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.

With the Adepticon FAQ out, there's a notable change to lash:

Can't move a pinned unit.

Logic being that the unit lashed makes a normal move, and that if a unit is pinned it can't move, so the lash doesn't make them move.

That being said, in addition to the obvious problem of having a sorceror joined to a squad [has to lash what the squad shoots at], if you shoot an enemy squad with anything that causes damage, they could go to ground, and prevent you from lashing them!

While still useful [they voluntarily pinned themselves!] keep in mind Lash does certain things like pull enemy units into assault range and push them off objectives that wins games, so being pinned might not always be the best.

There are some problems running a Sorcerer w/ lash effectively. If he's on his own he eventually can be targeted.
If he joins a unit, the lash plus the shooting of the unit must be made simultaneously so that first moving the unit and then shooting the unit by the squad the Sorcerer joined is not possible.

So what this FAQ is saying is that if an enemy troop choice is sitting on top of an objective they can't be moved by the Lash if they go to ground...

Sounds odd to me... rule wise and fluffy wise too.

The Lash is supposed to work by confusing and disorientating the enemy making them stumble forward into whatever position you want them to be in. Why would lying flat on the ground grant their minds immunity to the lash's sisnister effect.

poor decision imho

p.s. Why not use the Lash first 'then' shoot them?

That FAQ is almost as dumb as lash itself.

The INAT faq is clarifying the GW faq statement:
Q. Can a unit be affected by Lash of submission more than once in the same turn?
A. Yes, as long as it does not fail its pinning test.

How would you propose it works using GWs FAQ? A unit can be lashed while pinned, but if it fails it's lash pincheck it can't be lashed again? What is different about being pinned by lash?

sounds more like a direct contradiction.

Note: you cannot respond to lash with going to ground. It does not hit or cause wounds and thus going to ground isn't an option. You could use a prince [or an UNattached sorceror, who will probably die very soon] to move the unit, then shoot at it.

But if a sorceror is joined to a squad, lash and the squad's shooting happen simultaneously, and thus responding to the squad's fire by going to ground will screw lash [according to INAT FAQ].

You could also lash with the sorceror and opt not to fire with the squad - but then you rob yourself of firepower.

Though to be honest I'd forgotten about the original GW FAQ, which does in fact offer that contradiction. As legit as Yakface is, I think the GW-released FAQ should probably take precedence....

Spellbound wrote:sounds more like a direct contradiction.

Note: you cannot respond to lash with going to ground. It does not hit or cause wounds and thus going to ground isn't an option. You could use a prince [or an UNattached sorceror, who will probably die very soon] to move the unit, then shoot at it.

But if a sorceror is joined to a squad, lash and the squad's shooting happen simultaneously, and thus responding to the squad's fire by going to ground will screw lash [according to INAT FAQ].

You could also lash with the sorceror and opt not to fire with the squad - but then you rob yourself of firepower.

Though to be honest I'd forgotten about the original GW FAQ, which does in fact offer that contradiction. As legit as Yakface is, I think the GW-released FAQ should probably take precedence....

I'm a bit confused by some of the things being said in this thread. Just to clarify, the INAT FAQ rules that you are allowed to lash a unit that has 'gone to ground' (voluntarily or otherwise) because the rules for going to ground clearly state that they "react normally to enemy actions".

GW's ruling was written in 4th edition and as such creates a ridiculous contradiction where (RAW) a unit can't be lashed only if they failed a pinning check from another lash. If the unit was forced to 'go to ground' either voluntarily or by failing a pinning check from another source then the basic 'gone to ground' rules would still apply and they would react normally to enemy actions.

GW often puts out FAQ answers from previous editions and then doesn't update them when newer rules come out and create a really strange contradiction.

We weren't trying to 'overrule' the official FAQ, but just recognize that their ruling was originally made in 4th edition and when literally applied in 5th edition it creates a situation that is pretty darn ludicrous. As such, we think the best option in this case is to essentially ignore the part of their ruling that doesn't make sense.

Hehe, so not a single person in this thread had actually read the two relevant FAQs prior to this discussion, including myself.

I <3 the internet.