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.

A-P wrote:

sirisaacnuton wrote:
Their intention was that....( words ).. It seemed pretty clearly worded to me.

Well, not to me . Something this important ( not scoring, no KP´s etc ) should be spelled out clearly. Space in the Codex can´t be a problem. Every Codex has some redundant fluff text that can make room for the more important stuff like rules.

Well, I don't see how stating that they never count toward mission objectives does not clearly spell out that whatever the mission objective(s) is/are, they never count toward it/them. If it's a mission objective, they don't count for it. KP, VP, objective marker, table quarter, surviving units, most expensive unit, least expensive unit, unit marked for death, unit that picks up the beer and runs off the table with it...whatever objective is being used to determine who actually wins the game, they don't count toward it, ever. It couldn't be spelled out more clearly than what they said.

Now if they had instead said "Spore Mines never yield Kill Points or Victory Points, can never be scoring units, and cannot contest objectives," you have a rule that seems at first more specific, but it ignores the fact that many tournaments used modified rules as the objectives for missions. Say you're in a tournament mission and the objective is to have the most units within 6" of the center, regardless of scoring status. Would the Spore Mines count for that? Under the more explicit rules, yes, they would still work for this wonky mission, because nothing in the prohibitions says anything about counting as a unit within 6" of the center of the table. But with the rules they actually have, they don't count, because it's the objective of the mission, and they never count for mission objectives.

If it had said "Never count for Victory Conditions" that would have covered the lot of them.

v0.5 uploaded

While I don't agree 100% with all the rulings you make, i see where they come from RAW and logically usually.

I would like to take the time to thank you for putting together an unofficial FaQ that is well spoken and sane

Gwar! wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:That is just hilarious

No, what is hilarious is that I did not realise just how bad they were. I am Up to 10 Questions on Spore Mines alone and I have more to do yet. Nothing else is that bad in the codex so far!

I have another one.

Movement:

You have to deploy them per the deepstrike rules, but they move individually in a random direction ? or do they move as a group ?

If they move individually then what happens when they move back onto their own unit. It just says friendly unit does ones own unit count as a friendly unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IE

Does the group deepstrike (hopefully survive) but in the movement phase one moves into the others and detonates? or is it destroyed?

Does destroyed mean it detonates on friendly units?

@hollis
To continue that... is there a unit coherency for them?
The way it appears is they would move in a huge block all in BtB(concentric circles after they deep struck) with 1 scatter roll.

Hollismason wrote:You have to deploy them per the deepstrike rules, but they move individually in a random direction ? or do they move as a group ?

Covered in the Spores rules. They count as individual units.

If they move individually then what happens when they move back onto their own unit. It just says friendly unit does ones own unit count as a friendly unit?

Yup, if they move into another spore they are removed.

Does the group deepstrike (hopefully survive) but in the movement phase one moves into the others and detonates? or is it destroyed?

Does destroyed mean it detonates on friendly units?

Nope. Again, covered in the Spores rules, if it comes into contact with a friendly model it is removed from play (it doesn't explode)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

paidinfull wrote:@hollis
To continue that... is there a unit coherency for them?
The way it appears is they would move in a huge block all in BtB(concentric circles after they deep struck) with 1 scatter roll.

No. Individual Spore Mines are counted as individual units, as stated in the codex.

This is what i am getting and tell me if we are on the same page.

When placing the unit from Deepstrike one model must be placed then the other models placed in base to base contact with it correct?

Hollismason wrote:This is what i am getting and tell me if we are on the same page.

When placing the unit from Deepstrike one model must be placed then the other models placed in base to base contact with it correct?

Yup.

Just realised my lovely in-depth description of how to resolve deep striking into terrain was not needed, since Deep Striking Spores don't work anyway!!!!!

Its just not really clear to me on the deployment of them whether they become independent units AFTER being deployed or they are deployed AS independent units.

So by RAW spore mines don't work.

Because by that account their in BTB and the living bomb rule comes into effect and they are all removed from play.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now if they are deployed AS independent units when deepstriking it works. If its after yeah , it broked.

@Hollismason: Beat me to it

Orbital Deployment - Spore Mine Clusters are always deployed in the following manner. After both sides have selected their deployment zones, but before any units are deployed, all of your Spore Mine Clusters must deep strike onto the board. If any scatter off of the board or into impassible terrain, they are immediately removed from play. After they have landed they are treated as individual Spore Mines per the Living Bomb rules.

It makes absolutely no sense to place one spore mine from the cluster and then surround it (in BTB) with the others. It would immediately explode. Rather, you should deep strike each mine separately and roll for scatter. This is the conclusion that our group came to, and until we get a FAQ/Errata, that's how we'll play it.

-Yad

Yeah Ill play it that way as well it is pretty funny though.

Special Rules:
Living Bomb: Spore Mines are ignored for all mission objectives. They are not subject to IB, never go to ground, and never fall back. At the start of the Tyranid movement phase, each cluster moves D6" in a direction determined by a scatter die (if a hit is rolled, the Nid player chooses where they go). If the spores touch an enemy model, impassable terrain, or suffer a wound, place the center hole of a large blast marker over the model, and resolve it as a S4 Ap4 attack. Spore mines that drift off the table or into friendly units are immediately removed from play. Orbital

Deployment: Spore mines never deploy normally. Instead, after deployment zones are determined, but before models and placed, the spore mines deep strike onto the table. If they scatter into impassable terrain or off the table, they are destroyed. Once the game starts, they move as in Living Bomb.

They only die if they scatter off the table or into impassable terrain.

They blow up "If the spores touch an enemy model, impassable terrain, or suffer a wound".

They do work.

Doh! It's the 'drift into friendly' that knocks them out. Thanks agnosto.

You have to place them in Base to base in order to deploy them. The way its worded is very poor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah basically you place them they move all random and back into each other and are removed.

Yad wrote:Doh! It's the 'drift into friendly' that knocks them out. Thanks agnosto.

So simple act of placing them wouldn't count as 'drifting', thus not triggering the LB rule.

No but when its the start of your turn they randomly move so theres a pretty good shot at them just moving into each other and being removed unless you roll a "hit".

It's almost a 50/50 shot when you think of it.


It's hard to describe basically its easiest if you just "play" it out take a arrow dice put them in base to base and start rolling for your movement. if you roll a hit you are okay. if you roll a scatter and that scatter even remotely points in the direction or even remotely crosses the base of the cluster its removed.

Hollismason wrote:No but when its the start of your turn they randomly move so theres a pretty good shot at them just moving into each other and being removed unless you roll a "hit".

It's almost a 50/50 shot when you think of it.


It's hard to describe basically its easiest if you just "play" it out take a arrow dice put them in base to base and start rolling for your movement. if you roll a hit you are okay. if you roll a scatter and that scatter even remotely points in the direction or even remotely crosses the base of the cluster its removed.

So spore mines suck.

Ok, Guar, say I am a newbie here. I don't know nothing about 4th edition or any other edtion. By reading the rules for Spores, this is my take what I read on the net, since I don't have the codex yet.

1) They move randomly d6" unless a hit is marked then I can move it in what ever direction I want.

2) (maybe I missed this) can they run in the shooting phase?

3) They can assault.

Since what I have read, there are no rules that say they can't run or assault.

If it is a big oversite on GW part, we shouldn't be changing the rules for them even if it's their intent. Your FAQ was good until you are putting what your idea is to be. Once you do that, that can mean it's an over site of Carnifex being so expensive and people should be changing the points to be lower, as an example.

Please stick to what is written in the codex and not what is not written in the codex and should have been. We have no prove of this, and we all know GW will not admit it was an oversite, so Spores should be able to run and Assault as it is written, not as it should have been written.

Other than this great job my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just read something on BoLS forum. What are the stats of the Spore Mine? If they have no stats for A, then I guess they can't Assault then. That would mean they have an Attack of Zero. But then again, Maybe they can assault, they just can't hit anything, but if something hits it and causes a wound, then it explodes. Lets see, no WS, no A, so is it considered like a vehicle that it can't assault? I havn't played many games, so not shure how no WS no A works in Assault. I know you can attack a vechicle in CC, so does the vehicle fight back in CC? Never happened to me, so I don't know.

What do you guys think of this?

Spore mines cannot run. It seems like they can assault, but explode as soon as they move into base contact. There is no prohibition from assaulting if you don't have a WS or A characteristic.

They also replace their movement with a random D6" drift. The rules don't explicitly state this, but I feel the rule "Random and Compulsory Movement" rule on page 11 of the rulebook keeps them from using their regular movement.

Davor wrote:If it is a big oversite on GW part, we shouldn't be changing the rules for them even if it's their intent. Your FAQ was good until you are putting what your idea is to be. Once you do that, that can mean it's an over site of Carnifex being so expensive and people should be changing the points to be lower, as an example.

I'm not sure what you're expecting this FAQ to be...

Players are free to change whatever rules they feel like. This FAQ is nothing more than Gwar's interpretation of how the codex is supposed to be played. Your version may be different. That's entirely up to you. As is the decision to use, or not, this FAQ either in part or in its entirety.

insaniak wrote:I'm not sure what you're expecting this FAQ to be...

Players are free to change whatever rules they feel like. This FAQ is nothing more than Gwar's interpretation of how the codex is supposed to be played. Your version may be different. That's entirely up to you. As is the decision to use, or not, this FAQ either in part or in its entirety.

I am still fairly new to the forums. I thought Gwar made the FAQ to be semi official. I didn't know it was his version of what it should be. The title did say "The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by GWar" so I thought it would be non biased.

Maybe the title should be FAQ Codex: Gwar's Tyranids. I didn't know it was his version of what he thinks it should be. It is still a great FAQ, and basically then he is just making his own home made codex then. But still I believe from what I have been reading, he does take critisim very well and encourages it.

It is as official as the sky being mauve. He is putting them together for another view point on some FAQ's. He is putting forth his "house rules" much the same way GW does with their FAQ publications.

The only truly "Official" part of a real GW FAQ is the Errata.

adepticon faq is best faq.

What is adepticon?

Just to inform you Gwar!, I can open version 0.5 again.

Greets
Schepp himself

Hollismason wrote:adepticon faq is best the most widely-used, non-GW, faq.

ftfy.

Davor-- Adepticon is a large con that includes several tournaments over the course of a weekend, the next one being in March.

They also put out an FAQ for their event, and this FAQ is pretty widely used.

Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But, it does allow for a standard for tourney play, and is readily accessible.

Davor wrote:

insaniak wrote:I'm not sure what you're expecting this FAQ to be...

Players are free to change whatever rules they feel like. This FAQ is nothing more than Gwar's interpretation of how the codex is supposed to be played. Your version may be different. That's entirely up to you. As is the decision to use, or not, this FAQ either in part or in its entirety.

I am still fairly new to the forums. I thought Gwar made the FAQ to be semi official. I didn't know it was his version of what it should be. The title did say "The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by GWar" so I thought it would be non biased.

Maybe the title should be FAQ Codex: Gwar's Tyranids. I didn't know it was his version of what he thinks it should be. It is still a great FAQ, and basically then he is just making his own home made codex then. But still I believe from what I have been reading, he does take critisim very well and encourages it.

Good point I am changing.