Lemartes count towards this?

The arguments I've seen are that since Corbulo counts as one of your 3 SP's that Lemartes etc etc... Though I'm guessing R.a.W. leans more the other way.

Hey there Gunzhard.

This was indeed answered in BA.89.01.
Lemartes does not count as one. The reason Corbulo takes up a SP Slot is because the rules specifically state that he does.

Works for me... thanks again.

Just a quick announcement, v2.2 of my SW FAQ has been uploaded for your viewing pleasure.

Still looking for any and all Tyranids Qs, so make sure to email them to me!

An Update for my fellow Dakkaites.

The BA and Nid FAQs have been updated, and the preamble changed on the SW one to match the current format.

As always, feel free to email or PM me any typos you find or any questions you feel need adding!

-Bleh Doublepost D:-

So, with Dark Eldar officially confirmed here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/319245.page

Anyone who happens to have seen a codex and noticed an issue worth FAQing, let me know!

And yes, the title is a pun.

They get harlequins now which is neat. Also get a rule power through pain or something, which confers bonuses to a unit depending on how many enemy units they kill.

Nothing faq wise, just thought id share!

A Quick and friendly Bump to remind you common folk (that's a joke btw ) to submit questions now you all are able to see the codex in stores.

Current Questions:
How do Poison Ranged Weapons work?
Is the new Raider sail Hull?

You mentioned this in another thread, but it's worth bringing up for a potential DE FAQ:

What is the cap for Lelith's number of attacks, if any?

Also:

Are the "fliers" mentioned in the rules threads actually Fliers (needing 6+ to hit with shooting unless you have an anti-aircraft mount), or are they just Skimmers with a faster potential move?

I think that "flyer" means something on a Valkyrie base, ala Stormraven or Valkyrie.

Gwar! wrote:I think that "flyer" means something on a Valkyrie base, ala Stormraven or Valkyrie.

That's cool, but it'll probably need the exact same clarifications that those vehicles need: how do you measure range to/from the vehicle for shooting/assaulting, etc.

At least these two are not also troop transports...

Gwar! wrote:I think that "flyer" means something on a Valkyrie base, ala Stormraven or Valkyrie.

Possibly, but it was also said that they were Type: Flyer....

I have not seen the codex myself yet (should see it tonight), but from what a friend told me, it might be good to clarify how the Crucible of Malediction works on enemy psykers engaged in a close combat.

Well, I read the Codex last night at the FLGS, and I didn't see much in the way of huge, glaring rules issues, but I have to admit that I was reading it rather quickly. I hope to get in a game or two with it today (as will a couple of other guys at the store), and something might come up then.

Some interesting things I discovered, though:

Power through Pain: This rule grants a unit that has it the ability to generate "pain tokens" by destroying a qualifying enemy unit (non vehicle). It then goes on to say that "pain tokens" can also be generated through other means. Furthermore, it states what the effect is granted by having one or more pain tokens. There is nothing in the rule that states a unit must have the "Power through Pain" rule in order to be given or gain the benefit of having "pain tokens." From my reading, it seems that "pain tokens" can be given to any unit (though, vehicle units wouldn't gain any benefit).

The WWP is clearly identified as being impassable terrain once it's placed.

There are several items in the codex that use the "removed from play" mechanic, though the Implosion Missile is not one of them; that one causes "instant death." There are also an alarming number of weapons that cause "instant death regardless of the model's toughness."

The extra movement granted by the sails vehicle upgrade is stated to occur in the movement phase, so there isn't any of the sometimes confusion that has happened in the past with Star Engines, especially where ramming is concerned.

Gwar!, I was specifically looking for issues that might need clarification and had a small notepad with me, but nothing really jumped out at me. Hopefully, as more people see/play with the codex, we can find more issues that need to be addressed.

Here is one:

The WWP says it functions as a Table edge. Does this mean Wolf Scouts can OBEL with it?

I don't have the DE codex sadly to check the exact wording though.

I like your current avatar as opposed to the one you were rockin a few days ago.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I like your current avatar as opposed to the one you were rockin a few days ago.

Yeah, people were whining so I went back to the old one!

So, Current Q List:

Ranged Poison Weapons and Rerolls?
How do Poision Ranged weapons work at all?
Raider Sail - Counts as Hull?
Lelith - Capped at 10 attacks or no?
Crucible of Malediction works on enemy psykers engaged in a close combat? - Not sure if an issue.
The WWP says it functions as a Table edge. Does this mean Wolf Scouts can OBEL with it?
How does a Flickerfield work and what does it do? (Same issue as Bjorn - Sigh)

Any more make sure to sumbit! Been very busy IRL so no draft version uploaded, and I think I might just skip with that this time and launch 1.0 (tentatively) on the 5th of November, just to annoy GW.

Gwar! wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I like your current avatar as opposed to the one you were rockin a few days ago.

Yeah, people were whining so I went back to the old one!

Gwar caving in to public pressure without any sort of well supported argument, I scarcely believe it...

Whoops? >.>

So how does the bomber work? What does, "counts as firing a weapon." mean?

Can you place a webway portal on an objective? Because the webway is impassable, is it legal to place the webway on an objective and make the objective unattainable?

scuddman wrote:So how does the bomber work? What does, "counts as firing a weapon." mean?

Can you place a webway portal on an objective? Because the webway is impassable, is it legal to place the webway on an objective and make the objective unattainable?

Ya'll need to be a bit more specific, as I have no idea what you are talking about! :p

As for the WWP, without the Codex to hand I cannot be sure (there might be a clause about this in the codex for all I know), but from what I know, it is perfectly fine to do so, since the WWB is either 3" or 5" in diameter, which means models are still able to get within 3" of objectives (Between 1.5" of room and 0.5" of room depending on the size of the WWP which I don't know!) so it can't actually stop models contesting/capturing objectives.

It wouldnt be against the rules anyway, would it? Don't believe the rules have anything to say on the matter....

The WWP from all accounts is a repaint of the Vortex Grenade Apoc template "bubble", so just over 3" across from memory.

I believe it's a bit less than 3 inches.

Gwar! wrote:So, Current Q List:

Ranged Poison Weapons and Rerolls?
How do Poision Ranged weapons work at all?
Raider Sail - Counts as Hull?
Lelith - Capped at 10 attacks or no?
Crucible of Malediction works on enemy psykers engaged in a close combat? - Not sure if an issue.
The WWP says it functions as a Table edge. Does this mean Wolf Scouts can OBEL with it?
How does a Flickerfield work and what does it do? (Same issue as Bjorn - Sigh)

Any more make sure to sumbit! Been very busy IRL so no draft version uploaded, and I think I might just skip with that this time and launch 1.0 (tentatively) on the 5th of November, just to annoy GW.

The Codex has a section of army-wide special rules that explains how poisoned ranged weapons work. IIRC, it is entitled "Poisoned Range Weapons."

I don't think the sail should count as hull; I think it is most appropriately a manifestation of the "Enhanced Aethersails" vehicle upgrade. If you take that interpretation, you only need to include it on the model if you take that upgrade, and it is no more a part of the hull than a hunter-killer missile or searchlight on a Rhino would be.

Lelith's entry gives no limitation on the upper limit of the number of attacks. In fact, I believe the example they give is one where Lelith would result in 11 attacks.

I'm going down to the LFGS today to try to get in a game or two. Gonna take a notebook and jot down some ideas on vague areas. Unfortunately, I am not much of a crazy rules lawyer so I'll probably miss things that other people would pick up on.

I agree on the first two points, but not the third - no stat (other than Armor Value) may ever exceed 10. Now, depending on the exact wording of the rule, it may be a specific exception, but I don't have the codex yet (obviously), so I can't check that myself.

SaintHazard wrote:I agree on the first two points, but not the third - no stat (other than Armor Value) may ever exceed 10. Now, depending on the exact wording of the rule, it may be a specific exception, but I don't have the codex yet (obviously), so I can't check that myself.

There are a few things that push attacks above 10 without any caveat about the stat going over 10. Khorne Daemon weapons roll for attacks and the lord has what, 4 already? So, if your stat cannot go above 10, you're rolling 2D6 in hopes of getting 6 extra attacks? I'm at work so I can't quote any rules or even check my rulebook, but I don't think the stat cap applies to attacks.

puma713 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I agree on the first two points, but not the third - no stat (other than Armor Value) may ever exceed 10. Now, depending on the exact wording of the rule, it may be a specific exception, but I don't have the codex yet (obviously), so I can't check that myself.

There are a few things that push attacks above 10 without any caveat about the stat going over 10. Khorne Daemon weapons roll for attacks and the lord has what, 4 already? So, if your stat cannot go above 10, you're rolling 2D6 in hopes of getting 6 extra attacks? I'm at work so I can't quote any rules or even check my rulebook, but I don't think the stat cap applies to attacks.

Actually, that's a perfect example of a specific exception, which I said that Lelith might be, depending on the wording of the rule.

But just because there are specific cases that allow the Attacks stat to exceed 10 doesn't mean that Attacks can just exceed 10 anytime they want.

SaintHazard wrote:

puma713 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I agree on the first two points, but not the third - no stat (other than Armor Value) may ever exceed 10. Now, depending on the exact wording of the rule, it may be a specific exception, but I don't have the codex yet (obviously), so I can't check that myself.

There are a few things that push attacks above 10 without any caveat about the stat going over 10. Khorne Daemon weapons roll for attacks and the lord has what, 4 already? So, if your stat cannot go above 10, you're rolling 2D6 in hopes of getting 6 extra attacks? I'm at work so I can't quote any rules or even check my rulebook, but I don't think the stat cap applies to attacks.

Actually, that's a perfect example of a specific exception, which I said that Lelith might be, depending on the wording of the rule.

But just because there are specific cases that allow the Attacks stat to exceed 10 doesn't mean that Attacks can just exceed 10 anytime they want.

But there's no wording in the Daemon weapon ruling that gives the attack profile permission to go above 10. It simply says roll 2D6.

And how else would attacks exceed 10 without "specific cases"? Can you think of anything that has 10 attacks base or has the ability to get up to 10 attacks without a "specific case"?

puma713 wrote:But there's no wording in the Daemon weapon ruling that gives the attack profile permission to go above 10. It simply says roll 2D6.

And how else would attacks exceed 10 without "specific cases"? Can you think of anything that has 10 attacks base or has the ability to get up to 10 attacks without a "specific case"?

Then Daemon weapons can only give you +2d6 attacks up to a maximum of 10.

Specific permission to exceed the normal cap of 10 is not given, therefore it may not be exceeded.

Same with Lelith.

SaintHazard wrote:

puma713 wrote:But there's no wording in the Daemon weapon ruling that gives the attack profile permission to go above 10. It simply says roll 2D6.

And how else would attacks exceed 10 without "specific cases"? Can you think of anything that has 10 attacks base or has the ability to get up to 10 attacks without a "specific case"?

Then Daemon weapons can only give you +2d6 attacks up to a maximum of 10.

Specific permission to exceed the normal cap of 10 is not given, therefore it may not be exceeded.

Same with Lelith.

Have to check the rulebook. I don't agree because it's counterintuitive, but I can't back it up because I don't have my rulebook.

It IS counterintuitive.

I could max out the characters allowed in these posts listing rules that are counterintuitive.

Doesn't stop it from being the rules.

Chalk one more up to GW's poor proofreading - and the necessity of the existence of an FAQ.

SH - you are wrong. BONUS attacks can push the attack stat above 10. Rulebook

Pg 37 of the Rulebook under Number of Attacks - Note after the third bullet for bonus attaacks. "Bonus attacks are an exception to the rules for characteristics' maximum modifiers and may bring a model's total attacks above 10."

One thing I'm curious about is if 2 units with the power (strength?) through pain rule in combat with a single unit kill it in CC, do they both get a pain token or is there only one to distribute between the 2 units?

Also does a unit with an IC yield 2 pain tokens or 1 when killed?

MrDrumMachine wrote:One thing I'm curious about is if 2 units with the power (strength?) through pain rule in combat with a single unit kill it in CC, do they both get a pain token or is there only one to distribute between the 2 units?

Also does a unit with an IC yield 2 pain tokens or 1 when killed?

People that have seen the codex say that you randomly distribute between the two units. Only 1 gets a pain point. The second question is a good one though. I would imagine 2.

Your first question is the two units only get 1 token to split between them (randomly give it to one.) The Second I would "think" would be 2 pain tokens as it is two units but I am not sure.

Edit : Ninja'd by Puma

nosferatu1001 wrote:SH - you are wrong. BONUS attacks can push the attack stat above 10. Rulebook

Sigmatron wrote:Pg 37 of the Rulebook under Number of Attacks - Note after the third bullet for bonus attaacks. "Bonus attacks are an exception to the rules for characteristics' maximum modifiers and may bring a model's total attacks above 10."

Well I'll be durned.

I am the brayn dumm.

Well, it's going to take someone a lot more intelligent than I am to pull out some good fodder for an FAQ on this new codex. Every time I think I find something in it that needs to be addressed, I find that it has already been addressed somewhere else in the codex.

The Flickerfield does need addressing, because it merely states that the vehicles "has a 5+ invulnerable save."

The section on Poisoned Ranged Weapons state that they never get a re-roll to wound due to their poison and cannot affect vehicles.

The Crucible may need some type of clarification. It is used in the shooting phase in lieu of firing another weapon, but is not defined as a shooting attack. It merely states that all enemy psykers with 3d6" have to make a leadership test or be removed from play. Psykers locked in assault are not mentioned at all.

I thought I had found something with the Beastmasters, as they are listed as unit type: Beast, but the Beastmasters themselves are riding Skyboards (which change your unit type to Jump Infantry). However, upon reading the entry page for Beastmasters, I find this clause: skyboard (this is the same as the hellions' skyboard on page 28, except that the Beastmasters' unit type is beasts rather than jump infantry).

The codex states only dark eldar may use the WWP.

The Hellion Stunclaw which lets you pull an IC out of combat when doing a Hit and Run doesn't say that the IC is no longer attached to a squad he was attached to before, just says "it is moved with the Hellions... When their Hit and Run move is finished, leave as many Hellions in base contact with the 'snatched' model as possible - this new combat will be resolved next turn." Seems to me that by RAW, if he was attached to a squad, that squad will be forced to consolidate back into the fight.

Bladevanes inflict their hits on "one unengaged, non-vehicle unit that lies under the line", you are never told how this unit is determined if multiple units are passed during the turbo-boost.

Power from pain deals entirely with units "Each pain token confers a special rule to the entire unit". Beastmaster units consist of a number of different models including Beastmaster models, and 3 different types of beasts, the Beastmaster is the only model in the unit with the Power from Pain rule, it seems the RAW would mean the unit (including the beasts themselves) has power from pain till the Beastmasters die, but it's certainly vague.

The Incubi Murderous Assault rule which allows the Klavex (Sergeant) to nominate an enemy IC says "The Klavex has Preferred Enemy when attacking that model", while the intent is clear, I'm not sure this sufficiently restricts his Preferred Enemy to only attacks against the IC, for example, the Klavex could split attacks between the IC and the unit the IC is attached to, he is attacking the nominated model, thus satisfying the Murderous Assault rule requirements, and thus, is granted Preferred Enemy for all his attacks, even those against other models.

Regarding the earlier bomber question I think I see what he was going for, it does its bombing attack in the movement phase, on a model it passed over, and the rule states "Note that this counts as using a weapon." but the restrictions on firing weapons in the rulebook are given as "The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's Movement phase". Given the bomber has a special rule allowing it to fire all weapons at cruising speed, that's not an issue, however, it potentially could be argued that by RAW, the bomber can perform a 36" flat out move and still drop the bomb, even though it counts as using a weapon, because it's not doing so in the shooting phase.

Baron Sathonyx allows an army to "[add] one to the dice roll when determining which side chooses deployment zone." This roll of course in the rules is a roll to determine who chooses to go first or second.

Drazhar is given both Klavex powers, one grants a bonus to the Klavex, the other grants a bonus to the Klavex and Incubi in his squad, neither of them would affect Drazhar as he is not a Klavex or an Incubi but a Drazhar.

The Dais of Destruction says "The Dais of Destruction must begin the game carrying nine models in addition to Vect himself." But a Dedicated transport can only carry "the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters)." So there's no way to start the game with 9 extra models in it.

The Animus Vitae is called a special close combat weapon, although it's not given any bonuses in close combat, and its effects would presumably work even if you weren't using it to attack ("If the bearer kills one or more enemy models in a round of combat"). Only an issue if like me you subscribe to the idea that simply having 2 special close combat weapons on your person is sufficient to prevent you from gaining a bonus attack for two close combat weapons, and not really hard to understand, but strange still.

Crucible of Malediction + Psykers in transports? Given the way GW ruled in the Tyranid FAQ that nothing affected models in transports, I imagine they will say this doesn't either, but RAW I think it would.

Drunkspleen wrote: The Dais of Destruction says "The Dais of Destruction must begin the game carrying nine models in addition to Vect himself." But a Dedicated transport can only carry "the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters)." So there's no way to start the game with 9 extra models in it

Unless he can take a retinue ofcourse . . . having not seen the codex yet I don't know. But this is the only way it would work by RAW. =]

Oshova

Mr. Drunkspleen, If I ever manage to get a passport, a majillion dorrah and fly over to Prison Isle, I owe you an ale!

Drunkspleen wrote:The Hellion Stunclaw which lets you pull an IC out of combat when doing a Hit and Run doesn't say that the IC is no longer attached to a squad he was attached to before, just says "it is moved with the Hellions... When their Hit and Run move is finished, leave as many Hellions in base contact with the 'snatched' model as possible - this new combat will be resolved next turn." Seems to me that by RAW, if he was attached to a squad, that squad will be forced to consolidate back into the fight.

Unless it explicitly states that the IC leaves the unit, he does indeed remain part of the unit until the begining of the IC's next movement phase, so the Unit would be forced to Pile in towards the Helions that turn, and the next turn should the H&R be done in the opponents Assault phase. Very Interesting and very FAQ worthy!

Drunkspleen wrote:Bladevanes inflict their hits on "one unengaged, non-vehicle unit that lies under the line", you are never told how this unit is determined if multiple units are passed during the turbo-boost.

I would assume that you simply get to pick one, since it mentions a specific number.

Drunkspleen wrote:Power from pain deals entirely with units "Each pain token confers a special rule to the entire unit". Beastmaster units consist of a number of different models including Beastmaster models, and 3 different types of beasts, the Beastmaster is the only model in the unit with the Power from Pain rule, it seems the RAW would mean the unit (including the beasts themselves) has power from pain till the Beastmasters die, but it's certainly vague.

Agreed. The rule allows all members of the unit to benefit, even if they don't have the rule (See the USR "Stealth" for another example), but as soon as the models with that rule are all dead, no-one benefits (See Telion with Scouts that have no Camo cloaks for an example). Lots of room for confusion though, and worth an FAQ entry!

Drunkspleen wrote:The Incubi Murderous Assault rule which allows the Klavex (Sergeant) to nominate an enemy IC says "The Klavex has Preferred Enemy when attacking that model", while the intent is clear, I'm not sure this sufficiently restricts his Preferred Enemy to only attacks against the IC, for example, the Klavex could split attacks between the IC and the unit the IC is attached to, he is attacking the nominated model, thus satisfying the Murderous Assault rule requirements, and thus, is granted Preferred Enemy for all his attacks, even those against other models.

Here I would have to say only attacks made towards the IC benefit, since "attacking that model" seems to be rather unambigous! What is ambigous however is what exactly "Preferred Enemy" does (as opposed to "Preferred Enemy: Tau/Ork etc"), as it would need to be started that it works against everything.

Drunkspleen wrote:Regarding the earlier bomber question I think I see what he was going for, it does its bombing attack in the movement phase, on a model it passed over, and the rule states "Note that this counts as using a weapon." but the restrictions on firing weapons in the rulebook are given as "The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's Movement phase". Given the bomber has a special rule allowing it to fire all weapons at cruising speed, that's not an issue, however, it potentially could be argued that by RAW, the bomber can perform a 36" flat out move and still drop the bomb, even though it counts as using a weapon, because it's not doing so in the shooting phase.

You are indeed 100% Correct. You can drop it in the movement phase and still fire all weapons at Cruising speed and even drop it when moving flat out. What the "counts as firing a weapon" does is prevent you from being unable to do anything at all, since the rules for Blast Weapons and causing wounds etc are only found in the Shooting Phase, so things like that that happen in the movement phase technically do nothing!

Drunkspleen wrote:Baron Sathonyx allows an army to "[add] one to the dice roll when determining which side chooses deployment zone." This roll of course in the rules is a roll to determine who chooses to go first or second.

I hate you GW... so... very... much...
THEY EVEN MADE AN ERRATA THIS FOR BJORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BELGIUM!

Drunkspleen wrote:Drazhar is given both Klavex powers, one grants a bonus to the Klavex, the other grants a bonus to the Klavex and Incubi in his squad, neither of them would affect Drazhar as he is not a Klavex or an Incubi but a Drazhar.

Lovely. Glad to know GW still have the same playtesting groups.

Drunkspleen wrote:The Dais of Destruction says "The Dais of Destruction must begin the game carrying nine models in addition to Vect himself." But a Dedicated transport can only carry "the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters)." So there's no way to start the game with 9 extra models in it.

Here I am not so sure. Does it say it is a Dedicated Transport as opposed to just a model that can carry doods that you need a certain IC for? What my main issue was the wording that some people could think you get the 9 models for free (which you don't, so Vect ends up costing 440+Unit cost!).

Drunkspleen wrote:The Animus Vitae is called a special close combat weapon, although it's not given any bonuses in close combat, and its effects would presumably work even if you weren't using it to attack ("If the bearer kills one or more enemy models in a round of combat"). Only an issue if like me you subscribe to the idea that simply having 2 special close combat weapons on your person is sufficient to prevent you from gaining a bonus attack for two close combat weapons, and not really hard to understand, but strange still.

Agreed. While you would have to either "use" it (which wouldn't do anything special, so you just attack with your base characteristics) or choose to use a different Special CCW (and thus loose the bonus attack), you still get the additional benefit for killing things even if you use a different weapons (as the weapon, from what you have said here, doesn't require it to be the weapon used to kill something, only that he kills something while having it upon his/her personage).

Drunkspleen wrote:Crucible of Malediction + Psykers in transports? Given the way GW ruled in the Tyranid FAQ that nothing affected models in transports, I imagine they will say this doesn't either, but RAW I think it would.

Agreed. RaW it affects them (and those in CC). Not much argument here.

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:The Incubi Murderous Assault rule which allows the Klavex (Sergeant) to nominate an enemy IC says "The Klavex has Preferred Enemy when attacking that model", while the intent is clear, I'm not sure this sufficiently restricts his Preferred Enemy to only attacks against the IC, for example, the Klavex could split attacks between the IC and the unit the IC is attached to, he is attacking the nominated model, thus satisfying the Murderous Assault rule requirements, and thus, is granted Preferred Enemy for all his attacks, even those against other models.

Here I would have to say only attacks made towards the IC benefit, since "attacking that model" seems to be rather unambigous! What is ambigous however is what exactly "Preferred Enemy" does (as opposed to "Preferred Enemy: Tau/Ork etc"), as it would need to be started that it works against everything.

Fly in the ointment, the Decapitator had the alternate wording of having Preferred Enemy "for attacks made against this model", his similar rule was definitely much more clear in that he cannot split his attacks and gain the bonus.

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:The Dais of Destruction says "The Dais of Destruction must begin the game carrying nine models in addition to Vect himself." But a Dedicated transport can only carry "the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters)." So there's no way to start the game with 9 extra models in it.

Here I am not so sure. Does it say it is a Dedicated Transport as opposed to just a model that can carry doods that you need a certain IC for? What my main issue was the wording that some people could think you get the 9 models for free (which you don't, so Vect ends up costing 440+Unit cost!).

I can't say for sure how it was listed in the proper army list, but in the earlier unit entries with the fluff and special rules etc, the Dais is described as "a special Raider dedicated transport with three Dark lances".

Fair enough. If it IS a DT, then it is indeed unusable!

A Quick update, since I managed to get a look at the codex today for realsies and, despite what will need an FAQ, there is a lot that doesn't that would have needed to in the past.

For example, poison shooting weapons are indeed covered in the special rules (the special rule is even called "Poison Shooting Weapons"). I am shocked and appalled that GW would do such a thing! D:

Expect some TFGs arguing that Delfdars aren't fleet, since everything has "the Fleet special rule", not "the Fleet Universal Special Rule as detailed in the Warhammer 40k rulebook".

Wytches Dodge save has been explicitly fixed to apply ONLY to CC attacks, so no more arguments about scattering Blasts.

Reavers "Bladevanes" rule is a little unclear. It causes D3 hits per model, but doesn't explicitly state if it's D3*x hits or xD3 hits (where x ois the number of models), it just says D3 per model.

That being said, the Cluster Caltrops say that a model with them does D6 at a different Strength, so It implies that it might be xD3, though it could just as easily be (D3*x)+(D6*y). FAQ worth for sure I feel. It also happens in the movement phase, so the standard "How does this work at all" question needs to be addressed.

Another hint that it is xD3 however is the Gravtalon, which is a Bladevane that cause pinning if it causes a wound. Since it is used the same way as a bladevane, you would have to roll it separately, but again, you can argue that it becomes (D3*x)+(D6*y)+(D3*z). HerpDeDerp!

Beastmasters are a mess of rules sadly. Having checked the Power from Pain rule, it says "Whenever a Delfdar unit with PfP destroys a non-vehicle enemy unit" they get the Pain Token. Since not everyone has PfP in the unit, if there are any beasts, they cannot earn Pain Tokens on their own.

That being said, the rule then goes on to say "each pain token confers a special rule to the ENTIRE UNIT". Therefore, while the Beastmaster unit cannot earn Pain Tokens by themselves, if they have them, everyone in the unit benefits so long as one model with PfP is alive. Lots of FAQ stuff there.

Oh, and one of the beasts has "the Rending Special rule" (Zee Rule! SHE DOES NOZEENG!) -Le Sigh-

One of the Incubi "Exarch powers" gives him "Preferred Enemy" against an IC. PE on its own without a race doesn't actually do anything RaW.

Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

The Baron does indeed suffer from Useless Special Rule Syndrome (also known as Bjornitis), so a change to the Who goes first rule is needed. They did nip the Stealth Arguments in the bud by making him grant the stealth USR to any unit he is with while he is with them though.

I am once again shocked and appalled at GW clarifying what happens with Multiple WS with Lelith with regards to her extra attacks, as well as explicitly labeling them Bonus attacks (so she ends up getting 13 when she assaults Fire Warriors.

GW make you chuckle evilly when you place The Decapitator, (BUT FORGET TO DEFINE WHAT EVIL CHUCKLE MEANS OMFG!) but otherwise suffers from the poor Preferred enemy wording.

The Duke has a special rule that says he MUST be deployed with a unit of Warriors or Trueborn, but doesn't go into what happens if you don't have a unit of them in your army, nor does it explicitly require you to have one. It also doesn't explicitly tell you what happens to their upgraded poisons should he die or leave, but the wording seems to indicate they keep the bonus regardless of what happens to him.

As pointed out in another thread, a reminder that you cannot assault out of Raiders that Deep Strike via the Dukes special rule (as the Wargear explicitly forbids it, but the duke doesn't, despite it being forbidden by the main rules anyway).

Drahzah suffers from PheonixLordNotAbleToUseExarchPoweritis (fitting as he is rumored to be Arhra - "The fallen Phoenix" of the Striking Scorpions - in disguise. He also has a very odd rule that lets him move an unlimited distance at the beginning of any combat (that is, after all assault moves) he is in so long as he remains in BTB with the enemy and in coherency with his doods. Not sure how useful that is, but interesting nonetheless. A Reminder that it is indeed UNLIMITED MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!

Lady Malys has the same issue as Khârn does, in that she (and her unit) are "completely immune" to psychic powers", with no indication if "Indirect powers" like Enhance, Sanguine Sword or Quickening are ignored also.

She also has a straight up Invul, not just in Close Combat, which might confuse people! D:

Her redeploying power says "after both sides have deployed" but doesn't make mention of where scout moves come into this. I would assume Before from the wording however.

Plasma Grenades don't work. Same reason as IG frags. Useless pillocks the lot of you! And you started off so well!

The CoM is still a nasty Wargear item, though I can't see how the enemy being in CC would be a problem. Need to clarify if it affects embarked Psykers of course (it does) and how it affects units with multiple psykers (each one takes a test! )

-Me goes to sleep then gets to work-

What if an independent character with a pain token were to join a combat with say a group of witches. The character was not initially joined to the unit but the combat goes on for a few rounds and in the controlling players turn ends up within the 2" distance for joining a unit. Does the pain token then get counted for the whole new "unit"?

I'd suggest doing an addative thing: ie - before IC(1), squad(0) , enemy squad gets killed resolving 1 token, after IC(1+1), squad (0+1)

I guess I worded my question poorly. Let me clarify. You have IC(1) unattached to wych squad (0). Both DE units assault a unit and 1 full game turn are still in combat with that unit. The IC is now within 2" of the wych squad in your movement phase. Can you then count the IC as joining the wych unit and grant them fnp for the assault phase?

I'd be rolling with a no for that, although I'd say the IC still gets it. But that's just my logic.

MrDrumMachine wrote:The IC is now within 2" of the wych squad in your movement phase. Can you then count the IC as joining the wych unit and grant them fnp for the assault phase?

To me this reads a little oddly, but strikes home for a number of reasons--DoM being one.

Can you? No, you must.

If an IC is within 2" of a unit at the end of the (controlling player's) turn, the player MUST declare which unit (within 2") the IC joins.

If the IC ends far enough away from the unit as to prevent it rejoining, the IC leaves after the movement phase for the exact same reason.


Or did I miss something entirely?

No, he won't, because in order to join a unit he must move to within 2" in the movement phase. If he is locked in combat, he can't move, so he can't join the Wyches.

If you want them to share the pain, make sure toy join them before assaulting.

Incidentally, I just uploaded the first draft of the DE FAQ, v0.1, at the usual place. Apologies for the xx instead of numbers and the few rough edges, but it saves me from having to renumber the lot 20 times and this only the very first early draft!

Yes, this is incomplete, I still have the vehicle armory, wargear entries and Army list to do at least!

Remember, if you have a question that you feel should be included, make sure to let me know here!

Gwar! wrote:Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Interesting, had not noticed this, I wonder if the intention was for them to have a 6+ cover save in the open like their old 5+ permanent cover save, I don't think stealth actually does so though.

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

Once again something I hadn't even considered, why can't you snipe with it? seems like only the models under the template would be eligible to die from it, actually I'm not sure it works well at all, It says the models that fail suffer instant death, but doesn't say wounds have been inflicted, which leaves confusion as to how the saves can be taken etc. I guess the simplest is to just say inflicting instant death in this case means inflicting an instant death wound, but then, if you applied that globally, it's the same wording as say a force weapon, which I doubt most people would let you "assign" the instant death of a force weapon as you would a normal wound.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Interesting, had not noticed this, I wonder if the intention was for them to have a 6+ cover save in the open like their old 5+ permanent cover save, I don't think stealth actually does so though.

Nah, Stealth wont do that. If they GTG in the open they get the 5+ though, but with a 5++ it's pointless unless someone is using RaI Psycannons.

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

Once again something I hadn't even considered, why can't you snipe with it? seems like only the models under the template would be eligible to die from it, actually I'm not sure it works well at all, It says the models that fail suffer instant death, but doesn't say wounds have been inflicted, which leaves confusion as to how the saves can be taken etc. I guess the simplest is to just say inflicting instant death in this case means inflicting an instant death wound, but then, if you applied that globally, it's the same wording as say a force weapon, which I doubt most people would let you "assign" the instant death of a force weapon as you would a normal wound.

As I said in t3h draft, it's not very clear. I highly doubt they would have a sniping weapon like that and not explicitly state it. It's not 100% clear though (that's why I make these damn things! )

Thanks for the feedback though! I just noticed I forgot about the Animus Vite thing, Added that now. -le Sigh- Now I just need to somehow get money to get a 2 hour train to look at the codex again to get the rest of the page numbers and check for more rules issues!

Here's a question for you: what do splinter cannons count as when fired from a vehicle, since they don't have a strength value?

Skittles wrote:Here's a question for you: what do splinter cannons count as when fired from a vehicle, since they don't have a strength value?

Covered in the codex. Page 25.

Oops...missed that one the first time through...

Was just perusing a Bell of Lost Souls post discussing the new rules and spotted something that might be worth putting in your FAQ.

They mentioned the concept of attaching an IC with Power from Pain to a unit without it, e.g. attach an IC to harlequins.

In theory, this works the same as the beastmaster unit situation as long as the IC is attached, what about in melee where the IC is treated as a separate unit when attacks are resolved? Seems like you would lose the benefit to the non power from pain unit for the assault phase.

Also, when the unit splits up, you are forced to divide the pain tokens as equally as possible, so the Harlies leech some pain tokens they can't even use off the IC.

The power from pain rule also doesn't specifiy when randomly distributing pain tokens that only power from pain units are eligible, so even if you aren't trying to exploit anything, a unit of wyches and harlequins both charge an enemy unit, the enemy unit is wiped out, you randomly determine the harlequins win the pain token.

(note that this affects your beastmaster RAW Gwar, where you felt they couldn't earn the tokens unless the whole unit had Power from Pain, in a combined assault they could get them, and I think by RAW you could even argue, a combined assault wherein none of the models have power from pain nets a pain token)

All sorts of problems I hadn't seen before, Definitely a rule where in a friendly setting I will advocate slight changes before the game to how it works, I will probably go with, beastmasters count as a unit with power from pain until all the beastmaster models are dead and so can earn pain tokens and use them. ICs with power from pain are treated as entirely separate for pain tokens when joined to a non power from pain unit, only the IC benefits, however, the IC also gets any earned tokens, without losing them to the squad should he leave them. In a combined assault, pain tokens are only distributed if at least one unit has power from pain, and you only randomize between units that have power from pain.

It's not RAW, but right now RAW is seeming like a mess.

Thanks for the input drunkspleen.

I would have to disagree with you on the IC with a non-PfP unit thing.

The rules on page 49 state:
If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat, the character assaults too, as it is part of the unit. When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on page 41), even though they have joined the unit.

As such, I would say they only count as a separate unit when determining who attacks what etc, but anything else will affect the whole unit, as he is part of the unit.

That being said, good call on the Spliting of the tokens, both from IC's leaving and the random determination from a multi unit assault. Looks like Harlies are gonna be having a lot of useless pain tokens!

I think the beastmaster thing is correct however, as only a unit who has PfP can generate Tokens, but don't need PfP to benefit. The reason they stop benefiting if no-one has PfP is that they no longer have any rule telling you what the benefits of Pain Tokens are, because no-one has PfP!

This would mean that a (for example), Hæmonculus with Harlies wipes out a unit, they won't get another Pain Token as not everyone has PfP, but they will have FnP from the Hæmonculuses Starting Pain Token, but should said Harlies and a unit of Wyches wipe out a unit, the harlies might get one! D:

As for two non-PFP generating a Pain Token, I strongly disagree, since neither has PfP, you can never reference the PfP rule so the "When wipe out enemy make a pain token" rule never comes into effect.

As always, thanks again. Good stuff and a lot to think about! D:

Gwar! wrote:The rules on page 49 state:
If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat, the character assaults too, as it is part of the unit. When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on page 41), even though they have joined the unit.

As such, I would say they only count as a separate unit when determining who attacks what etc, but anything else will affect the whole unit, as he is part of the unit.

At first I thought this would be an agree to disagree thing, given it relies on the interpretation of "attacks are resolved" but then I noticed that further down Page 49 it says:

"...these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards)."

The thing is, most rules where an IC grants a bonus to a unit (or atleast, the ones I can dig up easily) say for example "Astorath and all members of any squad he has joined" I guess I kind of feel an IC is still considered joined to a squad ("treated as a separate single-model unit ... even though they have joind the unit"), but they are not a single unit while attacks are happening, it's all a bit bizarre, and potentially could impact other armies I guess.

Gwar! wrote:As for two non-PFP generating a Pain Token, I strongly disagree, since neither has PfP, you can never reference the PfP rule so the "When wipe out enemy make a pain token" rule never comes into effect.

Yeah in hindsight I was probably getting a step ahead of myself and focused on the seperation of the single unit and multiple unit rules, combined with the fact that the multiple unit rules never call for a unit to have PfP, but when I step backed and thought about it, you would be right that no rules regarding Pain Tokens can even kick in.

Does nullzone work on the flickerfield?

scuddman wrote:Does nullzone work on the flickerfield?

Of course. "All enemy units" includes Vehicles.

I'll throw this in, as well as a note about Psycannons and other Invul Affecting things.

Any word on the bomber yet?
I guess to be more specific, the rules for the voidraven dictate that you can place the template anywhere that the voidraven has moved over, and that it "counts as firing a weapon."

I don't understand what that means...
Can you turboboost and do it?
What about if you're immobilized?
What if you move only 1 inch, so the template will hit part of the voidraven?
What if you deepstrike?
Does crew shaken stop the voidraven from dropping it?
What about if you moved and then got immobilized?
Can you tank shock (assuming you bought upgrade) and then drop it?
What about the timing? Nothing is said about the timing of it, so what happens if you tank shock, someone death or glories, and it dies? or gets immobilized or shaken? Does it happen before you got shaken?


More questions about the flickerfield. I move a raider into cover and get immobilized. Can I take my flickerfield save? What about something else that debuffs the raider but doesn't directly do damage like the grabbin klaw? Do I get an I save against that?

Also, if dark eldar jetbikes count as eldar jetbikes, does that mean all dark eldar units count as eldar units?

scuddman wrote:Any word on the bomber yet?
I guess to be more specific, the rules for the voidraven dictate that you can place the template anywhere that the voidraven has moved over, and that it "counts as firing a weapon."

I don't understand what that means...
Can you turboboost and do it? yes, the restrictions on how many weapons you can fire based on movement only apply to the shooting phase
What about if you're immobilized? Depends on how you define "Passed Over" but I would say no, and define only models who were passed over by the base as "Passed Over".
What if you move only 1 inch, so the template will hit part of the voidraven?1 inch is, by my definition of using the base, not enough to pass over a model, however you could end your move with part of the voidraven between 1.000001 and 1.5 inches away from an enemy and be hit, it will be affected by it's own bomb in that case
What if you deepstrike? You can't have passed over a model in deep striking
Does crew shaken stop the voidraven from dropping it? Unlike a flat out move crew shaken would affect it, as it applies in all phases.
What about if you moved and then got immobilized? I see no reason being immobilized would stop it, infact, even if the voidraven is destroyed by the immobilization I think you would get to resolve it
Can you tank shock (assuming you bought upgrade) and then drop it? Irrelevant, see page 93 of the codex
What about the timing? Nothing is said about the timing of it, so what happens if you tank shock, someone death or glories, and it dies? or gets immobilized or shaken? Does it happen before you got shaken? see previous answer

That's my take on it

Voidraven moves over some cluster mines and gets shaken. How do you resolve that? Can it drop the mine before it got shaken? Can it not drop the mine at all? Or can it drop the mine anywhere?

I remember writing to GW once, telling them that putting in rules that break the normal order of the rules were terrible for gameplay and gamebalance..using the huge headache that is lash as an example.

But I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

scuddman wrote:Voidraven moves over some cluster mines and gets shaken. How do you resolve that? Can it drop the mine before it got shaken? Can it not drop the mine at all? Or can it drop the mine anywhere?

I remember writing to GW once, telling them that putting in rules that break the normal order of the rules were terrible for gameplay and gamebalance..using the huge headache that is lash as an example.

But I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Cluster mines trigger "once the unit has finished it's move" (also, only if a model moves into the terrain piece, not over it), the bomb is used during the voidraven movement phase, so the bomb would have higher priority and happen first.

This Voidraven Bomber is hurting my brain, especially the issue of can it move Flat out and use it, as well as what the frak "This counts as using a Weapon" us supposed to mean! D:

For what it's worth I happen to agree with Drunkspleen on this though I am not 100% on the Flat Out move.

To me, the only rationale for the "this counts as using a weapon" line is to indicate that it cannot be used when a weapon would otherwise not be able to be used (with the specified exception of using it during the shooting phase).

From that perspective, the bomb couldn't be dropped if you move flat out or if the vehicle were shaken.

By that interpretation, would one also have to consider the bomb eligible for a "weapon destroyed" result?

Saldiven wrote:To me, the only rationale for the "this counts as using a weapon" line is to indicate that it cannot be used when a weapon would otherwise not be able to be used (with the specified exception of using it during the shooting phase).

From that perspective, the bomb couldn't be dropped if you move flat out or if the vehicle were shaken.

By that interpretation, would one also have to consider the bomb eligible for a "weapon destroyed" result?

It has a profile, it's a weapon. If HK missiles can be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed result (they can), then so can the Voidraven's bomm bomb.

Agreed. It can be selected for a WD result... and in fact, like the HK, can be picked even if it has fired its one shot.

Firing doesn't destroy the weapon, all it says is that it is one shot only, so an "empty" one still needs to be WD in order to glance the Voidraven to death.

Nice catch, adding now!

Makes the Voidraven a little bit hardier. And that thing needs all the survivability it can get.

Not to derail, But Why don't you get your own section for your FAQ's that way everyone won't be bombing one thread with a million questions, so when I have a SW question (which GWAR! knows, Happens a lot) I don't have sift through DE questions because I don't care? seems like it might be more efficient for everyone if they are in a common area but not all in one thread

Johnnyboy955 wrote:Not to derail, But Why don't you get your own section for your FAQ's that way everyone won't be bombing one thread with a million questions, so when I have a SW question (which GWAR! knows, Happens a lot) I don't have sift through DE questions because I don't care? seems like it might be more efficient for everyone if they are in a common area but not all in one thread

If you have a SW question, send an e-mail (or a PM, but I prefer e-mail).

This thread is for Feedback for my FAQs and to have them all in one place (the first post) instead of scattered about like they were before.

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Interesting, had not noticed this, I wonder if the intention was for them to have a 6+ cover save in the open like their old 5+ permanent cover save, I don't think stealth actually does so though.

Nah, Stealth wont do that. If they GTG in the open they get the 5+ though, but with a 5++ it's pointless unless someone is using RaI Psycannons.

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

Once again something I hadn't even considered, why can't you snipe with it? seems like only the models under the template would be eligible to die from it, actually I'm not sure it works well at all, It says the models that fail suffer instant death, but doesn't say wounds have been inflicted, which leaves confusion as to how the saves can be taken etc. I guess the simplest is to just say inflicting instant death in this case means inflicting an instant death wound, but then, if you applied that globally, it's the same wording as say a force weapon, which I doubt most people would let you "assign" the instant death of a force weapon as you would a normal wound.

As I said in t3h draft, it's not very clear. I highly doubt they would have a sniping weapon like that and not explicitly state it. It's not 100% clear though (that's why I make these damn things! )

Thanks for the feedback though! I just noticed I forgot about the Animus Vite thing, Added that now. -le Sigh- Now I just need to somehow get money to get a 2 hour train to look at the codex again to get the rest of the page numbers and check for more rules issues!

Implosion Missles:The models hit by a implosion missle must take a wound test... if they fail they get removed from play with no saves allowed. The Mandrakes have a 5+ inv save i think.

yeah, but Invulnerable saves are still a save, which the Implosion Missile doesn't allow!

Incidentally, version 0.2 is uploaded, at the usual place.

Bleh. I can't access that location here at work :(

Nulipuli2 wrote:Implosion Missles:The models hit by a implosion missle must take a wound test... if they fail they get removed from play with no saves allowed.

The rule is extremely iffy, the wording of models taking the test and that those models "suffer instant death" is the same as the wording on a force weapon, which I'm pretty sure most people accept is not assignable, however, the fact that the Implosion missile goes on to say cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken suggests that this "instant death" that models are suffering, must be wounds, as you cant take a cover/invulnerable save "as normal" unless you are being wounded.

Nulipuli2 wrote:The Mandrakes have a 5+ inv save i think.

Given my success in demolishing the codex and finding all sorts of RAW issues you would think I would be able to spot that Mandrakes have a 5++ save even though it's not on their stat line...

Gwar! wrote:yeah, but Invulnerable saves are still a save, which the Implosion Missile doesn't allow!

The Implosion missile actually specifically allows cover and invulnerable saves, and I believe he was saying 2 separate things.

Saldiven wrote:Bleh. I can't access that location here at work :(

Seek and Ye Shall be rewarded!

Here is a link to my Dropbox, if that doesn't work, let me know.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10125119/Unofficial%20Codex%20Dark%20Eldar%20FAQ%20v0.2.pdf

@Drunkspleen: Figures. Still, Lrn2Read!

DE.25.xx – Q: If a unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule is joined by an Independent Character with the “Power from Pain” special
rule, does the unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule benefit from the “Power from Pain” special rule and what
happens if the Independent Character leaves the unit or is killed?

Is much the same as

DE.25.xx – Q: How exactly does the “Power from Pain” special rule work for a unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule which has
been joined by an Independent Character with the “Power from Pain” special rule? Can they generate Pain Tokens? Do they
benefit from the rule at all?

DE.29.xx – Q: Does the imaginary line drawn between the start and end points of a Reaver units movement for the purposes of Bladevanes
have to be straight?
A: Yes, the line must be a straight line going directly from the start point to the end point. [Rules Change]

I would personally say that the line must follow their movement, rather than, a direct start point to end point line, I think they should be able to hit a unit then zip out at a different angle, of course, given the wording of Mark the Start and End points and then trace an imaginary line, your rules change is probably closer to RAW.

DE.29.xx – Q: Do the effects given by Cluster Caltrops and Grav-Talons replace those of the Bladevanes or are they in addition to them?
A: They replace them completely. Remember in particular to roll the dice for Grav-Talon attacks separate from the Bladevanes! [Clarification]
• It can, however, be interpreted that they do not replace the effect normally caused by Bladevanes, but are in addition to it..

Just a slight nitpick, the Cluster Caltrops specifically modify the effect of the bladevanes, so there's no way to interpret them as being in addition.

DE.31.xx – Q: Does the “Murderous Assault” special rule allow a Klaivex to benefit from “Preferred Enemy” when attacking a unit
consisting of an Independent Character and its Retinue?
A: No, as there is no way for the Klaivex to only attack the Independent Character model until the Retune is dead. [R.a.W]

I personally disagree with this RAW, and feel a Klaivex could be said to be attacking both the IC and each model in his retinue (Note: Same situation as a squadron of Piranhas with Flechette Dischargers i.e. not specifically targetting one, but could be said to be attacking all of them).

DE.35.xx – Q: When rolling to determine the characteristics of a Medudae's “Eyeburst” attack, do you roll a single die for both characteristics
or two dice, one for each characteristic?

"Medudae"

Ended up rushing through the rest a bit so might have to re-examine it.

Thanks for the feedback Drunkspleen.

Yeah, looks like a Duplicate got in there, I'll kill it off.

As for the Reavers, yeah, going for as close to RaW as possible.

Woops, mispellings ftl!

And as for the Caltrops, all the rule says is:
A model with Cluster Caltrops inflicts [CENSORED BY ORDER OF THE GW ATTACK PANDAS] hits with its Bladevanes (see above).

It doesn't say "instead of", thus the need to clarify it.

Question: Can a Haemonculus/Haemonulus Ancient carry a Casket of Flensing when Urien Rakarth is in the army, since he has one in his wargear?

Homer

Homer S wrote:Question: Can a Haemonculus/Haemonulus Ancient carry a Casket of Flensing when Urien Rakarth is in the army, since he has one in his wargear?

Homer

I would say No, since it is a 1 per army wargear.

Good catch though!

Drunkspleen - an IC within a retinue no longer "counts as" an IC but a UC - would that not be enough to get round it? You cannot target the IC at all therefore cannot fulfil the requirements of preferred enemy (the retinue unit certainly ISNT an IC)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Drunkspleen - an IC within a retinue no longer "counts as" an IC but a UC - would that not be enough to get round it? You cannot target the IC at all therefore cannot fulfil the requirements of preferred enemy (the retinue unit certainly ISNT an IC)

Ah true, an oversight on my part, you can't even get to the point of my comparison with the Piranha situation because the Character in retinue is not a valid target to be named for Murderous Assault (given he is not an IC at the time).

Here's a random question:

Lilith gets plus attacks for every WS higher than her opponent. What happens if she was a lower WS (perhaps she suffered from the Tyranid psychic power that makes her BS and WS 1)?

I assume she doesn't get negative attacks, but thought it would be worth asking.

Isn't she immune to psychic powers?

Or am I thinking of the wrong character?

Regardless I was wondering something similar, but have not yet had a chance to read.

kirsanth wrote:Isn't she immune to psychic powers?

Or am I thinking of the wrong character?

Regardless I was wondering something similar, but have not yet had a chance to read.

That would be the other Dark Eldar female: Lady Malys.

Homer

Homer S wrote:That would be the other Dark Eldar female: Lady Malys.

Duly noted, thank you kindly! I think I have been mixing those two up for 2 days now. . .

andruin wrote:Here's a random question:

Lilith gets plus attacks for every WS higher than her opponent. What happens if she was a lower WS (perhaps she suffered from the Tyranid psychic power that makes her BS and WS 1)?

I assume she doesn't get negative attacks, but thought it would be worth asking.

I could see an argument that she's -4 WS "higher", therefor "gains" -4 attacks. But, I'd think that this is not a mathematical equation hidden in English. I'd say Lilith only gains a positive number of attacks for being higher WS, and not a negative number for being lower.

andruin wrote:
Lilith gets plus attacks for every WS higher than her opponent. What happens if she was a lower WS (perhaps she suffered from the Tyranid psychic power that makes her BS and WS 1)?

That's not accurate. Her rules don't say anything about her having a higher WS. In fact, it says she gets a number of attacks equal to the difference between her's and the highest she's facing.

So if that hypothetical Hive Tyrant lowered her WS to 1, she'd get 7 extra attacks against him. Difference between 8 and 1 is 7.

@Darkness

Surely that can't be right? That would make no sense whatsoever!

Absolute difference in comparison to relative difference? Actually we've seen worse.

liam0404 wrote:@Darkness

Surely that can't be right? That would make no sense whatsoever!

It is. Not like her Str 3 is killing much of anything anyway.

DarknessEternal wrote:

liam0404 wrote:@Darkness

Surely that can't be right? That would make no sense whatsoever!

It is. Not like her Str 3 is killing much of anything anyway.

I thought she had poison weapons. Doesn't she?

*sigh* I really need to get a DE codex.


And, I don't know why Homer is quoting me as saying Dark Angels, not Dark Eldar. This post has never been editied, it was correct the entire time! (We really need a shifty-eyed ork emoticon)

Grakmar wrote:*sigh* I really need to get a DA codex.

Unless things have *really* changed in the Imperium, I think you mean a DE codex.

Homer

DarknessEternal wrote:

liam0404 wrote:@Darkness

Surely that can't be right? That would make no sense whatsoever!

It is. Not like her Str 3 is killing much of anything anyway.

Remember, she can get pain tokens, so she can get furious charge. Not an epic improvement, but noticeable.

Also, statistically, 10 of her attacks will, on average, do slightly more wounds than 6 attacks by a S4 model who also hits on 3+ with a power weapon. She should have a minimum of 10 attacks in any round against basic marines.

Also, against regular attacks, her defense is pretty darn spectacular. Once she gains a pain token, it takes roughly 27 MEq attacks to put one wound on her. Also, opponents in base lose one attack down to a minimum of one. Sure, she can get a lucky gacking from a power fist, but even a regular Vet Sarge with a PF has slightly less than a 1/10 chance to kill her each round. The moral of the story for Lelith is to pick her spots before assaulting.

So, v0.3 is up now, with a few Lelith Questions, one new Duke Question iirc and Numbering!

Also, I've had some people asking me if a Wych Hekatrix (aka Vet Sergeant) can use the +D6 Wych weapon to get attacks with an agoniser, even though they both clearly replace the CCW.

Do I really need to include this do you think? D:

Ok 2 questions about the Cronos

1: Can the Cronos give pain token to models without Power from Pain?

2: It says if it kills a MODEL it can then give out pain tokens,so if i kill 5 space marines in a squad i get to give out 5 pain tokens?O.o

Nulipuli2 wrote:1: Can the Cronos give pain token to models without Power from Pain?

I would think that you could. The PtP rule states in the last couple of sentences that there are other ways to obtain pain tokens besides having the rule and wiping out enemy non-vehicle units.

v0.4 has been uploaded with questions regarding the Talos and Chronos!

i can't seem to download any...
the link is broken or something o.O???

Bloodhorror wrote:i can't seem to download any...
the link is broken or something o.O???

The link works fine for me:
http://www.mediafire.com/gwarsunofficialfaqs

What browser are you using?

It works for me :(

Browser

I'm hoping you mean like internet explorer or somethink...

Either way i got your PM and i've looked through it now !
Thanks for the help Gwar! and ChrisCP

Gwar! wrote:So, v0.3 is up now, with a few Lelith Questions, one new Duke Question iirc and Numbering!

Also, I've had some people asking me if a Wych Hekatrix (aka Vet Sergeant) can use the +D6 Wych weapon to get attacks with an agoniser, even though they both clearly replace the CCW.

Do I really need to include this do you think? D:

I've come to think of them as exarchs!

Are you asking can the Wych/Bloodbride take those upgrades and then be made a Hekatrix/Syren? or can they take two upgrades that both replace a CCW? Former I would include and it applies to most of the unit champions, latter no as if someone cannot figure out you can't replace the same wargear twice then may be a nice game of checkers is in order.

BTW: I've tried to get this version with Firefox, Chrome and IE. I get plenty of ads and pop ups but no files.

Homer

Here's a good one:

Can the Chronos give a Pain Token to a unit inside a transport?

Answer: Yes (page 66 again ).

Mentioned this in the RAW Fun thread but I thought it should be mentioned here: What does Drazhar's Ancient Incubi Warsuit do? No rules mentioned for it.

A 2+ save? It's in his stat line...

Valkyrie wrote:Mentioned this in the RAW Fun thread but I thought it should be mentioned here: What does Drazhar's Ancient Incubi Warsuit do? No rules mentioned for it.

It doesn't do anything.

Thread got locked before I got an answer so:
How does the Djinn blade interact with other close combat weapons? It's effect sounds like it happens in addition to any other weapons used.

Nothing in the dex iirc is even called a CCW... beyond certain unit entries. Does the Djinn blade 'count as an additional CCW' or anything like that or is it just wargear?

The Djin blade IS a power weapon (p56) but it then states the "bearer" makes 2 additional attacks each round. AS it does not use "wielder" it could imply thatsimply having the blade is enough.

The exact quote is "A djinn blade is a power weapon. Furthermore, the bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat - . . . ect. "

Version 0.5 uploaded, now with vehicle armoury and army list questions!

What is the minimum model count required for the Court of Archon?

A GW employee told me 4, since the army list states for reach retinue type that the composition is "1-4, or 1-5" for example.

Oh, NOW you ask!

The GW employee was correct (for once ). The Court must have a minimum of 1 of each model, since the composition is 1-x of each model, not 0-x.

Sweet - thanks!

Confused on your nightshield FAQ about 6" weapons. Last edition, what you wrote is true, but this codex specifically states:

Nightshields have no effect on template or barrage weapons, as well as weapons with a maximum range of 6" or less

so if you have a 6" range weapon, you are immune to the nightshield! (MAJOR nerf by the way.... just ask marbo, lictors and blood angels... )

Anglacon wrote:Confused on your nightshield FAQ about 6" weapons. Last edition, what you wrote is true, but this codex specifically states:

Nightshields have no effect on template or barrage weapons, as well as weapons with a maximum range of 6" or less

so if you have a 6" range weapon, you are immune to the nightshield! (MAJOR nerf by the way.... just ask marbo, lictors and blood angels... )

Ah... Sorry. I was working on what I know about the codex, as I don't have it. I did not know about that part of the rule as I had just been told "Same as 3rd ed". I'll stealth fix this now.

Aaaaaaaand Stealth updated.

Does a Void Raven have to shoot at the same target in the shooting phase that it dropped a void mine on in the movement phase?

DarknessEternal wrote:Does a Void Raven have to shoot at the same target in the shooting phase that it dropped a void mine on in the movement phase?

Good Question, one which I ignored because it hurts my brain.

It really is unclear, but I would say "yes", since it "counts as using a weapon".

I wish there were consistency there. Harpies seem to have to shoot what they bomb, but Swooping Hawks do not.

Of course, "counts as using a weapon" might only be there to allow you to cause wounds etc in the movement phase, meaning you CAN shoot a different unit. -shrug-

Not sure if this should be a yes or no quite frankly.

Back to the Djinn Blade issue, I think it might _need_ an FAQ, but due to the Blades positioning in the 'Dex/wargear selection/etc and not in with the CCWs I'm fairly sure it's intended to be additional attacks on top of the Huskblades ones

ChrisCP wrote:Back to the Djinn Blade issue, I think it might _need_ an FAQ, but due to the Blades positioning in the 'Dex/wargear selection/etc and not in with the CCWs I'm fairly sure it's intended to be additional attacks on top of the Huskblades ones

It's on page 56, under "Weapons"...

So, I managed to get another look at the codex today. I have to say now, the Night Shield rules are a bit off...

The rule says that the "range of the unit" (whatever that is) is reduced by 6". It then gives the example of "a unit armed with bolters (Range 24") would be treated as having a range of 18"."

Now, this means that a model with a Multimelta would also have a range of 18", meaning he would have to be within 9" to get the Melta effect, not 12"
However, the rule then says "This extra distance is also counted for working out if the vehicle is in [...] half range for a melta shot and so on." which possibly implies that it doesn't.

Damnit Kelly!

DISCLAIMER: I have not seen too much from the new codex yet.

I don't think the melta range issue will crop up too much - surely trying to outgun the Dark Eldar is a recipie for disaster?

Gwar! wrote:
The rule says that the "range of the unit" (whatever that is) is reduced by 6". It then gives the example of "a unit armed with bolters (Range 24") would be treated as having a range of 18"."

"This extra distance is also counted for working out if the vehicle is in [...] half range for a melta shot and so on."

Those two things are not in contradiction with each other. Half-range of the new melta shot is computed based on its new max range. That reading satisfies both clauses.

Yeah, I know they aren't. It's just confusing and sloppily worded.

Gwar! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Back to the Djinn Blade issue, I think it might _need_ an FAQ, but due to the Blades positioning in the 'Dex/wargear selection/etc and not in with the CCWs I'm fairly sure it's intended to be additional attacks on top of the Huskblades ones

It's on page 56, under "Weapons"...

as you know - so's everything else - damn GW.

If Asdrubael Vect causes Instant Death on a multi-wound model with his Obsisian Orbs, does he gain only one wound, or all the wounds the victim originally had?

Eg: Vect ID's an Ogryn (3 wounds) with his Orbs, does he gain back the 3 wounds the Ogryn had or does he simply gain one?

Valkyrie wrote:If Asdrubael Vect causes Instant Death on a multi-wound model with his Obsisian Orbs, does he gain only one wound, or all the wounds the victim originally had?

Eg: Vect ID's an Ogryn (3 wounds) with his Orbs, does he gain back the 3 wounds the Ogryn had or does he simply gain one?

Orbs can't ID Ogryns.

That can, however, ID Rippers, Spods and Sky-Slashers, making the question a Legitimate one.

I would assume that Vect doesn't get the "extra" wounds, and they are wasted.

Similar to how if you overkill an IC in combat by say five more wounds than you needed to, you don't get those extra wounds for combat resolution purposes. But that's just a house rule/opinion.

Gwar! wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:If Asdrubael Vect causes Instant Death on a multi-wound model with his Obsisian Orbs, does he gain only one wound, or all the wounds the victim originally had?

Eg: Vect ID's an Ogryn (3 wounds) with his Orbs, does he gain back the 3 wounds the Ogryn had or does he simply gain one?

Orbs can't ID Ogryns.

That can, however, ID Rippers, Spods and Sky-Slashers, making the question a Legitimate one.

Why can't Orbs ID Ogryns? Surely a S10 Ap3 blast ID's T5 models?

vs Ld weapons treat Ld as Toughness for purposes of instant death.

I'd say he gains however many wounds were left on the model that died, just like instant death works for combat resolution. Unless I'm forgetting how combat resolution works. Either way, it should work like combat resolution.

Valkyrie wrote:Why can't Orbs ID Ogryns? Surely a S10 Ap3 blast ID's T5 models?

Orbs wound vs Ld. Ogryns are Ld6.

And as for "extra" wounds, I hadn't even thought of that!

Oh, and for the record, he would only regain one wound. Wounds that inflict “Instant Death” do not cause a model to lose all it's wounds, they are simply “killed outright and removed as a casualty”. It is only for the purposes of Combat Resolution you count the number of wounds “lost”.

Gwar! wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:Why can't Orbs ID Ogryns? Surely a S10 Ap3 blast ID's T5 models?

Orbs wound vs Ld. Ogryns are Ld6.

And as for "extra" wounds, I hadn't even thought of that!

Oh, and for the record, he would only regain one wound. Wounds that inflict “Instant Death” do not cause a model to lose all it's wounds, they are simply “killed outright and removed as a casualty”. It is only for the purposes of Combat Resolution you count the number of wounds “lost”.

Ok thanks, sorry for the whole "T vs Ld" mistake

Valkyrie wrote:Ok thanks, sorry for the whole "T vs Ld" mistake

Not to worry. Mistakes are how we learn things and some good did come out of it anyway, as a surprising number of Tyranid Models have Multiple Wounds and Ld5!

And now, Drumroll please!

Introducing the Unofficial Codex: Dark Eldar FAQ by Gwar! version one-point-oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's right, a whole day BEFORE THE CODEX IS EVEN ON SALE!

Go to the first page of the thread here, read the riveting Legal mumbo jump and download it while it's hot folks!

Anyone else notice it's version 1.1 in the link? What's going on?

P. 63:
"A vehicle with a flickerfield has a 5+ invulnerable save"

p. 20 of bgb:
"Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."

p. 20: Invulnerable saves:
"Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an invulnuerable saving throw. Invulnerable saves are different to armor saves tbecause they may always be taken whenever the models suffers a wound. Even if a wound normally ignores all armor saves, an invulnerable saving throw may be taken."

Uhhh...so what does the flickerfield do? When do I roll for it? Can I roll if I fail dangerous terrain? Does it work in hth? Does it never work because vehicles don't take wounds?
/facepalm

You shouldn't really feign stupidity. It's clear from context what invulnerable saves on vehicles do.

Besides, it's already in GWAR's FAQ. Since that is this thread, I assume that's the answer you're looking for.

If I have a Klaivex and Drazhar in a unit of Incubi, and they both have the Onslaught rule, do models in that unit that roll a 6 to wound get 2 additional attacks? The clause at the end of the Onslaught rule says that the bonus attacks cannot generate additional attacks, but this doesn't preclude the original 6-roll attack from generating multiple extras.

In reading the excerpt for the 'Stunclaw' that Helliarchs can carry, it says that after performing the Hit and Run action, that it can snatch an IC that was apart of the combat. Does the Helliarch have to be in base to base with the IC in order to snatch them? Also, DE FAQ says 1.2 now.

HarveyDent wrote:If I have a Klaivex and Drazhar in a unit of Incubi, and they both have the Onslaught rule, do models in that unit that roll a 6 to wound get 2 additional attacks? The clause at the end of the Onslaught rule says that the bonus attacks cannot generate additional attacks, but this doesn't preclude the original 6-roll attack from generating multiple extras.

Well, pure RAW, Drazhar is not a Klaivex, therefore cannot use Onslaught, but ignoring that little bit of stupidity, I would say yes, the power kicks in twice. It's not generating "further" attacks - that clearly is referring to the extra attacks rolling sixes - and nothing in the rule specifically says it doesn't stack, so I see no reason not to let your overpriced named HQ choice give you that extra attack for a second Onslaught in the unit.

However, nothing says it DOES stack, so it might be argued that in a permissive ruleset you need permission for this to happen. That's not my interpretation, though.

It could go either way.

DiscipleofYawgmoth wrote:In reading the excerpt for the 'Stunclaw' that Helliarchs can carry, it says that after performing the Hit and Run action, that it can snatch an IC that was apart of the combat. Does the Helliarch have to be in base to base with the IC in order to snatch them? Also, DE FAQ says 1.2 now.

It just says "in the same combat." Doesn't make any provisions or restrictions for being in BtB, having attacked that unit, et cetera. So as long as the IC is in the same combat as the Helliarch, it's fair game.

DE.49.01 - The way I read it, Lelith gins attacks even when her WS is lower than her enemies. The difference is determined by subtracting the lower score from the higher, which means if her WS was two vs. an Ork Warboss (WS 5) She would gain 3 attacks.

Also, can an Archon take a Blaster and a Huskblade? It doesn't say you have to replace the pistol and the weapon for the blaster, and it would be awesome to do a one-handed blaster pose.

Is it just me or is version 1.2 of the Dark Eldar FAQ corrupted? I can open all the others fine, but that one isn't working.

Works fine for me. Make sure you have the latest Adobe Reader.

Hrm. Was reading another forum, and someone raised an interesting point about the Void Raven's bomb. To quote his post:

"Now, the rules in the BRB on vehicles shooting read as follows:

"The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the shooting phase depends on how fast it moved in that turn's movement phase"
Emphasis added."

Now, I haven't had a chance to go check the pertinent rules myself, but I think this leads us to some interesting conclusions. Assuming the quote above is correct and not horribly out of context, the only restriction on a vehicle firing weapons in the movement phase is the fact that normally vehicles can only shoot in the shooting phase.

The restrictions on the number of weapons that may by fired by a vehicle model due to the distance moved by that model are on firing during the shooting phase.

The VRB has a specific special rule that gives it the ability to fire the weapon during the movement phase. Since the limitation of firing weapons based on speed apply to shooting in the shooting phase, would not this mean that the bomb can be dropped, even if the vehicle moves flat out?

As for the line that states that the bomb counts as firing a weapon, that would mean that if the vehicle were shaken, it could not fire the weapon while moving flat out.

How whacked out an interpretation is that?

GWAR! Where are you!? Stop hiding under rocks and come and update the first post! . . . We miss you, and us DE players need your FAQ lovin' to make our worlds go round! ='[

Oshova

He's more than likely still suspended, though I suppose he could still update his FAQ and get 'someone else' to make the announcement for him.

He wont be updating the FAQ any more, at all. He wont even have someone post the updates for him.

wait, why?

Gwar got permabanned?! Why?

Can anyone shed light on this?!

Gwar! was too alpha

? Ask a mod maybe?

As far as I know;


Gwar was suspended for a month or so, then his brother used his PC to troll on Dakka after learning about it. They then suspended Gwar for Sockpuppeting.

BrotherStynier wrote:As far as I know;


Gwar was suspended for a month or so, then his brother used his PC to troll on Dakka after learning about it. They then suspended Gwar for Sockpuppeting.

Why was he on temp suspension earlier?

Something about FAQs not equaling the Rule Book and Insaniak.

I have been branded as Gwar! 's white knight for some un known reason. Rather , i think im just a by stander looking at what he is trying to do without been biased.
Ii have seen Gwar! been accused of blowing GW's faulty rule(s) out of proportion.

Now i must emphasize about the faulty rules as why i think Gwar! does what he does.

a) Rule are made to be followed NOT only in the sense to help the players enjoy their game. But rather something made be clear and adamant , making it easier for the players
to follow and not have a chance dispute ( less jumping around the line if you will )

b) The rules need to be consistent. Even though different codex have different rules , and different disputes are raised every day , i think ultimately what Gwar! was trying to do
( despite been called a troll by mods ) is to "tie" the inconsistencies between these different codex together.

c) Rules that are faulty are a pain. Not just that its a minor agitation during games , but more so to figure out how its originally intended.
Alot of these frustration were directed towards Gwar! as if he created these faulty rules in the codex in the first place. Which i think isnt fair at all.

LunaHound wrote:I have been branded as Gwar! 's white knight for some un known reason. Rather , i think im just a by stander looking at what he is trying to do without been biased.
Ii have seen Gwar! been accused of blowing GW's faulty rule(s) out of proportion.

Now i must emphasize about the faulty rules as why i think Gwar! does what he does.

a) Rule are made to be followed NOT only in the sense to help the players enjoy their game. But rather something made be clear and adamant , making it easier for the players
to follow and not have a chance dispute ( less jumping around the line if you will )

b) The rules need to be consistent. Even though different codex have different rules , and different disputes are raised every day , i think ultimately what Gwar! was trying to do
( despite been called a troll by mods ) is to "tie" the inconsistencies between these different codex together.

c) Rules that are faulty are a pain. Not just that its a minor agitation during games , but more so to figure out how its originally intended.
Alot of these frustration were directed towards Gwar! as if he created these faulty rules in the codex in the first place. Which i think isnt fair at all.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but its misguided to sit there and act like he didn't deserve at least some of the heat that he got from other posters.

GW and their rule-writing have feth all to do with someone's manners.

You could be correct there Luna, I wouldn't know why he does it myself I never thought to ask. I do find it strange that you've been labeled his White Knight, take his side too much in certain people's opinions I'd reckon.

What ever reason Gwar had for helping out, it seemed to me that he was actually doing some good around here. People would get the answers they needed, and then a bunch of arguing. Now I'll admit I don't spend too much time in YMDC for it always seemed like it would devolve into arguing and blaming Gwar for things. Now that he's gone (for good as I had discovered) I still won't really come to YMDC because you know what I see? Arguing.

There really wasn't as much arguing as you might think.

The vast majority of questions are quickly answered without incident.

Monster Rain wrote:You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but its misguided to sit there and act like he didn't deserve at least some of the heat that he got from other posters.

Heated discussion are expected , but we arnt talking about just that are we. We are talking about suspension. And to be fair , tons of people are ruder then what he was.

Monster Rain wrote: GW and their rule-writing have f*ck all to do with someone's manners.

I censored it for you to make a point , but really the irony of talking about manners? And yes it does , thats like saying in crusade WTF does god's will have to do with so many people
massacring each other. R-o-f-l

Monster Rain wrote:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but its misguided to sit there and act like he didn't deserve at least some of the heat that he got from other posters.

GW and their rule-writing have feth all to do with someone's manners.

There's another couple posters, who won't be named, who I can think of that have alot worse manners that Gwar did, you know what generally seems to happen to them? Absolutely nothing, maybe a message from a mod saying to stop, but other than that absolutely nothing they just keep carrying on doing what they are doing. These people have been doing it atleast as long as I've been a member here and I've never seen one of them permabanned.

Monster Rain wrote:There really wasn't as much arguing as you might think.

The vast majority of questions are quickly answered without incident.

You know which one stand out in people's minds? YMDC had issues before Gwar got here, they barely became larger.

LunaHound wrote:

Monster Rain wrote: GW and their rule-writing have f*ck all to do with someone's manners.

I censored it for you to make a point , but really the irony of talking about manners? And yes it does , thats like saying in crusade WTF does god's will have to do with so many people
massacring each other. R-o-f-l

wikipedia wrote:Non sequitur (pronounced /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.

As to you trying to make a big deal out of swearing, there's a filter in place so that doesn't really hold a lot of water.

BrotherStynier wrote:I still won't really come to YMDC because you know what I see? Arguing.

There always has been and always will be argument over grey areas in the rules. The vast majority of questions in YMDC are answered quickly and painlessly, though.



Locking this thread now before it wanders even further afield.