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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It could go either way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How whacked out an interpretation is that?

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

Oshova

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

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

wait, why?

Gwar got permabanned?! Why?

Can anyone shed light on this?!

Gwar! was too alpha

? Ask a mod maybe?

As far as I know;


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

BrotherStynier wrote:As far as I know;


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

Why was he on temp suspension earlier?

Something about FAQs not equaling the Rule Book and Insaniak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of questions are quickly answered without incident.

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

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

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

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

Monster Rain wrote:

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of questions are quickly answered without incident.

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

LunaHound wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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



Locking this thread now before it wanders even further afield.