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.

Hello Dakka!

There's been a number of interesting things come up in the choppy wake of 6th edition, much of which has required at least a look through the relevant books, if not a full ruling. As many of the stalwarts of this forum know, I run a monthly event out here that draws a respectable crowd, and our primary channel for announcing/promoting/supporting the events is right here on Dakka. In the interest of not having folks need to trawl through old tournament threads or me having to re-write an increasingly larger body of rulings each time, I'm putting up this thread.

I'm going to start off with the stuff that has come up so far and my rulings; if you have a differing opinion, please let me know so I can consider it. I try to make decisions on things in a way that makes sense with the RAW while not discounting the RAI, prefers the least powerful interpretation in the case of two or more roughly equal viewpoints, and is the way I think GW would rule on it.

That being said, if you have a question and want to know how I will rule on it in my events beforehand, or something that has come up in your events as either a player or TO, please post it here. And again, if you have a differing opinion, please post it. I'm not interested in who's right, I'm just interested in the right answer for the game.

I will update the thread with items as they develop.

TL; DR Warning! Here below in no particular order is The List ™:

***

Issue: Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures vs. Grounded Tests
Ruling: If a Swooping Monstrous Creature fails a Grounded test, it is then Grounded and no longer Swooping.

Analysis: This one has been a hot-button. The question revolves around the fact that Flying Monstrous Creatures who are Swooping must take a Grounded Test whenever they are hit by shooting (BRB p.49). By strict RAW, failing this test has only the following consequences: S9 hit, may be assaulted, and loses Jink. The problem this creates is that, in that circumstance, the MC is still Swooping while simultaneously being Grounded, and so may only be shot at with Snap Shots and must take subsequent Grounded Tests as per the rules for Swooping MCs. The alternative breaks from strict RAW and creates a situation where we are playing RAI: once Grounded, the MC is no longer Swooping and may be hit with normal BS, and no longer takes Grounded Tests for the remainder of the turn.

It creates a liability for the Swooping MC, yes, and I'll be interested to see how GW rules on it, but in the meantine, the ruling that Grounded removes Swooping follows my guidelines set out above as well as possible. It isn't strictly RAW, but it makes sense, is the least powerful interpretation, and it's how I think GW would rule.

Issue: Initiative Step Pile-in vs. Whip Coils
Ruling: Whip Coils reduce models in base contact to I1 for the duration of that combat round.

Analysis: This one came up at the first event and I made a ruling on the spot to address it, and have since reevaluated. The issue is that Whip Coils (C:N p.44) drop the Initiative of models in base contact to 1. The problem arises when we consider how models pile-in at initiative order now, wherein a model can be stripped of its attacks at any initiative step by savvy positioning and correct removal of casualties. Basically, if your Librarian piles in at I5, makes base contact with a model with Whip Coils and instantly drops to I1, and then the model with the Whip Coils is removed as a casualty at any initiative step before I1, the Libro jumps back to I5 and gets no attacks.

The initial ruling was that models finished their attacks at their initiative step and suffered the penalty from then on, with the idea that each initiative step is 'locked' as soon as you determine which models are going to act and cannot be altered midway. On further review and a look-through of the relevant literature in both the Necron and Tyranid codexes, I have decided that the best course of action is to treat the Whip Coils as though they are worded the same as Lash Whips (C:T p.83). Lash Whips reduce models that are in base contact to I1 for the duration of the combat round, which solves the problem effectively. The Necron player doesn't lose out on his wargear, and the other player can't be robbed of attacks. And it doesn't require any 'leaps' or rationalizing with the core rules.

Issue: Tervigons with Crushing Claws and/or Warp Speed vs. Smash
Ruling: Tervigons, and by extension other Monstrous Creatures, that elect to Smash first halve their Attacks stat, then add modifiers.

Analysis: This one seems pretty clear to me based on the rules about modifying statistics (BRB p.2). A Tervigon that decides to Smash (BRB p.42) halves its Attacks Characteristic, and then adds the +d3 modifier(s). I think the meat of the opposing opinion is that the rules don't say anything about when to apply divisions, but if Math Class taught me anything it's that dividing something by two is the same as multiplying it by 0.5, so I can't see any reasoning as to why this would work different somehow. The language for Crushing Claws in particular requires the Tyranid player to roll at the beginning of the combat to determine the number of bonus attacks, and, as a Blessing, Warp Speed (BRB p.419) is manifested and its effects determined during the Movement Phase, but the timing of these effects does not change the fact that they are still modifiers to a characteristic and subject to the rules on BRB p.2. This is one that I can easily see going either way, as I can see both sides.

Issue: Embarked Units vs. Overwatch
Ruling: Embarked units can fire Overwatch at every unit that assaults their transport in a given turn.

Analysis: This one has come up at least once. While it's possible with the new charge rules that more than two units could make it to a vehicle in a given assault phase, and Ork players might be wringing their hands at the idea of Burna Wagons annihilating the enemy in a searing conflagration (whoops! Wrong game! ), it actually seems pretty clear to me. The rules for Overwatch state that 'a unit being charged may only fire Overwatch once per turn' (BRB p.21). The rules for assaulting transports state that “if a Transport vehicle is assaulted, an embarked unit can fire Overwatch at the attackers out of its fire points” (BRB p.80). Since the unit being assaulted is the Transport, not the embarked unit, it seems pretty clear to me that the embarked unit is not subject to the once per turn restriction. Effectively, there is a separate trigger that allows units embarked on Transports to fire Overwatch despite not being 'the assaulted unit' themselves. This is another one I can easily see going either way, but for now the RAW is clear and I don't think it causes anything too calamitous.

Issue: Orks Mob Rule and Other Ld Modifiers vs. Intimidating Presence
Ruling: What do you guys think? I'm inclined to go with codex rules trumping Intimidating Presence, since something that happens randomly shouldn't override something a player builds their list around and it seems to me that Intimidating Presence is referring specifically to the use of the highest Ld value as described on BRB p.7, rather than a broader handicap to all Ld effects. In short, Intimidating Presence seems to have potentially a much greater reach than would seem to be implied by the relative power level of the various Command Traits.

Analysis: This is an oddball one that came up in a game, when my opponent rolled Intimidating Presence for his Warlord Trait (enemy units within 12” must always use their lowest Ld instead of the highest, BRB p.111), and we had a moment off head-scratching about how that interacts with the Orks' Mob Rule (C:O p.31). My initial reaction was that since my Orks always count their Ld as equal to the number of Boyz in the mob, then there's never a 'lowest Ld' to default to. We inspected closer, and found that in addition to these indeed being loafers, that Mob Rule says the Orks can choose to substitute the number of models in the mob for their leadership value. Therein lies the quandary. The Ork Mob Rule allows the Ork player to choose one thing or another for their Ld. There isn't a higher or lower stat within the unit, it's simply whatever the Ork player decides it is. Intimidating Presence seems to only refer to units using a higher available Ld from amongst set numbers within a unit as explained in the BRB, p.7. So the question is then, is Mob Rule affected by Intimidating Presence? Further, we have the question of a model like Cato Sicarius (C:SM p.85). Cato's Rites of Battle Rule says that all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for Morale and Pinning Tests. Cato is not necessarily a part of a unit that is utilizing his Ld10 through the Rites of Battle rule. Does Intimidating Presence trump Cato's rule? To muddy the waters even further, as a rule from the BRB, is Intimidating Presence trumped by both Rites of Battle and Mob Rule, since both are codex-specific rules that override rules presented in the BRB, as explained on p.7. Honestly, I can see this one going either way because there are equivalent arguments on both sides, and I'm not sure myself what's the right answer.

Issue: Unusual Power Weapons
Ruling: If a weapon is anything other than a power weapon, it follows the rules for unusual power weapons.

Analysis: We all were spazzing out around here about all the various things that are power weapons but don't fit into the new categories. That is, of course, until one of us actually finished reading the power weapons entry and found that cleverly-hidden section called 'Unusual Power Weapons'. This makes many things cut-and-dry, however for clarity sake I feel it is worth noting. The rules are clear that the only time you look to the model to determine what type (sword/axe/maul/lance) the weapon represents is when the model's wargear says it has a power weapon with no further special rules (BRB p.61). This means that if a weapon has any other rules than the fact that it is a power weapon, it is subject to the Unusual Power Weapons rules. This is obvious when we're talking about something like a burna, which couldn't possibly be classified as any of the four new categories, but it gets a little cloudier in other areas. Two examples are Commander Dante, who wields the Axe Mortalis (C:BA p. 53). The Axe Mortalis is an axe, right? Duh. By the rules, it is not. It isn't simply a power weapon, it is a power weapon that is also master-crafted, which precludes it from the 'look at the model' rules and puts it squarely in the 'unusual power weapons' rules. This also applies to the Glaive Encarmine, (C:BA p.50), since it is a power weapon that is also two-handed and master-crafted. The Glaive Encarmine is even thornier, since a Glaive is really a kind of poleaxe, and the kit includes a bit that is obviously an ax.

This one in particular I can see the alternate opinion, particularly since the unusual power weapons rules require that the weapon have one or more unique special rules (BRB p.61), and it could be argued that the rules Two-handed and Master-crafted are both in the Special Rules section of the BRB (p. 43 & p.39, respectively), and are not, therefore, 'unique'. Regardless of all that, Astorath's Executioner Axe is clearly an unusual power weapon since it has the obviously unique special rules of striking at S6 and forcing re-rolls of successful invulnerable saves (C: BA p.45). Which means that it's AP3 and not unwieldy. However, this way lies semantic madness, because then we start having to start discussing what exactly the word “unique” means and having to prove that rules are actually unique or not.

Issue: Flakk missiles in Missile Launchers
Ruling: No Flakk Missiles for you! Unless your book says so, of course.

Analysis: This one is seemingly simple but did come up a couple times since the new entry for Missile Launchers in the BRB weapons section includes the stats for Flakk Missiles. However, since that entry specifies that some units will have the option to buy Flakk Missiles as an upgrade, and none currently do, Flakk Missiles are not available to Missile Launchers unless clearly specified in the codex. 

Issue: Choosing Psychic powers
Bottom Line: No mixing and matching powers from a codex and the BRB.

Analysis: This has a couple of elements, including just how powers are swapped out. As clarified in the FAQs, psykers that choose to substitute powers purchased from their book must swap all of their codex powers for randomly-generated powers from Psychic Disciplines in the book. And they must purchase their powers from their list as normal.

*Update 1*

Issue: Challenges vs. Wound Allocation
Ruling: Models in a Challenge may only strike blows against each other, wounds they inflict may only be allocated to their opponent in the challenge, and no wounds from the combat outside the challenge may be allocated to them, even through extraordinary means such as Precision Strike

Analysis: The meat of this one is a little lack of clarity in the Challenge rules creating a potential for a weird one-way street situation where we end up with lots of rules about how to call, accept, deny, move into, get support while within, substitute models for, and resolve challenges, but have a little underpants-gnome esque question mark step in the process where it seems to allow models in challenges to send wounds out into the larger combat or have wounds somehow sent to them. In the section for challenges, BRB p.64-65, the rules specify that the two models in the challenge are considered to be in base contact only with each other, and that "only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another". Seems legit, except that while that rule precludes other models from striking the models in the challenge, when we consider that the rules for being engaged in a combat, the fact that the actual models in a challenge are very likely to be within 2" of other models in their unit that are in base contact with enemy models not in the challenge, and the fact that models with multiple attacks can split those attacks freely between models in different units that it is in base contact *or* engaged with, we get a very muddy little puddle that seems to allow models in a challenge to direct some or all of their attacks, at their discretion, at units they are engaged with. Beyond that comes the question of wound allocation, made all the more cloudy by the line in the challenge section about how the Wound Allocation step is resolved as though the models in the challenge aren't there!

While the rules are somewhat unclear, I'm with Yak on this one. As far as I'm concerned models in a challenge can only fight against each other, and we're simply looking at nebulous verbage on GW's part. In Warhammer Fantasy, the mechanics of the rule work effectively the same, but the equivalent rule to the above-quoted line is slightly different and more clear, saying "Models in a challenge must direct all their attacks against each other - they cannot be attacked by any other model for that round of close combat" (WHFB p.102). This is one where I would be a little surprised (but only a little!) if GW says otherwise.

Issue: Mindshackle Scarabs and Challenges timing
Ruling: Mindshackle Scarabs are activated at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase, before Challenges are declared.

Analysis: This is another gem from the Necron book, which creates a timing problem where we don't know when precisely the Necron player activates his wargear. The rules in the Necron book use out-dated and self-contradictory language - "at the start of the Assault Phase, after Assault moves are made but before blows are struck" (C:N p.81). There's still an assault phase, but models make Charge moves these days, and the problem lies in the fact that Challenges are declared at the start of the Fight sub-phase, before blows are struck (BRB p.64). So then, where do we put the scarabs? Minutiae aside, they can either happen before challenges or after. If we decide they happen before challenges, then the scarabs function they way they're supposed to and all is well. If we decide they happen after challenges, then we're removing entirely the random nature of the scarabs, since once the challenger and challengee have been determined, they are considered to be in base contact only with each other. It creates an allowance for a Necron player to get around a drawback to one of their rules not through savvy play but through a hink in the rules that exists because there isn't a solid framework for timing in 40k. So, for simplicity's sake and in the interest of keeping the mechanics of the scarab intact, scarabs go before challenges.

Issue: Disembarking from Wrecked/Exploded Transports and Assaults
Ruling: Units disembarking from a transport that is wrecked may not launch an assault in their subsequent assault phase, if possible. Units placed on the table in the footprint of a vehicle that has exploded may launch an assault, if possible. (BRB p.79-80)

Analysis: There's a lot of hooplah here, and I'm probably going to get tarred and feathered for this, but here it is: I'm going with RAW. That means that if you wreck a transport that is not open-topped or an assault vehicle in your turn, the unit that disembarks may not assault in their subsequent Assault Phase, which means they cannot launch an assault on their following turn. Top of turn two you wreck the Rhino, bottom of two the Tac Squad that got out can't launch an assault.

Before you murder me with the fiery fury of the internets, hear me out: That squad couldn't launch an assault anyway if the vehicle was not wrecked. The RAW is clear, and while it might not jive with some expectations, it makes sense. Further, it creates a situation where getting one of your vehicles wrecked is a benefit. Ten Berzerkers in a Rhino drive up, axes humming. The Rhino gets wrecked. Huzzah! The Khornies hop out 3”, then move 6” in their subsequent movement phase, then charge 2d6” in their subsequent assault phase. Now we have infantry getting nearly the same potential threat range as Beasts or Cavalry because something bad happened to them!

But wait, what about units in a vehicle that Explodes!? Can they assault?? Yes. They aren't benefiting from any additional movement, and are saddled with the additional hurdle of having to move through difficult terrain.

This whole thing is pretty clear, and expectation of how something should work doesn't have any bearing on how it does work. I talked to a lot of people about this one, and the consensus unanimously is the above. Does that mean I would be surprised if GW rules differently? Not in the least. They've FAQ'd contrary to their RAW before!

Issue: WD Daemon Updates and Invulnerable Saves
Ruling: Chaos Daemons in the WD have a 5+ Invulnerable Save granted by their Daemon special rule.

Analysis: The Daemon special rule from the BRB p.35 gives them a 5+ invulnerable save, amongst other things. Am I missing something? I can't see any legitimate opinion that they would have their old save, or none at all.

Issue: Hammer of Wrath and Special Abilities
Ruling: If a model has a special rule that applies to Hammer of Wrath innately, its Hammer of Wrath attacks benefit from that rule. Rules on weapons carried by the model will not apply.

Analysis: This one came up before in theory if not in practice in the first few days of the book and was resolved quickly so I totally forgot about it! As I see it, since the *model* is making the attack (ramming into you), then if the model itself has a special rule that would apply, it does. The example here is Thunderwolf Cavalry. The model itself has the Rending special rule (C:SW p.34) it's Hammer of Wrath attack would also be rending.

Issue: Auto-hit Attacks and Flyers
Ruling: Auto-hitting attacks that draw a line or the like and hit every model touched hit flyers normally. Any attack that uses a blast marker or template to determine which models are hit cannot hit flyers.

Analysis: It's pretty clear that things like Blood Lance/VibroCannon/Death Ray/etc. that specify the manner in which they are resolved and that they hit any model they affect would hit flyers just the same. The rules for Flyers are clear in both cases under the 'Hard to Hit' heading (BRB p.49, 81) what types of attacks are modified when targeting flyers, i.e. Snap Shots only for BS attacks and templates and blasts not being able to hit. Things like Blood Lance are not any of those abovementioned attacks, and so follow their normal rules. If we can make the leap that a Blood Lance conveniently dodges friendlies and assaults, I don’t see any reason it would miss a flyer. Further, with the relative lack of Skyfire in the game right now, is it a bad thing that it would work this way?

As far as things like the Mawloc and BigBomms, I would say that they do not affect flyers. Since both of those use blast markers to resolve hits and Flyers cannot be hit by templates or blasts, then there you go. The Mawloc is a little thorny, as it isn’t a ‘weapon’ per se, but it still uses a blast marker to determine models hit by its attack, and while its technical definition may be cloudy, its resolution is not.

Issue: Flying Monstrous Creatures, Swooping, and Movement Restrictions
Ruling: FMCs may elect to Swoop on a turn they arrive by Deep Strike. They may not elect to Swoop if they are not able to to move in the movement phase of a turn they did not also arrive from Deep Strike.

Analysis: This one is a doozy, and has been discussed in detail in the thread below, you can read it all there.

*Update 2*

Issue: Reserves Restrictions, Units That Must be Held in Reserve, and Deployment
Ruling: If a unit is deployed inside a dedicated transport and that transport must be held in Reserve, both the unit and its transport must be held in Reserve and neither count when determining how many models must deployed at the start of the game.

Analysis: This one is a legitimate black hole; the rules for units that must be held in Reserve and arrive via Deep Strike are pretty clear, the rules for just having to be held in Reserve not as much. Basically, a unit that must be held in Reserve does not count when determining how many units must be deployed at the beginning of the game. A unit and its dedicated transport count as a single unit for these purposes. The rules for Deep Strike tell us that a unit that must be deployed in reserve to arrive via Deep Strike (along with any embarked transport) does not count when determining how many units must be deployed at the beginning of the game. What if my unit is deployed on a Flyer? Flyers have to be held in Reserve, but do not necessarily Deep Strike. So, when we consider a unit with a Flyer as a dedicated transport, how do we count that unit? Which unit takes precedence, the Flyer which has to be held in Reserve and therefore not count, or the unit it was purchased with which does not have to be held in Reserve and would count?

I'm of the mind that the above is the simplest solution, and also how I would expect GW to rule. In the specific example provided with this question initially, i.e. how many units must be deployed at the beginning of the game in an army comprised of a Necron Overlord and four units of Warriors with Night Scythe dedicated transports, the answer would be one: the Overlord. The unit/transport packages all get rolled into the 'must be held in reserve and do not count' category. Am I happy with this solution? Not really. But I think it is the best answer to a rough question right now, one that doesn't force the Necron player into a situation of having to deploy his army in a bizarre, nonsensical way based on how he built his list.

Issue: Harlequins, Veil of Tears, and FAQ Inconsistencies
Ruling: All Harlequin Shadowseers, whether purchased from Codex: Eldar or Codex: Dark Eldar, have the Veil of Tears power which reads as follows: "A Shadowseer is a psyker and always has the Veil of Tears psychic power, which follows the same rules as Warlock powers (see page 28). Veil of Tears grants the Shadowseer, and all models in her unit, the Stealth and Shrouded special rules."

Analysis: This issue seems to boil down to poor FAQ'ing on GWs part. The intent of the amendment is clear, regardless of being inconsistently applied or badly executed. A more in-depth discussion of the specifics of this issue can be found in the thread below.

*Update 3*
Please note that analysis for this round of rulings is explained in detail a little further down the thread. Check there if you're looking for my reasoning behind these.

Issue: Does a Flying Monstrous Creature take a Grounded Test when hit by Lash of Submission?
Ruling: Yes.

(this ruling is currently under discussion)
Issue: Can a model use a Psychic Shooting attack to fire Overwatch?
Ruling: No.

Issue: Do Weapon Emplacements purchased as part of an Aegis Defense Line count as VPs in Purge the Emperor? Do they count for First Blood?
Ruling: No.

Issue: Do vehicles count for First Blood?
Ruling: Yes.

Issue: Do you have to kill all models in a Squadron of Vehicles to get one VP?
Ruling: Yes.

(this ruling is currently under discussion)
Issue: Can a model pile-in to within 2" of a model in a challenge if it can't move in such a way that it gets to base contact with another enemy model or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with another enemy model?
Ruling: Yes.

Issue: What happens to Necron units that have their Night Scythe Transport destroyed before they disembark from it, and have gone into Reserves, and the game ends before they arrive?
Ruling: Necron units that are in Reserve at the end of the game due to their Night Scythe transport being destroyed before they disembark count as destroyed at the end of the game.

(this ruling is currently under discussion)
Issue: What exactly does Lumbering Behemoth do these days?
Ruling: A Leman Russ that remains stationary may fire its turret weapon and one additional weapon that would be eligible to Snap Fire at normal Ballistic Skill if its turret weapon is Ordnance. If its turret weapon is not Ordnance the model may fire all of its weapons normally. A Leman Russ that moved at Combat Speed may fire its turret Weapon and one additional weapon that would be eligible to Snap Fire at normal Ballistic Skill, even if its turret weapon is Ordnance. The model is still subject to the random Cruising Speed restriction as explained in Codex: Imperial Guard.

Issue: Do Necron Wraiths with Wraithflight still fight at Initiative 1 in assault if they move through Difficult Terrain?
Ruling: Yes.

(this ruling is currently under discussion)
Issue: How does a Banshee Mask interact with a Howling Banshee armed with a power axe?
Ruling: Howling Banshees equipped with power axes strike at Initiative 1 at all times.

****

Weapons Clarifications

Can a Burna fire Overwatch? No.
A Burna is not a ranged weapon or a melee weapon. A Burna is a Burna, and it doesn't know what it is until we ask it, and its answer depends on the phase we're in. In the Shooting Phase, a Burna can be fired as a ranged weapon. In the Assault Phase, a Burna can only be a power weapon (and an unusual one at that!), and then only if it wasn't fired as a ranged weapon in the previous Shooting Phase.

Can Breath of Chaos fire Overwatch? Yes.
It is a template weapon in all respects, and follows the rules in the BRB, p.52 for template weapons. I don't see any reason why the fact that the Daemons codex doesn't use the word 'hit' in itsdescription of the weapon's effects would deny it the ability to fire using Wall of death.

***

That's everything that has come up so far. Hopefully it is useful for the group.

Find your reasons to be sound. Thanks for the input.

Regardless of right or wrong... They are documented and then will be consistently enforced tourney-wide which makes it fair IMHO.

Also, people at your events will able to know the ruling and adjust should they wish to build a list around one of these rules. If they are going to have an issue, it will be known before they show up not mid-game.

Awesome effort. I think this is what we will need really soon for tourneys to run smoothly again.

So just to clarify on the whips .Assaults are made then whoever is in B2B after the sub-phase is I1 for the round(which is how you ruled at first) or Models that make it into B2B at their initiative step become I1 for the round ?

• On Initiative Steps & Whip Coils, a follow-up question based on your ruling (which has alreayd been asked above, but I'm inlcuding it anyway as I'm going to expand on it):

If a model piles into combat on his Initiative step and this brings him into contact with a Whip Coil model thereby lowering his Initiative to 1, does this model then get to pile in again at the I1 step if he's back to being out of base contact at that point? Which then brings us back to the broader question of: Does a model get to make multiple pile-in moves if it is able to strike at multiple Initiative steps, as many models can (just one example being a Techmarine Servo-arm).

My personal feeling is yes, models can and do make multiple pile-in moves at each Initiative step they strike at (except for Hammer of Wrath attacks as they specify otherwise) as the whole entire point of the Iniative step pile in IMHO is to bring models that are about to strike into contact if possible, so if a guy has attacks at different Initiative steps, then clearly he has a little extra pep in his step.


• On charging transport vehicles and overwatch: I actually disagree with this ruling for the following reason: You went ahead and ruled against the flying monstrous creature RAW based on a clear indication of how you think GW would rule, to which I actually agree...I think it is likely they will rule the same way you did if they FAQ it.

However, when it comes to THIS issue, the question you have to ask yourself is: What possible reasons can there be for the rules to disallow a unit to fire overwatch more than once a phase? And really there are only two possible answers as far as I'm concerned:

1) Its balance-based. They don't want a single unit to theoretically be able to decimate multiple charging units via overwatch.
2) Its fluff-based. They think it doesn't make sense that a unit would have that much 'time' to be able to fire a bunch of times at several charging untis in the same phase.

Now, I think no matter which reasoning is behind the basic rule existing in the first place, when it comes to applying that logic to a unti firing out of a transport vehicle on overwatch, neither makes sense to allow the unit onboard to fire at every unit charging the vehicle.

The problem I think the overwatch rules have is that they're a new addition to the game and they aren't written taking into consideration all the rules wording that exists out there in the world, including in other sections of the rulebook.

Which leads to all sorts of confusion like whether or not Burnas can even be fired in overwatch because their rules say they can be used as a firing weapon in the SHOOTING PHASE. Or Breath of Fire in the Chaos Daemons codex which simply states that models under the template suffer a wound on a 4+, so if Breath of Chaos is fired via overwatch and just does D3 hits on a charging unit, what happens? There are no such things as Breath of Chaos 'hits' and there are certainly no rules about how to convert said hits into wounds without some extrapolation.

And I'm sure there are more evil confusing situations out there when we get down to the nitty-gritty of all the codex weapon rules out there.

So I think the bigger question is: When it comes to overwatch fire, do we make assumptions for weapon rules to 'fill the gaps' to allow them to function fully as they would in the shooting phase, or do we say that when a weapon is specific enough to mention that it works in the shooting phase or doesn't utilize hits when 'Wall of Death' generates hits with the weapon that these weapons simply don't function in overwatch?


• On the Ork Mob Rule vs. Intimidating Presence: Inspiring Presence applies to the unit. So you look at the models in the unit and find the lowest Ld value and apply that as the unit's Ld value instead of picking the highest as you normally would. However,the rulebook is actually quite clear that when it comes to a MODEL having two different leadership values, you always use the higher one (page 7). This is separate from the Leadership rules about using the highest value in the UNIT to take the Leadership test.

So in the case of Orks with Mob Rule, every model in the unit actually has 2 Ld values...their base value listed in their profile (typically 7) and the value provided by Mob Rule (equal to the number of Orks currently in the unit). Therefore, when it comes time to pick a Ld from the unit to take as the unit's Ld for a Ld test, all the Ork models in the unit would (at the Ork player's discretion) count as having the Ld equal to the number of Orks in the unit, and therefore there would be no 'lowest' Ld in the unit....just one Ld to pick from.

However, if the unit contained a Big Mek at Ld8, for example and there were only 5 Orks left in the mob, then the Mek would have a Ld8 (as his natural Ld is higher than the Ld5 granted by Mob Rule), while the rest of the Boyz would have a Ld7 (as this is higher than the Ld5 provided by Mob rule), so therefore the lowest Ld value in the unit would be 7 and Intimidating Presence would force them to test on Ld7.

When it comes to Rites of Battle, the ONLY thing this does is allow the unit to utilize the character's Ld characteristic as thought it were the highest Ld value in the unit, so Intimitating Presence would apply normally in this case. So if all the models in the unit had a Ld8, even if Sicarus grants the unit his Ld10, Intimidating Presence still means that the unit uses the lowest Ld value available in the unit, which would be Ld8.


And some other 'big' rulings you probably want to add:

• Are units embarked on transports that must start in reserve, but aren't required to Deep Strike (like most flyer transports) ignored for figuring out how many units must start on the table? The rules for Deep Strike transports specfically say that embarked units are ignored in that case, but regular flyer transports aren't quite so clear...they say the unit embarked and the tansport count as a single choice and that the transport is ignored, but it isn't clear if this includes the embarked unit as well.

So if a Necron army is comprised of an IC and four warrior units with Night Scythe transports, is the Necorn player allowed to start with everything but the IC off the table? Or must he start at least two units on the table (since he has 5 units total that are counted), thereby forcing him to deploy one of his warrior squads on the table outside of its Night Scythe?


• Can wounds inflicted in challenges be allocated onto models outside of the challenge (provided there are other enemy models that are in base contact with friendly models in the combat attacking at the same Intiative step as the models attacking in the challenge)? The rules are quite clear that other models can't allocate their wounds onto challenge combatants, but sadly the rules aren't quite so clear the other way around. And if you rule 'no' to this (which you should IMHO), you should probably through challenge Precision strikes into the ruling as well to be 100% clear.


* Mindshackle Scarab timing vs. Challenges is a good one to cover too.


• Can things that aren't templates/blasts but do not snap fire, like BA Blood Lance, Eldar Vibrocannon, Necron Death Ray, etc, be used to essentially auto-hit flyers? What about attacks that aren't shooting per se, like Mawloc burrow attacks, Ork Big Bomms, etc?


• Do Hammer of Wrath attacks benefit from other abilities the model may have innately? Like if a model has natural rending attacks (as opposed to gaining them via a weapon) then does its Hammer of Wrath attacks get rending? It would seem like this might be the case since 'Smash' goes out of its way to say that it doesn't apply to Hammer of Wrath thereby implying that other special rules that apply to all of a model's attacks WOULD apply to Hammer of Wrath.


• Do the Daemon units presented in the new WD rules (which all just have a - for their save) have the invlunerable save they previously had in the codex (such as a 4+ for Screamers and Flamers in particular), just a 5+ using the new 'Daemon' special rule in the rulebook or no save at all?


• Can Flying Monstrous Creatures Deep Strike into play Swooping, even though they didn't technically move 12"?


• The way swooping is written, the player chooses to swoop or glide before moving the FMC. However, if the FMC was previously swooping but then starts its turn within range of desperate allies and fails his test and isn't allowed to move, what happens? Does he auto-glide? Or can he still count as swoopign even though he's unable to move?


• Really big one here: If a transport is destroyed in an opponent's turn by their shooting and the squad bails out, in its NEXT assault phase (on the next turn) is the unit still prohibited from assaulting (assuming of course the vehicle isn't an assault vehicle)?


• And the big follow up to the above question: What about if the vehicle explodes? The rules don't specify that those models disembark, so are they then free to assault as they want?

Thanks guys, and thanks Yak for more to chew on.

To clarify the Whip Coils, as soon as a model moves into base contact they drop to I1 for the remainder of that phase. This does mean that if they piled in once at I5, for example, then dropped to I1, if they're still around at I1, they pile in again and fight.

I added in those questions for which I was able to reach a satisfying conclusion to the OP under Update #1, and added in a Weapons Section for specific interactions. Again, please take a look, and tell me what you think.

I'm confident in the transport / overwatch ruling. Many common transports took a hit with the addition of Hull Points, so giving them a pat on the butt in the form of their embarked dudes getting to shoot at BS1 an extra time or two isn't going to ruin the game. Will I be surprised if GW rules the other way? Not at all. I ruled against the RAW in the case of FMCs and Swooping / Grounded because I see there to be an issue there with the idea of what state the model is in that doesn't make sense, whereas I don't see that in the case of transports and Overwatch.

Yak is definitely right that the 'new' areas of the book, like Overwatch, Challenges, and Flyers are the most whiskery and most in need of clarifications. Things just don't always sync up with them from the older books.

I'm still not ready to make a call about the Intimidating Presence. We had some good talks about it yesterday and today but haven't reached a consensus. Likewise with the Reserves vs. Transports issue and how many units must be deployed and the Deep Strike vs.Swooping situation. All of which also had interesting opinions discussed but I'm not confident enough to rule on yet. Stay tuned though!

Thanks again to everyone for taking a look and for responding.

nkelsch wrote:Regardless of right or wrong... They are documented and then will be consistently enforced tourney-wide which makes it fair IMHO.

Also, people at your events will able to know the ruling and adjust should they wish to build a list around one of these rules. If they are going to have an issue, it will be known before they show up not mid-game.

Awesome effort. I think this is what we will need really soon for tourneys to run smoothly again.

This, dis. Well done.

Although, the part in orange doesn't apply, as none of the tourneys in the many years (even at GW, Glendale!) I've attended, run by you, have had the slightest rough waters.

And no, that isn't sucking up. Jerk.

I am looking forward for this to be the groundwork for use in all tournament settings.

Thought a little bit more on the FMC Swooping vs. Deep Strike/Desperate Allies thing.

It comes down to a question of what happens when you 'must' do something that you cannot do. When a Flying Monstrous Creature arrives from Reserves, it must declare whether it is Gliding or Swooping. Ok, fine. Now, that same FMC arrives from Reserves by Deep Strike. Sounds good. it still must declare which movement mode it will use, as above. So I say Swooping. Now, I 'must' move at least 12". But I can't. So what happens now? We know that if a Vehicle that is a Flyer can *never* move less than its minimum movement distance, and if somehow it does, it hits the dirt. There is no such penalty for FMCs, and therein is the issue. Since there's no benchmark anywhere for how this works, it just boils down to a 'because I said so' ruling.

Since we don't know timing, and since we don't know which 'must' in this circumstance (must choose or must move) takes precedence, it's a matter of what the person ruling thinks is correct. There's a couple reasons one might say you *can*:

1. The requirement placed upon the FMC in the rules for arriving from Reserves trumps the requirement laid out in the movement rules. Further, there is no penalty in the rules for not fulfilling the movement requirement, so, by RAW, I choose Swooping as required by the arriving from Reserves rules, then I can't move the required 12" in the movement phase, but nothing happens, so it's a wash.

2. We know that a vehicle that arrives via Deep Strike is considered to be moving at cruising speed. I'd be unsurprised to see GW rule that a FMC arriving from Deep Strike is considered to be traveling similarly fast when it arrives.

Now comes the issue of a flyer that can't move for some reason during the game; the example above was a FMC that failed its 'one eye open' test for proximity to Desperate Allies. The timing seems clear. At the start of your movement phase, units within range of desperate allies take a test. On a 1 they can't move. Then, at the start of the FMCs move, it has to choose whether to Swoop or Glide. In this case, we know that it can't fulfill the movement requirement, but there still isn't any penalty for not fulfilling the movement requirement if we're working with the above points, so can I choose to Swoop even though I can't move? Can I choose to do something that, by its requirements, I can't do?

It's a very rough spot, it would seem. I'm still not convinced either way. If we say they can't Swoop in either case, we're putting a potentially unnecessary handicap on the FMC. If we say they can in both cases we open the can of worms above, and if we say yes to Reserves but no to One Eye Open failures, then we have inconsistencies.

Thoughts? I have the feeling that this one is going to end up unsatisfying no matter which tack is taken, until GW weighs in.

You could treat one eye failures the same as vehicle stunned for flyers as in they can still move to not crash but cant turn.

I still fail to see the two as linked at all.

The rules tell you when deep striking you choose to swoop or glide. That's it, no big deal. If I want to come in gliding, great if I want to swoop great. The rules tell me to choose, I choose and it happens.

For the one eye open problem I think the answer is relatively simple but it is a because I said so ruling, consequently I think this is the way GW will rule it. You take the test prior to movement. If you fail and cannot move then you cannot swoop or glide that turn. You can't move, meaning you cannot perform any action at all during the movement phase. It is a because I said so, but it makes the most sense to me.

azgrim wrote:You could treat one eye failures the same as vehicle stunned for flyers as in they can still move to not crash but cant turn.

I'm not happy making a leap with the rules that doesn't have a precedent, particularly one that lets the FMC avoid what is supposed to be a drawback for taking Desperate Allies. Not that it's a bad solution; it would work perfectly fine if ruled as such and enforced uniformly. It's just not they way I'd rule it.

OverwatchCNC wrote:I still fail to see the two as linked at all.

The rules tell you when deep striking you choose to swoop or glide. That's it, no big deal. If I want to come in gliding, great if I want to swoop great. The rules tell me to choose, I choose and it happens.

For the one eye open problem I think the answer is relatively simple but it is a because I said so ruling, consequently I think this is the way GW will rule it. You take the test prior to movement. If you fail and cannot move then you cannot swoop or glide that turn. You can't move, meaning you cannot perform any action at all during the movement phase. It is a because I said so, but it makes the most sense to me.

I just don't think it's that simple. I think the hang-up here is the FMC being able to choose a mode of movement that provides a variety of benefits but includes a requirement for its use, and how that meshes with situations where the FMC can choose that mode and gain its benefits when it is unable to fulfill the requirement, with no penalty.

You fail the One Eye Open test and can't move. Then are compelled (it is a 'must', BRB p.49) to choose a movement mode. There is no option to not choose or to choose something other than the two modes listed. You choose Swooping, and immediately gain the benefits (Snap Fire only, no blasts/templates can hit you, can't be assaulted) while being unable to fulfill the movement requirement which is part of the trade-off for all those buffs. Same thing when we're talking about Deep Striking. It is in the interest of the FMC to elect to Swoop on a turn it Deep Strikes. It gains a variety of good things in exchange for a few bad ones (straight lines only, minimum 12", one turn of up to 90), one of which is a requirement rather than a restriction. If they can choose to Swoop in that case, then they get all the good and none of the bad, no harm, no foul.

That's where it gets rough for me. It's not that I think FMCs are particularly good or survivable or balanced or in need of a nerf/boost or whatever; I have to worry about setting what I consider a potentially bad precedent in my rulings. I feel like saying "Swoop away, no big lawl!", in this case is too loose. It's "letting the FMCs have their cake and eat it too", so to speak.

Again, I don't have a good answer. The last section of text on BRB p.124 under Arriving from Reserves includes the line "if a unit has a special rule forcing it to move in a specific direction or that could stop it from moving, the rule is ignored in the phase when it arrives from Reserve". That could easily be errata'd to include "...forcing it move in a specific direction or a specific distance..." and the Deep Strike issue is fixed. At the end of all this, if I was writing (or errata'ing) these rules, I'd make the above change to the Arriving from Reserves rules to fix that problem, and add the line "If a Flying Monstrous Creature is unable to move for some reason, it may not choose to Swoop, as it obviously cannot move the required 12" minimum distance" to the FMC rules to fix the One Eye Open failure issue.

It's most likely what I will go with. Very much 'because I said so', definitely, but it's how I would expect GW to rule, and makes sense.

I like your final solutions to the problem, it is how I would write it too.

It shouldn't surprise you that I think it is that simple, I have always had a simple way of looking at the rules and game Its why I don't place well at the larger events!

OverwatchCNC wrote:I like your final solutions to the problem, it is how I would write it too.

It shouldn't surprise you that I think it is that simple, I have always had a simple way of looking at the rules and game Its why I don't place well at the larger events!

You used to dominate, my friend! It's not how seriously you take the game, it's all that silly 'real-life' nonsense keeping you from playing!

To the thread, I added the FMC thing to the OP, along with some updated formatting that should make the document more readable. Hope it helps.

Added in my ruling on how to handle Deployment vs. units / dedicated transports that must be held in reserve but do not Deep Strike under *Update 2*.

Still ruminating on the Intimidating Presence issue, but that's the last thing outstanding I need to rule on before the event. I will try to make sure there's something workable before the August event.

For Harliquins do they get both the Veil of Tears spotting distance and shrouding+stealth?

disdainful wrote: Issue: Auto-hit Attacks and Flyers
Ruling: Auto-hitting attacks that draw a line or the like and hit every model touched hit flyers normally. Any attack that uses a blast marker or template to determine which models are hit cannot hit flyers.

Analysis: It's pretty clear that things like Blood Lance/VibroCannon/Death Ray/etc. that specify the manner in which they are resolved and that they hit any model they affect would hit flyers just the same. The rules for Flyers are clear in both cases under the 'Hard to Hit' heading (BRB p.49, 81) what types of attacks are modified when targeting flyers, i.e. Snap Shots only for BS attacks and templates and blasts not being able to hit. Things like Blood Lance are not any of those abovementioned attacks, and so follow their normal rules. If we can make the leap that a Blood Lance conveniently dodges friendlies and assaults, I don’t see any reason it would miss a flyer. Further, with the relative lack of Skyfire in the game right now, is it a bad thing that it would work this way?

As far as things like the Mawloc and BigBomms, I would say that they do not affect flyers. Since both of those use blast markers to resolve hits and Flyers cannot be hit by templates or blasts, then there you go. The Mawloc is a little thorny, as it isn’t a ‘weapon’ per se, but it still uses a blast marker to determine models hit by its attack, and while its technical definition may be cloudy, its resolution is not.

Does this mean this also applies to the Necron Doom Scythe's death ray? It doesn't have to pick if it's hitting flyers only / ground? It hits ALL models that the line touches?

Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blackmoor wrote:For Harliquins do they get both the Veil of Tears spotting distance and shrouding+stealth?

In other tournaments they have All of the above if the harlies are from Eldar. DE Harlies, stealth+shrouding only. Not sure how GE would rule this one though.

mikkoboi wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:For Harliquins do they get both the Veil of Tears spotting distance and shrouding+stealth?

In other tournaments they have All of the above if the harlies are from Eldar. DE Harlies, stealth+shrouding only. Not sure how GE would rule this one though.

I think you might have made an error there. Harlies are not in the DE FAQ so they are being played accoring to the DE codex with the spotting distance.

It is pretty clear the Harlies should only have stealth+shrouding only, but they screwed up the FAQ and made an error with the lines that the new rule replaces, so some people are playing it that they get both rules.

Blackmoor wrote:

mikkoboi wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:For Harliquins do they get both the Veil of Tears spotting distance and shrouding+stealth?

In other tournaments they have All of the above if the harlies are from Eldar. DE Harlies, stealth+shrouding only. Not sure how GE would rule this one though.

I think you might have made an error there. Harlies are not in the DE FAQ so they are being played accoring to the DE codex with the spotting distance.

It is pretty clear the Harlies should only have stealth+shrouding only, but they screwed up the FAQ and made an error with the lines that the new rule replaces, so some people are playing it that they get both rules.

Actually, ignore my 1st sentence haha.
Correct, for DE, they still do spotting distance. As for Eldar, it is a mistake most probably on GW's end and it seems like it is giving them both. But then again, it begs the question "how come DE remains unchanged and was not FAQd if the intention was to take out the spotting distance rule for harlequins?"

Because the editors for GW are terribly inconsistent.

Blackmoor wrote:For Harliquins do they get both the Veil of Tears spotting distance and shrouding+stealth?

This one is more of a flub on GW's part than anything else. Veil of Tears is FAQ'd in the Eldar FAQ but not the Dark Eldar one, so there's that right off the bat. The further wrinkle is that, by the amendment in the FAQ, the spotting distance still exists.

The amendment in the FAQ Tells us to replace the second and third sentences under Veil of Tears with the line that grants the unit Shrouded and Stealth. Here's the problem: those sentences don't affect the spotting distance rule.

In the Eldar Book, Veil of Tears reads as follows, be sentence number:

1. A Shadowseer is a psyker and always has the Veil of Tears psychic power.
2. It follows the same rules as Warlock powers (see page 20-21)
3. The Shadowseer uses her powers to confuse and terrify her foe.
4. Any enemy unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with must roll 2d6x2.
5.This is their spotting distance in inches.
6. If the models are not within spotting range, they may not fire that turn.
7. The Shadowseer and her unit can always be ignored by the enemy for the purpose of determining target priority.

So, with the new amendment, it would read as follows:

1. A Shadowseer is a psyker and always has the Veil of Tears psychic power.
2. The Shadowseer, and all models in her unit have the Stealth and Shrouded special rules.
3. Any enemy unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with must roll 2d6x2.
4.This is their spotting distance in inches.
5. If the models are not within spotting range, they may not fire that turn.
6. The Shadowseer and her unit can always be ignored by the enemy for the purpose of determining target priority.

Now, as that creates a host of overpower, inconsistency, and obsolescence issues (Jeebus, they get everything?! OK, the Shadowseer is now just a psyker, so she has to roll and risk perils to get the power off, right? Then why is she FAQ'd to be Mastery Level 0? Can she not use her power!? And what the hell is 'Target Priority'!? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! )

The intent is pretty clear here, and while the British invented the language, I think it's safe to say that whoever wrote this is just fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between a 'sentence' and a 'section' in their hastily-scribbled FAQ. And with that in mind, I'm confident in the following:

All Harlequin Shadowseers, whether purchased from Codex: Eldar or Codex: Dark Eldar, have the Veil of Tears power which reads as follows: . "A Shadowseer is a psyker and always has the Veil of Tears psychic power, which follows the same rules as Warlock powers (see page 28). Veil of Tears grants the Shadowseer, and all models in her unit, the Stealth and Shrouded special rules."

*edit* I added the above to The List under Update #2.

That's how I would expect this to be resolved in a subsequent clarification, avoids an arguably OP rule combination, and keeps us from a whale of an inconsistent semantic nightmare. Fingers crossed it doesn't get missed in the next round of FAQs / Clarifications!

This one is kinda obvious but I think it deserves a ruling...

Jink rule simply says that a model that moved in the previous movement phase gets a 5+ cover save, 4+ if it goes flat out.

RAW, skimmers that move to get a Jink save who then get immobilized can still get that Jink save, which seems odd to me. Are you going with RAW or are you going with "once a vehicle is immobilized, it loses any benefits from the Jink special rule?"

This should also apply to Ram rules IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing I was wondering about regarding howling banshees:

Their masks make them strike at I10, does this overcome any rule that would make them strike at I1 such as wielding a power axe?

And if properly modeled, would anyone object to Banshees having axes?

And if properly modeled, would anyone object to Banshees having axes?

Like this one from 2nd ed?

Yes, but hopefully not as ugly =)...

Hey all, sorry to lag; I do get days off every once in a while!

I'm working on the above issue. In addition, we had a spate of stuff come up during the event, including how exactly Lumbering Behemoth works these days, as well as some interesting questions about how to measure things like Regimental Standards that are embarked in transports, if models can draw line of sight out of vehicle firing points for purposes other than shooting, and if Wraithflight still drops the assaulting Wraith's Initiative to 1, among other things. I'll have a chance to work on these over the next couple days and will hopefully have something I'm happy with up for them soon.

Ok gang, here's the most recent spate of issues that came up in the event. This update includes some things that ended up being relatively simple, some not so much, and some I'm still unsure of. As ever, your feedback is appreciated. So, in no particular order:

Issue: Does a Flying Monstrous Creature take a Grounded Test when hit by Lash of Submission?
Ruling: Yes.

Analysis: This is a reversal of the ruling I made during the event (sorry Evan! ). My knee-jerk was that Lash isn't something that 'hits' a target like a shooting attack by it wording, but upon further reading it seems clear to me that since Lash is now technically a Witchfire (as it is a Psychic Shooting attack that includes a to-hit roll) which now has the added clarification that its use is counted as firing an Assault weapon (BRB p.69), it's a hit like any other that would force a Grounded Test.

Issue: Can a model use a Psychic Shooting attack to fire Overwatch?
Ruling: No.

Analysis: This is another one that sprang up from the Lash of Submission camp. Using the rationale that Psykers generate Warp Charge each round (BRB p.66), Witchfire powers are resolved like shooting attacks (BRB p.69), and that Overwatch is resolved 'like a normal Shooting attack' (BRB p.21), the discussion arose briefly about how powerful Lash could be if it hit and then tossed the assaulting squad away from the target unit. It didn't sit right with me at the time, and I'm pretty confident at this point after reading the various literatures that you can't use Witchfires as Overwatch. The rules for Witchfire powers specify that they can be manifested in the Psyker's Shooting Phase instead of firing a weapon. Overwatch, while being resolved like a normal shooting attack, occurs in the enemy's Assault Phase, which would preclude psykers from manifesting powers that can only occur in their Shooting Phase. This ruling is consistent with the Burna ruling as well.

Issue: Do Weapon Emplacements purchased as part of an Aegis Defense Line count as VPs in Purge the Emperor? Do they count for First Blood?
Ruling: No.

Analysis: Lot of ADLs in the event and this came up a few times. Fortifications are not 'units' in an army, they're terrain pieces. It's not even necessarily assumed that they are 'yours' in the sense that your army brought them along and set them up, but that 'it's more likely that they're emplacements that have been captured and secured just before the start of the battle' (BRB p.109). Any assumption that they are units and do count for VPs and First Blood creates a variety of subsequent issues: You can't attack a Skyshield, so is that a VP my opponent can never get? The Fortress of Redemption includes four separate buildings; is each one worth 1 VP? Do I have to destroy them all to get a VP??, and so on, that muddy the waters even further. So the easy answer is the correct one.

Issue: Do vehicles count for First Blood?
Ruling: Yes.

Analysis: A little bit of semantic silliness here in my opinion. The rules for First Blood says that 'the first unit, of any kind, removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 VP...' (BRB p.122). It came up that since vehicles are not technically removed as 'casualties' (in both Wrecked and Explodes (BRB p.74)the rules tell us that the vehicle is 'removed' but do not use the word 'casualty') they would not fulfill the requirement for First Blood. It seems clear that the part about '...any unit, of any type, removed...' is what we need to worry about here. And there's no way I'd ever say that someone doesn't get First Blood for destroying a vehicle. And, hyper-technically, a unit of infantry is never actually removed as a casualty, the individual models are removed as casualties until such time as the unit not longer exists, so by going down the garden path of super-specific syntax we end up with a situation where the only time you'd get First Blood is if you destroyed a unit consisting of one model, and even then it could be argued that you don't.

Issue: Do you have to kill all models in a Squadron of Vehicles to get one VP?
Ruling: Yes.

Analysis. All the models in the vehicle squadron comprise one unit (BRB p.77), and further, there is language in the same section explaining the mechanics of abandoning an immobilized squadron-mate, the model for which is then counted as separate unit for the remainder of the game. Pretty clear. That being said, I find it funny that GW keeps using Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers as the example units for these rules, while the much more difficult to destroy units of Leman Russ' and Valkyries are the norm these days!

Issue: Can a model pile-in to within 2" of a model in a challenge if it can't move in such a way that it gets to base contact with another enemy model or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with another enemy model?
Ruling: Yes.

Analysis: This one came up during a doozy of a fight that included a bunch of big bases. In the middle was a Tervigon in a challenge with a Destroyer Lord. On one side was a Trygon, and on the other was a Carnifex and some Scarab Swarms. The Trygon was up first in initiative order, and since it was only in base contact with the models in the challenge it wasn't in base contact with anyone (since models in a challenge can only ever be in base contact with each other (BRB p.64). Its Pile-In move would not take it to base contact with any of the Scarabs. It's pile-in would not get it to within 2" of the Carnifex. So the last step for Pile-In (BRB p.23) requires the model must pile in and get 'as close as possible to one or more of the enemy units locked in the combat'. So the question was, does the Trygon have to move around to try and get closer to the Scarabs, or could it move in such a way that it was closer to just the Destroyer Lord? I ruled that as long as it ended closer to at least the Destroyer Lord then its movement was legal. I feel that this is correct, though I'm not yet sure if the phrase 'one or more' in the third bullet of the Pile-In requirements should be taken to mean 'all', in which case the Trygon would have had to have moved in such a way that it ended as close as possible to the Scarabs as well as the Lord. That, however, is a somewhat separate concern. For purposes of this ruling, Piling-In toward a model in a challenge is legal, since it is still a 'model locked in the combat', and the challenge rules only tell us to partition off the challengers when we're talking about being in base contact and for wound allocation.

Issue: What happens to Necron units that have their Night Scythe Transport destroyed before they disembark from it, and have gone into Reserves, and the game ends before they arrive?
Ruling: Necron units that are in Reserve at the end of the game due to their Night Scythe transport being destroyed before they disembark count as destroyed at the end of the game.

Analysis: This came up because of the confusion caused by the fact that Necrons have some wonky rules for their transports and that they're in a weird 'off-the-board' limbo until they actually beam onto the table. The rules for Night Scythes tell us that units embarked on them do not disembark when the transport is destroyed, but instead enter Reserves (C:N p.51). There's a lot in the BRB that tells us what happens to Ongoing Reserves and how they count as destroyed if they aren't on the table at the end of the game (BRB p.125), and we know that units that are Delayed from a Deep Strike Mishap (BRB p.36) goes into Ongoing Reserves as well. But we have no language in place to determine the fate of units that are in normal Reserves at game's end, likely because of the understanding that every unit in regular Reserves will have arrived on the board or ended up in Ongoing Reserves by the end of the game. With that in mind, I feel it is the simplest and correct solution to treat the Necron unit in this case as if they had entered Ongoing Reserves and would therefore count as destroyed at the end of the game. The assumption has to be that if they should be placed in Reserve by their transport being destroyed at the top of turn 4, 5, 6, or 7 (despite the fact that we only know that units in Reserve arrive automatically on Turn Four, and don't know what happens to them in subsequent turns), they would arrive automatically in the bottom of that turn, which is mechanically identical to being in Ongoing Reserves. So, in the interest of not creating a new zone for these models to inhabit that is unique to them, if they're not on the board at the end of the game from their truck getting blowns up, they're gone.

Issue: What exactly does Lumbering Behemoth do these days?
Ruling: A Leman Russ that remains stationary may fire its turret weapon and one additional weapon at normal Ballistic Skill its weapons that would be eligible to Snap Fire if its turret weapon is Ordnance. If its turret weapon is not Ordnance the model may fire all of its weapons normally. A Leman Russ that moved at Combat Speed may fire its turret Weapon and one additional weapon that would be eligible to Snap Fire at normal Ballistic Skill, even if its turret weapon is Ordnance. The model is still subject to the random Cruising Speed restriction as explained in Codex: Imperial Guard.

Analysis: Lemans are potentially in kind of a rough spot due to their Lumbering Behemoth rule nowadays, since the rule includes a benefit that is now meaningless and a hindrance that is definitely not (C:IG, p.48). So, how to resolve the situation so IG players aren't saddled with a speed handicap and get nothing for it? After reviewing how the rule interacted with 5th edition, I feel the above solution solves the problem as best as possible without taking too much of a leap with rules. Since the allowance before was that you effectively got to fire your turret weapon and your other stuff, now that you can always fire everything with the restriction of snap fire it stands to reason that the new allowance would be shots at normal BS. Thoughts on this one? I'm definitely stretching a bit, but there's nothing out there to use as a touchstone.

Issue: Do Necron Wraiths with Wraithflight still fight at Initiative 1 in assault if they move through Difficult Terrain?
Ruling: Yes.

Analysis: Wraithflight specifies that the model is never slowed by difficult terrain and always passes dangerous terrain tests (C:N p. 44). The rules for charging through difficult terrain state that if at least one model in the charging unit moved through difficult terrain as part of its charge move, all the models fight at I1 (BRB p.22). It seems pretty clear that your are moving through the difficult terrain, even if you are not slowed by it. A unit could roll three 6s for its charge distance through difficult terrain, and would note be considered by anyone to have been 'slowed' by it, but those models would still fight at I1. For reference, in 5th edition, the unit suffered the I1 penalty if it had to take the test for difficult terrain. I will not be surprised in the least to hear that, should they rule on it, GW ends up ruling that wraithflight gets around the I1, but until then, this is the best solution I can see.

Issue: How does a Banshee Mask interact with a Howling Banshee armed with a power axe?
Ruling: Howling Banshees equipped with power axes strike at Initiative 1 at all times.

Analysis: This one is a little sticky. Howling Banshees can most assuredly be armed with any of the new power weapon types, since their codex entry lists their wargear as simply 'power weapon' and, obviously, models exist with more than just swords. Banshee Masks say that a model who has one 'has initiative 10', among other things (C:E p.31) on the first round of an assault. Weapons that are Unwieldy (i.e. power axes) say that a model attacking with this weapon does so at Initiative step 1 (BRB p.43). As I read that, the fact that the Unwieldy rule specifies the step at which the model may attack with it (1), supersedes the Initiative value the Banshee Mask says the model has (10). That being said, the argument could easily be made that both effects are 'set value modifiers'. We don't know how to deal with the occurrence of two different set value modifiers; the only place I've even seen it discussed is in the Q&A part of the Necron FAQ as regards stuff like a Banshee Mask interacting with an opponent's rule like Whip Coils. In that instance, the FAQ tells us roll off to see which effect applies. So, in the interest of not having an Eldar player rolling off against himself to see if he uses the rules for the axe or the mask each time the girls get in a fight, the above ruling will be in place. If you want the girls to hit harder, they hit slower.

****

That's everything that made my list during the event, along with a couple from Tuesday night games. As usual, feedback is appreciated. Apologies for the TL;DR.

A quick thought on Lumbering Behemoth - perhaps limit the extra weapon fired at ballistic skill to a choice of one weapon able to be snap fired.
For example, an executioner with plasma cannon sponsons and a heavy bolter in the hull.
If it remains stationary then all weapons can fire at normal ballistic skill.
If it moves the sponsons would not be eligible to fire because they are blast weapons, leaving the heavy bolter to snap fire.
Since the heavy bolter is the only weapon other than the turret able to snap fire, it gets bumped up to normal ballistic skill.

Another example - If a russ has a lascannon in the hull and heavy bolter sponsons
stationary - eveyrthing shoots at bs
moving, the battlecannon fires normally and all other weapons snap fire.
Since all the other weapons are eligible to snap fire, the player chooses one of the heavy bolters or the lascannon to fire at full bs and snap fires the others.

thoughts?

Good catch on that one. It solves the problem (that I missed) of the tank being able to fire the PC sponson normally after firing ordnance or while moving, since those blast weapons would not normally be able to snap fire.

Not that we're going to be seeing a lot of Plasma sponsons in the days of 6th, but you never know!

you might also want to add what happens when wraiths assault into terrain . As that kept coming up

or we can keep that for next month so i can go 3/3 on WTF necron questions

Most of the rulings feel like they're on pretty solid ground IMHO, except for a few:

disdainful wrote:
Issue: Can a model use a Psychic Shooting attack to fire Overwatch?
Ruling: No.

I think this is a slippery slope to walk down. The reason I say this is because the rules for shooting themselves are written for the shooting phase, but obviously the rules infer that you're taking shooting attacks (which are normally only permitted in the shooting phase) and allowing them to fire in the assault phase.

Once you start going to down the road of eliminating any shooting attack that happens to mention the words 'shooting phase' in its special rules, then all of a sudden you're eliminating a bunch of shooting attacks simply based on semantics rather than any real game reason why they shouldn't be allowed while other shooting attacks are allowed. I know in quite a few of your other rulings you basically ruled the way you're figuring GW would if they were to FAQ the issue. Do you really think GW would come out and disallow a Burna from firing Overwatch shots or any other special weapon that happens to mention the shooting phase in its rules? I personally find that really doubtful.

IMHO, I don't think the mention of the shooting phase in a weapon or shooting attack should prohibit it from being used as part of overwatch fire as long as it fits the normal criteria (needs to roll to hit).

Sure, Lash is potentially a really powerful overwatch tool, but you're still needing to roll 6's to hit, so by that standard alone it cannot reliably be counted on to do anything...and actually from a fluff perspective its a really cool idea to think of a unit wanting to charge a Lash Prince only to get caught up in his allure and instead head off in the other direction!

Issue: Can a model pile-in to within 2" of a model in a challenge if it can't move in such a way that it gets to base contact with another enemy model or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with another enemy model?
Ruling: Yes.

I know the challenge rules indicate that the challenge fighters are just considered outside of the combat when allocating wounds, but as with a lot of the totally new sections of rules added for 6th edition, I think they haven't thought the ramifications of the wording used in some of these rules and the chaos it creates. I almost think you need to go outside the RAW here and fill the gaps in or else you can get some really stupid situations going.

For example, if models that are fighting a challenge are still considered to be 'engaged' with other models in the same combat (even if you can't actually allocate wounds to them) then this can easily create a situation where a model essentially gets locked into sitting into base contact with an enemy model fighting a challenge which then prevents the model from attacking anybody else.

Here's the example:

A Necron Lord is sitting near some Wraiths, but he's not joined to them (but he's around 3" away from them).

A Tervigon, Carnifex & a bunch of stealers charge into combat. The Tervigon goes after the Necron Lord, the Carnifex goes after the Wraiths and the stealers go after both the Wraiths and the Lord. The Tervigon and the Lord end up in a challenge together. When the Stealers attack, they kill a few Wraiths, which ends up removing the Wraith that was in contact with the Carnifex. When the Carnifex's Initiative step rolls around he's now within 3" of the Lord (locked in the challenge) but no longer within 3" of any Wraiths.

So if you're ruling that the Lord fighting a challenge still counts as being a model in the combat, then the Carnifex has to pile-in 3" into base contact with the Lord even though he can't actually attack him. Whereas if you rule that he isn't a legal model to engage, then the Carnifex would move 3" towards the Wraiths, not be able to attack this round but then pile-in again 3" at the end of the phase and now be in contact against the Wraiths.

Basically what this means is that if the combat goes on for several rounds, the Carnifex will be stuck sitting in base contact against a Lord he can't attack while the Wraiths and the Stealers duke it out.

That seems like a pretty crap situation to me.

I agree that you've read the RAW right, however I also think the challenge rules are joke when it comes to clarity. Honestly I believe you should just kind of step up and say that the challenge models are effectively ignored when determining who you need to pile-in against or else you can end up with stupid situations where models aren't able to attack because they're stuck in base contact with an enemy model fighting in a challenge that they can't attack themselves.

Issue: What exactly does Lumbering Behemoth do these days?
Ruling: A Leman Russ that remains stationary may fire its turret weapon and one additional weapon at normal Ballistic Skill its weapons that would be eligible to Snap Fire if its turret weapon is Ordnance. If its turret weapon is not Ordnance the model may fire all of its weapons normally. A Leman Russ that moved at Combat Speed may fire its turret Weapon and one additional weapon that would be eligible to Snap Fire at normal Ballistic Skill, even if its turret weapon is Ordnance. The model is still subject to the random Cruising Speed restriction as explained in Codex: Imperial Guard.

Honestly I think you really need to reconsider this quite a bit. What you're doing is basically updating an old codex rule to make it better because it doesn't work the way it used to in 5th edition. The game is literally rife with all sorts of these situations, but until GW goes out of there way to fix it, I think you're kind of playing games designer here and fixing something we don't know if GW would actually want to fix or not. I mean, just look at the Tau Target Lock which GW FAQ'd to simply say it doesn't do anything in 6th edition for no apparent good reason.

Why should you assume that Lumbering Behemoth *should* suddenly be updated to make Leman Russes better? I mean, its not like the Imperial Guard or Leman Russes in general NEED an improvement in 6th edition.

Once you decide to go down this road then you have to answer from every other player who has a rule which has been made effectively redundant by 6th edition and them wanting their rule to suddenly be updated to make their unit better.

So did Lumbering Behemoth go from something that both gave a benefit and a penalty to the Russ into something that now just gives a penalty? It did. But oh well. Until GW decides to go ahead and change it via a FAQ this is just one of many instances in all the codexes.