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

LouiseDePointe wrote:Sorry for the threadnomancy, but I felt this was specifically important for this thread to include, yet was not worth a whole new thread.

But the sneaky sneaky dark eldar can work their way around even the hardiest of troops.

Terrorfexes and Horrorfexes will still effect units that are fearless, and here's how:

The rules outline that Fearless units will automatically pass all pinning and morale checks. What the Terrorfex/Horrorfex calls for is neither. The rules specifically call for a leadership check that fill forthwith result in a pinned result. No pinning check is ever taken. Because there are different kinds of leadership checks other than morale and pinning (IE psychic) the fearless units must still take the test. Nids are the only exception because they explicitly can never be pinned. RAI, this is a load of crap, but I suppose if GW ever updated the book, they'd not have this sort of problem.

I learned this the hard way at a tournament. Darn good upgrade for 5 pts on a raider.

Now i was going to dismiss this but there is some merit. So I was wondering if any one could find fault with this.

Tri wrote:

LouiseDePointe wrote:Sorry for the threadnomancy, but I felt this was specifically important for this thread to include, yet was not worth a whole new thread.

But the sneaky sneaky dark eldar can work their way around even the hardiest of troops.

Terrorfexes and Horrorfexes will still effect units that are fearless, and here's how:

The rules outline that Fearless units will automatically pass all pinning and morale checks. What the Terrorfex/Horrorfex calls for is neither. The rules specifically call for a leadership check that fill forthwith result in a pinned result. No pinning check is ever taken. Because there are different kinds of leadership checks other than morale and pinning (IE psychic) the fearless units must still take the test. Nids are the only exception because they explicitly can never be pinned. RAI, this is a load of crap, but I suppose if GW ever updated the book, they'd not have this sort of problem.

I learned this the hard way at a tournament. Darn good upgrade for 5 pts on a raider.

Now i was going to dismiss this but there is some merit. So I was wondering if any one could find fault with this.

Nope, it's perfectly fine.

Gwar! wrote:Nope, it's perfectly fine.

In which case i was right and Dark Eldar + Planet strike = Win ... never though GW would make a complete game just to be dominated by Dark Eldar.

Tri wrote:

LouiseDePointe wrote: Nids are the only exception because they explicitly can never be pinned.

Tyranids within Synapse range never fall back, and automatically pass LD checks (other than psychic tests), but immune to pinning, as such?
I have had "Decieve" used on my Tyranids. . . What did I miss?

kirsanth wrote:

Tri wrote:

LouiseDePointe wrote: Nids are the only exception because they explicitly can never be pinned.

Tyranids within Synapse range never fall back, and automatically pass LD checks (other than psychic tests), but immune to pinning, as such?
I have had "Decieve" used on my Tyranids. . . What did I miss?

The Necron FAQ messes with Deceive.

Dark Eldar can also break a fearless unit that they win melee against and proceed to chase them down and wipe them out.

"Grotesques are horrible opponents to fight against. Any opponent beaten by them in close combat automatically falls back without a Leadership test being taken."

I think it suits them to be able to instill fear in even the most stalwart of warriors.

Yaaa for Synapse!

Drunkspleen wrote:Dark Eldar can also break a fearless unit that they win melee against and proceed to chase them down and wipe them out.

Actually they can't. Fearless units never fall back. They automatically pass Morale/Pinning checks and are also mentioned to never fall back.

Spetulhu wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Dark Eldar can also break a fearless unit that they win melee against and proceed to chase them down and wipe them out.

Actually they can't. Fearless units never fall back. They automatically pass Morale/Pinning checks and are also mentioned to never fall back.

Codex > Rulebook HURRR DURRRR!

Tri wrote:

LouiseDePointe wrote:Sorry for the threadnomancy, but I felt this was specifically important for this thread to include, yet was not worth a whole new thread.

But the sneaky sneaky dark eldar can work their way around even the hardiest of troops.

Terrorfexes and Horrorfexes will still effect units that are fearless, and here's how:

The rules outline that Fearless units will automatically pass all pinning and morale checks. What the Terrorfex/Horrorfex calls for is neither. The rules specifically call for a leadership check that fill forthwith result in a pinned result. No pinning check is ever taken. Because there are different kinds of leadership checks other than morale and pinning (IE psychic) the fearless units must still take the test. Nids are the only exception because they explicitly can never be pinned. RAI, this is a load of crap, but I suppose if GW ever updated the book, they'd not have this sort of problem.

I learned this the hard way at a tournament. Darn good upgrade for 5 pts on a raider.

Now i was going to dismiss this but there is some merit. So I was wondering if any one could find fault with this.

The 'problem' with this line of reasoning is that there is nothing in the current rules saying that 'pinned' = 'gone to ground'. There are rules that state if you fail a pinning test then this means the unit is forced to go to ground, but as is pointed out in this post, this is *not* what the rules for the Horrorfex/Terrorfex say.

So pure RAW, these weapons cause a unit to become 'pinned' if it fails its Leadership and that state means absolutely nothing.


So if you can make the logical leap to assume that a unit which is 'pinned' = a unit that is forced to go to ground then there is no reason you can't make the logical leap to assume that this Leadership test which causes 'pinning' isn't a pinning test (which is therefore ignored by the Fearless unit).

Gwar! wrote:Codex > Rulebook HURRR DURRRR!

Yes? Grots only skip the test and go straight to enemy fall back. Grots would work on someone who can choose to pass or fail (or pass automatically with nothing else mentioned). Fearless units don't fall back - they can't. Same goes for Synapse AFAIK.

yakface wrote:

Tri wrote:

LouiseDePointe wrote:Sorry for the threadnomancy, but I felt this was specifically important for this thread to include, yet was not worth a whole new thread.

But the sneaky sneaky dark eldar can work their way around even the hardiest of troops.

Terrorfexes and Horrorfexes will still effect units that are fearless, and here's how:

The rules outline that Fearless units will automatically pass all pinning and morale checks. What the Terrorfex/Horrorfex calls for is neither. The rules specifically call for a leadership check that fill forthwith result in a pinned result. No pinning check is ever taken. Because there are different kinds of leadership checks other than morale and pinning (IE psychic) the fearless units must still take the test. Nids are the only exception because they explicitly can never be pinned. RAI, this is a load of crap, but I suppose if GW ever updated the book, they'd not have this sort of problem.

I learned this the hard way at a tournament. Darn good upgrade for 5 pts on a raider.

Now i was going to dismiss this but there is some merit. So I was wondering if any one could find fault with this.

The 'problem' with this line of reasoning is that there is nothing in the current rules saying that 'pinned' = 'gone to ground'. There are rules that state if you fail a pinning test then this means the unit is forced to go to ground, but as is pointed out in this post, this is *not* what the rules for the Horrorfex/Terrorfex say.

GW answered this in their 5th Edition FAQ. "'Pinned' a short way of saying 'gone to ground by failing a pinning test.'"

Actually, the answer to this one might be in the 5th ed. FAQ from the GW website:

Q. If I find a reference to a unit that is ‘pinned’,
does it mean a unit that has gone to ground?
A. Yes, ‘pinned’ is simply a short way of saying
‘gone to ground by failing a pinning test’.

So if we take the wording of the Terrorfex: ...must pass a Leadership test or become pinned... and "longhand" it as ...must pass a Leadership test or go to ground by failing a pinning test...(yeah, I know it's kind of redundant written that way), then I'd have to say I think the Terrorfex would have no effect on Fearless units.

Actually the 5th ed rules book has updated working for the horrorfex/terrorfex at the back where they list all the races and weapons There it says to take a pinning test at -1 per model covered over one (I don't have book in front of me so that is from memory) So using that updated wording fearless models are immune.

lucullus wrote:Actually the 5th ed rules book has updated working for the horrorfex/terrorfex at the back where they list all the races and weapons There it says to take a pinning test at -1 per model covered over one (I don't have book in front of me so that is from memory) So using that updated wording fearless models are immune.

The 5th Edition book also says, just before that, to ignore the BRB where the Codex is different

lucullus wrote:Actually the 5th ed rules book has updated working for the horrorfex/terrorfex at the back where they list all the races and weapons There it says to take a pinning test at -1 per model covered over one (I don't have book in front of me so that is from memory) So using that updated wording fearless models are immune.

lucullus has it right. From the back of the 5eRB:

***Only roll to hit. If 1+ models hit, their unit must make a pinning test...

I guess we can stick a fork in this one.

jinshiryuu wrote:

lucullus wrote:Actually the 5th ed rules book has updated working for the horrorfex/terrorfex at the back where they list all the races and weapons There it says to take a pinning test at -1 per model covered over one (I don't have book in front of me so that is from memory) So using that updated wording fearless models are immune.

lucullus has it right. From the back of the 5eRB:

***Only roll to hit. If 1+ models hit, their unit must make a pinning test...

I guess we can stick a fork in this one.

The 5th Edition book also says, just before that, to ignore the BRB where the Codex is different. Page 97. The codex takes precedence.

jinshiryuu wrote:Actually, the answer to this one might be in the 5th ed. FAQ from the GW website:

Q. If I find a reference to a unit that is ‘pinned’,
does it mean a unit that has gone to ground?
A. Yes, ‘pinned’ is simply a short way of saying
‘gone to ground by failing a pinning test’.

So if we take the wording of the Terrorfex: ...must pass a Leadership test or become pinned... and "longhand" it as ...must pass a Leadership test or go to ground by failing a pinning test...(yeah, I know it's kind of redundant written that way), then I'd have to say I think the Terrorfex would have no effect on Fearless units.

Gwar! wrote:

jinshiryuu wrote:

lucullus wrote:Actually the 5th ed rules book has updated working for the horrorfex/terrorfex at the back where they list all the races and weapons There it says to take a pinning test at -1 per model covered over one (I don't have book in front of me so that is from memory) So using that updated wording fearless models are immune.

lucullus has it right. From the back of the 5eRB:

***Only roll to hit. If 1+ models hit, their unit must make a pinning test...

I guess we can stick a fork in this one.

The 5th Edition book also says, just before that, to ignore the BRB where the Codex is different. Page 97. The codex takes precedence.

While Codices do indeed take precedence over any and all information in the summaries, I think you're still ignoring his rather neat summation of the rules interaction in his previous post. Fearless units are immune to pinning tests... and so would still be immune to "going to ground by failing a pinning test" which is the situation that failing the LD test that the horror/terrofex invokes.

willydstyle wrote:While Codices do indeed take precedence over any and all information in the summaries, I think you're still ignoring his rather neat summation of the rules interaction in his previous post. Fearless units are immune to pinning tests... and so would still be immune to "going to ground by failing a pinning test" which is the situation that failing the LD test that the horror/terrofex invokes.

Ok, I agree with you here I was going on what kirthanth said and didn't really look into it. I was mainly replying to the "It has new rules here" text

Gwar! wrote:The 5th Edition book also says, just before that, to ignore the BRB where the Codex is different. Page 97. The codex takes precedence.

It also says that "Although the entries in this section are correct at the time of printing, the Warhammer 40,000 game system is constantly growing and developing." Maybe it's just my way of looking at it, but I've always taken that to mean that the RB is the updated version of the rules, but future releases may change how certain rules work. The codex vs RB could be argued RAW vs RAI, but the FAQ now specifically defines "pinned" as having failed a pinning test. Between the "correct at the time of printing" update in that back and the general FAQ, which gives us a definition of pinned as "gone to ground by failing a pinning test" it's difficult for me to see any other way to call it.

Still, just my $0.02.

jinshiryuu wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The 5th Edition book also says, just before that, to ignore the BRB where the Codex is different. Page 97. The codex takes precedence.

It also says that "Although the entries in this section are correct at the time of printing, the Warhammer 40,000 game system is constantly growing and developing." Maybe it's just my way of looking at it, but I've always taken that to mean that the RB is the updated version of the rules, but future releases may change how certain rules work. The codex vs RB could be argued RAW vs RAI, but the FAQ now specifically defines "pinned" as having failed a pinning test. Between the "correct at the time of printing" update in that back and the general FAQ, which gives us a definition of pinned as "gone to ground by failing a pinning test" it's difficult for me to see any other way to call it.

Still, just my $0.02.

How can you interpret "The codex takes precedence" in any other way other than "The Codex is Right, the BRB is not"?

In any case, it is a moot point, as willydstyle pointed out.

Gwar! wrote:How can you interpret "The codex takes precedence" in any other way other than "The Codex is Right, the BRB is not"?

By taking it in context with the sentence before it.

Gwar! wrote:In any case, it is a moot point, as willydstyle pointed out.

Yup.

@jinshiryuu: The asumtion of its in the back of the BGB, so its true is wrong. If you continue with that logic then Wave Serpents have front armor 2, since its in the BGB and they didn't fix it.

Also a semi-related question. What is the gerneral concencious about Dark Lances having the Lance Special rule? THe DE Codex give them a rule that does lance, but doesn't call it lance and the only time lance is mentioned with Dark Lances is in the BGB which is inccorect. Reason asked is a local Black Templar player got really mad when our Game Community said that his blessed hull didn't affect Dark lances.

arinnoor wrote:@jinshiryuu: The asumtion of its in the back of the BGB, so its true is wrong. If you continue with that logic then Wave Serpents have front armor 2, since its in the BGB and they didn't fix it.

Also a semi-related question. What is the gerneral concencious about Dark Lances having the Lance Special rule? THe DE Codex give them a rule that does lance, but doesn't call it lance and the only time lance is mentioned with Dark Lances is in the BGB which is inccorect. Reason asked is a local Black Templar player got really mad when our Game Community said that his blessed hull didn't affect Dark lances.

I think I may not be explaining myself clearly. My assumption is not that being in the RB automatically makes it "true", not in the sense you're portraying it with the Wave Serpent example. My assumption is that when a statement like "the codex takes precedence" is prefaced by a statement about being "correct at the time of printing" it makes it the most current version of the ruleset, and the caveat about "growth and development" (in my admittedly unofficial and hence non-valuable opinion) is saying that changes may arise in the future with new rules written into the specific codices. I do not think the intent behind the statement was that the codex is always correct no matter how outdated its wording is. If that were the case, then the Eversor would still get two shots with its pistol and Tau would still be taking target priority tests.

That being said, nothing is perfect, and if I see a front AV of 12 in the codex, and a front AV of 2 in the rulebook, well, that's a pretty drastic change with no real apparent reason for it so odds are, it's a typo (someone left out a "1"). I look around to be sure, and there's nothing in the GW faqs, nothing in the INAT faq, so I'll stick with my original assumption, that it's a typo in the update (until something official comes along to show me differently).

Then we see the Terrorfex with its codex version apparently bypassing "Fearless" because you aren't taking a Morale or Pinning test, contradicted by the wording in the RB stating it is a Pinning test. This to me looks like a clarification for the updated rules. It's difficult, but not impossible for (what amounts to) an entire paragraph to be an editing mistake, so I look around to be sure, and there's a comment in the general 5e faq that basically defines "pinned" as failing a pinning test, so in this case, yeah, I think the update in the update in the RB is correct.

So, to explain (or at least try to) a little better, I'm typically going to use what's in the newest rulebook as correct and up to date. If a codex newer than the ruleset comes along to contradict it, then I'm going to lean towards the codex, if the codex is older, I'll probably lean towards the rulebook, with the caveat that no one's perfect and they may have missed a clarification or three as they went along and look for an official update. If I can't find that, I'll look at what INAT has put down since it is widely accepted, if unofficial (and its authors seem to be at the very least consultants for many of GWs faq's). Failing that, I try to compare the old rule with the new to figure out what I feel they intended and go with that. If I can't get to the older version of the rules, I try to interpret intent based on data I do have, state my case and if there's no resolution, you can always flip a coin.

Applying all that to your question about the Dark Lance, well, it's called a Dark Lance and the new rulebook update states it's a lance weapon. But the codex describes it as having the same behavior as a lance weapon, but not calling it such. I don't have a 3rd ed rulebook, so I don't know if "lance" was a defined weapon type then (if someone can fill me in on that I'd appreciate it), so I look and there's nothing in the GW faq, but the INAT faq states that it is in fact a lance weapon.
Read strictly as written, then no, the Blessed Hull won't help. The codex takes precedence and it doesn't call it a lance-type weapon, only defines its behavior as the same as a weapon that is. Read is I feel it is intended, then yes, the rulebook is correct, not the codex and the Blessed Hull [i]should[/] work. If an opponent argued it with me, I'd state my case, and if they pushed, I'd bow to the RAW version, because ultimately, the rules are the final arbiter. But I'd have to say that honestly, I feel this is a case of "it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." Again, just my opinion, I can't speak for the general consensus.

jinshiryuu wrote:Actually, the answer to this one might be in the 5th ed. FAQ from the GW website:

Q. If I find a reference to a unit that is ‘pinned’,
does it mean a unit that has gone to ground?
A. Yes, ‘pinned’ is simply a short way of saying
‘gone to ground by failing a pinning test’.

So if we take the wording of the Terrorfex: ...must pass a Leadership test or become pinned... and "longhand" it as ...must pass a Leadership test or go to ground by failing a pinning test...(yeah, I know it's kind of redundant written that way), then I'd have to say I think the Terrorfex would have no effect on Fearless units.

I think that's an overly literal interpretation of the FAQ, clearly in this sense it is discussing a unit which could be described as pinned as being one that has gone to ground by means of failing a pinning test, but I would assert that a rule that says it "pins" an enemy unit simply means it forces them to go to ground.

It seems abundantly clear to me that the phrase you have generated in applying the FAQ in this literal way is nonsensical.

I feel that it's hypocritical to call the interpretation of the FAQ 'overly literal' but not the interpretation of the Dark Eldar wargear.

They're both quite clear.

Orkestra wrote:I feel that it's hypocritical to call the interpretation of the FAQ 'overly literal' but not the interpretation of the Dark Eldar wargear.

They're both quite clear.

Maybe so, maybe I'm just not seeing it because I'm used to playing it the other way, I could concede this point on the grounds that what the codex tells you to do sounds an awful lot like a normal pinning check anyway, but I think the mention of "by means of failing a pinning test" in what pinned means doesn't strictly limit pinning to happening as a result of a pinning test. By interpreting it the way I take issue with, It seems that the other posters are suggesting that the terrorfex would cause the targetted unit to take a leadership test, and then if they fail it, take a pinning test, which I definitely do not agree with, and that's my main issue with it. Either that or they are saying unless something specifically says "take a pinning test" it is unable to pin, making the terrorfex totally useless.

I think my bigger issue would be with Grotesques who I continue to believe would force even a fearless unit to fall back, because they force the unit to fall back automatically, sure traditionally a fearless unit would be immune to falling back, but in this instance it is said that losing a combat to grotesques causes the unit to fall back, no ifs or buts about it, this happens regardless of other rules, especially if those rules are in the BRB and thus of a lower priority than codex rules. If a codex granted a unit a special rule saying they would never fall back, I would consider it a clash of rules, but even then don't think one would be clearly eligible to take precedence over the other.

Drunkspleen wrote:I think my bigger issue would be with Grotesques who I continue to believe would force even a fearless unit to fall back, because they force the unit to fall back automatically, sure traditionally a fearless unit would be immune to falling back, but in this instance it is said that losing a combat to grotesques causes the unit to fall back, no ifs or buts about it...

Specifically, it states that, "Any opponent beaten by them in close combat automatically falls back without a Leadership test being taken," so the part under Fearless about automatically passing all Morale and Pinning tests they are required to take is not applicable, as no test is taken at all.

Drunkspleen wrote:...this happens regardless of other rules, especially if those rules are in the BRB and thus of a lower priority than codex rules.

The main RB states "...if any of the codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the codex takes preference..." For example, the Feel No Pain rule in the Grotesque entry would override the USR by this statement, but nothing (that I can find...someone please correct me if I am wrong) in the Dark Eldar codex has a variant definition of the Fearless USR, so it's main RB version would still apply, in which case, it depends on how you interpret the "and will never fall back" part of the Fearless USR. If you read it as "they auto-pass the test, and because of that they won't fall back", then I can see the argument fr it working against them. IMHO, however the rule means they will never fall back for any reason, so I do not think the Grotesque's Terrifying Opponent rule should work on Fearless units.

Drunkspleen wrote:If a codex granted a unit a special rule saying they would never fall back, I would consider it a clash of rules, but even then don't think one would be clearly eligible to take precedence over the other.

Regardless of which way it was being played, I think in the situation that a unit doesn't have to fall back against the Grotesques winning in CC, would probably best be handled using the No Retreat rule.

I would like to add, that even though I am usually the voice of dissent in this topic, it's not malicious or DE-bashing. Personally, I've always been fond of the idea of the Dark Eldar, all the way back to a few cryptic references in the fluff in the late 80's/early 90's. Every time I see a "DE special rule kicks "X" butt" thread, I get a little tingle of excitement thinking about how nasty the DE can get. But any way you look at it, I think it's just a matter of the DE got codex-creeped horribly, and unlike DH/WH, just don't have the armor and big guns to hang tough despite being two editions out of date.

jinshiryuu wrote:Regardless of which way it was being played, I think in the situation that a unit doesn't have to fall back against the Grotesques winning in CC, would probably best be handled using the No Retreat rule.

I thought that's what Fearless units (and Tyranids in Synapse) do every time upon losing CC? BRB page 44, No Retreat.

Agreed on the Deldar being badly hit by codex outdatedness (is that a word?), but they're still good for some nasty tricks. And it's not exactly every army that has Fearless units.

I see your point jinshiryuu, I just feel as much as the intent of fearless is slightly open (regarding whether the "never fall back" is it's own thing or a continuation from the "pass morale tests") the Grotesques are the same regarding how strongly "Automatically Fall Back" is connected to "without a leadership test". Like I say, I'm willing to admit I'm likely biased with regards to this, but to me I see Automatically there, and think it should happen regardless of what they were fighting against and whether or not it was fearless.

I'd be interested to know if you can think of another example of "automatically" where it is in fact dependent on a special rule the target unit may have because I cannot think of any, although I acknowledge that it's not necessarily an argument for grotesques functioning the way I believe they do.