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.

If a unit of Grey Knights is assaulted by a unit or model equipped with Psyk-out grenades, is the entire GK unit reduced to I1 or is the Justicar/KotF/Random designated by the Brotherhood of Psykers rule the only model reduced to I1?

Reasons for asking:

- The Brotherhood of Psykers (BoP) special rule states that the entire unit is treated as a single psyker seeming to support that the entire unit would be reduced to I1.

- The BoP rule also states that any "attacks" (and perils but not relevant in this case) that specifically target psykers are attributed to just to the Justicar/KotF/Random.

- The Crucible of Malediction (CoM) FAQ seems to support that only the Justicar/KotF/Random would be effected, as a precedent.

- This question seems to boil down to if a Psyk-out Grenade is considered an "attack" or not. For example, the CoM FAQ may seem to apply at first, but the CoM is more of an "attack" being that it actually removes models whereas a Grenade seems to be more of a "special rule" in that it does not cause wounds, cannot remove models, etc. What is the definition of an "attack"?

- Arguments have been made that the term "attacks" in the BoP rule should be interpreted loosely to mean anything which causes a negative effect.

- Likewise, if the author intended for "attacks" to be read loosely, would it not have been more fitting then to just say "anything which targets psykers" rather than specifying attacks and perils?

- This question has come up at least 2 times already in this forum with no definitive conclusion and proponents on both sides. In my experience, this also varies from group to group.

Wanted a clarification here on an INAT ruling. I realize this is a very contentious subject (by the 28 page discussion on it) and that the INAT has already pretty much resolved this, but I'm still genuinely unclear on how this will be ruled. Hoping for a little resolution on it.

INAT says:
◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘EverLiving’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a
sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle
with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to
play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?
A: No in both cases [clarification].

It's obvious that if a Cryptek or IC with the EL rule in this case is with a unit that that is swept, they don't get their EL roll.

My question is:

Do they get their EL roll if they were killed prior to the sweeping advance?

The reason I am asking:

- Is the model a "part of the unit" at that time or not?
- It's clear that a model that is swept or is part of a unit that is swept, he doesn't get the roll. Being knocked down prior to the sweep though, means that he died prior to the sweep and may or may not still be part of the unit at that time.

Unsure on how to proceed because I can't tell if this is meant to only apply to EL models which were swept or also to EL models which were killed prior to the sweep.

Here's an example:

A unit comprised of 5 warriors and 2 crypteks gets into an assault. Knowing that the unit will likely die and get swept, the Necron player allocated wounds to the Crypteks which gets them knocked down. EL tokens are placed. The remaining warriors then lose the combat and are swept. Since the 2 crypteks went down prior to the sweep, does this still apply?

Thanks!

One more since I'm on a roll.

For a twin-linked weapon, must you be able to draw LoS from both barrels in order to draw LoS? More specifically, can a Dreadnought with a Twin-Linked Autocannon/Lascannon draw LoS over top a Rhino?

Reason for asking:

- This is a very common debate.
- No rules that I have found either give you permission nor deny you from drawing LoS from either barrel or both.

Please address Ever Living in regard to Sweeping Advance.

NecronLord3 wrote:Please address Ever Living in regard to Sweeping Advance.

Specifically, in regards to models killed in close combat, whose unit is subsequently Swept.

Happyjew wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Please address Ever Living in regard to Sweeping Advance.

Specifically, in regards to models killed in close combat, whose unit is subsequently Swept.

ngilstrap wrote:Wanted a clarification here on an INAT ruling. I realize this is a very contentious subject (by the 28 page discussion on it) and that the INAT has already pretty much resolved this, but I'm still genuinely unclear on how this will be ruled. Hoping for a little resolution on it.

INAT says:
◊NEC.29B.04 – Q: If a Necron model with ‘EverLiving’ is part of a unit that is wiped out by a
sweeping advance or is killed failing to stop a vehicle
with a ‘Death or Glory! attack’, can it still return to
play via its ‘Reanimation Protocols’?
A: No in both cases [clarification].

It's obvious that if a Cryptek or IC with the EL rule in this case is with a unit that that is swept, they don't get their EL roll.

My question is:

Do they get their EL roll if they were killed prior to the sweeping advance?

The reason I am asking:

- Is the model a "part of the unit" at that time or not?
- It's clear that a model that is swept or is part of a unit that is swept, he doesn't get the roll. Being knocked down prior to the sweep though, means that he died prior to the sweep and may or may not still be part of the unit at that time.

Unsure on how to proceed because I can't tell if this is meant to only apply to EL models which were swept or also to EL models which were killed prior to the sweep.

Here's an example:

A unit comprised of 5 warriors and 2 crypteks gets into an assault. Knowing that the unit will likely die and get swept, the Necron player allocated wounds to the Crypteks which gets them knocked down. EL tokens are placed. The remaining warriors then lose the combat and are swept. Since the 2 crypteks went down prior to the sweep, does this still apply?

Thanks!

Like... 2 posts up. Come on guys.

In the new Necron dex when a Triarch Stalker scores a hit all other shots against that target count as twin linked

Per page 62 or brb “if the save(cover save) is passed, the hit is disregarded and no roll is made on the vehicle damage table”

So if a cover save is made vs a Triarch Stalker successfully does the target still count as hit for purposes of other models getting twin linked shots against it as disregarding the shot only means it disregards the damage result, or was the shot disregarded completely due to the cover save indicating it didn’t hit the model?

This one came up during a recent Apoc game, and we're curious as to how others deal with it. I didn't see it addressed in the current appendix.

In the main Apoc rules:
pg96 Destroyer
"... the weapon always inflicts Instant Death... If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the Destroyer will cause one wound..."

however:
pg91 Gargantuan Creatures
"All GC are immune to the Instant Death rule... Such attacks cause D3 wounds instead."

Which rule takes precedence - 1 wound or D3 wounds?

xttz wrote:This one came up during a recent Apoc game, and we're curious as to how others deal with it. I didn't see it addressed in the current appendix.

In the main Apoc rules:
pg96 Destroyer
"... the weapon always inflicts Instant Death... If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the Destroyer will cause one wound..."

however:
pg91 Gargantuan Creatures
"All GC are immune to the Instant Death rule... Such attacks cause D3 wounds instead."

Which rule takes precedence - 1 wound or D3 wounds?

You've actually cut out a vitally important part of that second rules quote.

Attacks that inflict instant death do NOT cause D3 wounds on a Gargantuan Creature. Attacks that simply remove a model from the table do (things like a Shokk Attack gun double 6, Lukas the Trickster's special rule, etc).

So a Destroyer Weapon (which just inflicts instant death) only causes 1 wound on a Gargantuan Creature.

Apparently we need INAT to help clarify if Boarding planks can be used in the opponent's phase the same way Wrecking balls were 'clarified'.

People seem to be parsing 'as if' to mean that if an ork is on a vehicle and within 2" of an opponent, he can make his attacks during the opponent's assault phase because the only requirement is that the ork is making a CC attack, not assaulting.

yakface wrote:

xttz wrote:This one came up during a recent Apoc game, and we're curious as to how others deal with it. I didn't see it addressed in the current appendix.

In the main Apoc rules:
pg96 Destroyer
"... the weapon always inflicts Instant Death... If the target is immune to Instant Death, then the Destroyer will cause one wound..."

however:
pg91 Gargantuan Creatures
"All GC are immune to the Instant Death rule... Such attacks cause D3 wounds instead."

Which rule takes precedence - 1 wound or D3 wounds?

You've actually cut out a vitally important part of that second rules quote.

Attacks that inflict instant death do NOT cause D3 wounds on a Gargantuan Creature. Attacks that simply remove a model from the table do (things like a Shokk Attack gun double 6, Lukas the Trickster's special rule, etc).

So a Destroyer Weapon (which just inflicts instant death) only causes 1 wound on a Gargantuan Creature.

Here's the full text:


The text is misleading because it specifcally states a Force Weapon as an example of killing a model automatically, and 'such attacks cause D3 wounds instead'. Force Weapons cause Instant Death according to the 5th Ed rulebook. Therefore it's implied that the whole section refers to ID weapons.

Is this a side effect of a rules change between 4th and 5th edition? Was the ID effect added to Force Weapons after the Apoc book was released?

You have to remember that Apocalypse was printed in 4th ed, not 5th. In 4th , force weapons "removed all remaining wounds from the target." So if you discount the mention of force weapons, the paragraph makes perfect sense.

Just in time for Adepticon, we've put out a very minor update to the INAT: v5.1.1.

So what's changed since v5.1? Not much. Basically:

• One addition (GK.21A.04) - Grey Knights vs. Psyk-out Grenades added on page 50.
• Also, one incorrect question/ruling regarding Grey Knight Brotherhood Champion removed from page 51 (GK.26E.01).

As always, you can download the latest version of the INAT at www.inatfaq.com

And yes, I have gotten all the recent great questions posted in this thread (and the one in the News & Rumors forum), but we didn't want to post too many new changes right before Adepticon, so we will get those questions included the next time we do a major update of the INAT.

Thanks everyone!

If a techmarine is subject to MSS,
a) does his servo-arm attack(s) still occur?
b) do they hit enemy models or friendly?

My question is, can cover saves be taken against Tau Markerlights? Because the Tau codex is 4th edition some of their rules have become confusing but the errata/FAQ does not address this. I have seen arguments presented for both yes and no, from both players and GW staff. I also understand that it would be silly to give models an armour or invulnerable save against markerlights, but a cover save does seem reasonable. I can also present examples of said arguments upon request.

Cover saves (like armour and invuln saves) can only be taken against wounds. Since the Markerlight does not cause wounds, you cannot take any saves from it.

Happyjew wrote:Cover saves (like armour and invuln saves) can only be taken against wounds. Since the Markerlight does not cause wounds, you cannot take any saves from it.

Against wounds? So no cover saves for vehicles then.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Cover saves (like armour and invuln saves) can only be taken against wounds. Since the Markerlight does not cause wounds, you cannot take any saves from it.

Against wounds? So no cover saves for vehicles then.

Except the rules allow them.
And Glance/Pen are essentially the same thing as wounds when it comes to vehicles. (this line is HIWPI/RAI)

Again, I have heard arguments for both cover saves being allowed and cover saves being disallowed, which is why I am looking for an official ruling on it. I heard on guy at a local tournament successfully argue that markerlight tokens were a form of special wound that did not cause casualties and therefore save could be taken for them. Long story short, not looking to start an argument, just someone who can put the final nail in this thing and have it done.

CarstairsCowboy wrote:Again, I have heard arguments for both cover saves being allowed and cover saves being disallowed, which is why I am looking for an official ruling on it. I heard on guy at a local tournament successfully argue that markerlight tokens were a form of special wound that did not cause casualties and therefore save could be taken for them. Long story short, not looking to start an argument, just someone who can put the final nail in this thing and have it done.

There's no rules basis for allowing them. At all. The guy at your local tournament was full of it.

rigeld2 wrote:[quote=The guy at your local tournament was full of it.

So? He still argued it successfully. With logic and used some of the RAW. It doesn't matter if he was full of it, because the judge ruled in his favour. This is why I want an official FAQ ruling on it, because there are currently two sharply divided camps that can actually produce decent arguments, but have consigned themselves to throwing "You're full of it" at each other. Also, in the future, please don't make a pointless post like that.

CarstairsCowboy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The guy at your local tournament was full of it.

So? He still argued it successfully. With logic and used some of the RAW. It doesn't matter if he was full of it, because the judge ruled in his favour. This is why I want an official FAQ ruling on it, because there are currently two sharply divided camps that can actually produce decent arguments, but have consigned themselves to throwing "You're full of it" at each other. Also, in the future, please don't make a pointless post like that.

There is no RAW to support his point. There's no way to argue against it because there's no basis for it. It's like saying "Your men are red so they automatically take a wound." - you can't argue against that statement because there's no way to back it up with RAW.

The rules require you to take a wound before you can roll a save. Find the permission to take a save at any other time. Markerlights do not cause wounds.
The TO was wrong, and should not have fallen for this.

And the guy still got the ruling. The point is that I did not post to start a long discussion or an argument, just to get a freaking FAQ or answer from someone who has actual authority to make a decision, not to keep replying to online rules lawyers. Unless you work for GW, can it. I know what your opinions are. Already heard them. Don't care.

CarstairsCowboy wrote:And the guy still got the ruling. The point is that I did not post to start a long discussion or an argument, just to get a freaking FAQ or answer from someone who has actual authority to make a decision, not to keep replying to online rules lawyers. Unless you work for GW, can it. I know what your opinions are. Already heard them. Don't care.

And no one here works for GW either.
And I'll drop it to stop polluting the INAT FAQ thread. Apologies for having done so.

CarstairsCowboy wrote:And the guy still got the ruling. The point is that I did not post to start a long discussion or an argument, just to get a freaking FAQ or answer from someone who has actual authority to make a decision, not to keep replying to online rules lawyers. Unless you work for GW, can it. I know what your opinions are. Already heard them. Don't care.

The thing is the faq is here to address issues in which there is a notable conflict within the rules. There isn't a discussion when it comes to taking saves against marker lights. You just can't do it as it is not supported by the rules. Also what do you mean by "online rules lawyers", people who actually read the rules, because you clearly don't as this is a clear cut situation. Sorry if I come out a tad too offensive, but you have a question which you got answered and what do you say, you tell somebody to shut up because you need a faq for a clear issue.


Anyway, just my morning rant.

If a necron unit is affected by lash of submission and is killed by the shooting attacks from the rest of the unit the lashing psyker is attached to, where do they make their ever-living rolls from?

This came up in a game at adepticon, and I talked to the judge and my opponent and brainstormed how it should be resolved. We decided that the models should be moved before they die. The reason we did this is because lash has three parts (to hit, 2d6 movement, and the pinning test) and normal shooting has 3 parts (to hit, to wound, and armor saves). For simplicity's sake, we assumed that the three different parts each happen at the same time as their parallel. That is to say both rolls to hit are simultaneous, rolls to wound and the 2d6 movement for lash are simultaneous, and the armor saves for the affected unit, as well as their pinning test, is last.

Also, a diagram or ruling on that other thing, assuming 6th doesn't clarify it.

I was wondering if we might be able to get a ruling on having a SM Captain on a bike, and wether or not he would make Scout Bikes count as troops.

If there is a prior ruling that I am just missing I would take that as well.

Thanks!

d-usa, SM Cap'n specifically says "Space Marine Bike Squad" of at least 5 models. Scout Bike Squad is not a Space Marine Bike Squad (which has its own entry).

If my royal court is completely divided amongst the army (that is to say, no models remain in the royal court unit) does my opponent get a kill point for the unit? Can he?

Based on the Wolf Guard (?) precedent, the Royal Court no longer exists as such, and does not award a Kill Point.