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.

Right, so this dicussion comes up quite often with my friend... atleast when it comes to older yet valid codexes and rules (if they havn't be corrected by FAQ & Erreta). Recently it was about Dark Eldar's Piratical Raider rule, that says "in any mission where there is an attacker and a defender, the dark eldar are awlays the attackers". And my friends keeps aruging that such rule are overruled by "how to determine attacker and defender" rules in the planetstrike book. Even though that goes against all logic of the Dark Eldar special rule :S
The one thing that is a bit confusing is that GW themselves talks about DE being defenders here http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat60017a&categoryId=6000002§ion=&pIndex=5&aId=15700002&start=6 but I guess that they have just forgoten about their own rules, just as in the same article they write: "The Talos is easily overlooked in Planetstrike, since it's not a monstrous creature." which in the recent FAQ, it is a monsterous creature.

Yay? Nay?

Dark Elder codex was from 3rd Edition where the missions in the rule book had defenders and attackers. But now in 5th edition rule book there is no real attacker or defender. However, remember that the codex always over rules the rule book, so an old 3rd edition rule in this case could probably be used in Planet Strike, and I guess GW just over looked it!

Dexy wrote: But now in 5th edition rule book there is no real attacker or defender. H....so an old 3rd edition rule in this case could probably be used in Planet Strike, and I guess GW just over looked it!

Aye, the Planetstrike having defenders and attackers would just inforce the special rule, since GW havn't written anything about DE's special rule :S

No, 3rd edition Defenders are not the same as Planetstrike Defenders. Different Books, Different rules, even if they share the same name. See the Inquisitors from DH and WH for another example.

But in those books aren't they defined as either a Ordo Malleus or Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord - they're clearly different units.

I would say there's a perfectly reasonable point that DE are always the Attacker in PS missions.

Then again, PS is pretty much like Apocalypse when it comes to rules, so I question why it matters in any case. Just talk it over with whoever you're playing the game with.

Thor665 wrote:But in those books aren't they defined as either a Ordo Malleus or Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord - they're clearly different units.

No, they are not. They are both called "Inquisitor Lord" or "Inquisitor".

Gwar! wrote:No, 3rd edition Defenders are not the same as Planetstrike Defenders. Different Books, Different rules, even if they share the same name. See the Inquisitors from DH and WH for another example.

Sure, they were diferent, but that doesn't take away the fact that the rule is still there and GW has not added a single comment on it.
hell, they even took their time to list up all the wargear and other things that arn't working anymore in the FAQ's, even the diference between groteques Feel no Pain and the special rule in the rulebook, so... I thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink they would have mentioned the Piratical Raiders rule.

Gwar! wrote:

Thor665 wrote:But in those books aren't they defined as either a Ordo Malleus or Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord - they're clearly different units.

No, they are not. They are both called "Inquisitor Lord" or "Inquisitor".

You're talking within the stat line of the entry for Ordo Whateverus Inquistors/Lords I presume? I guess I could see that way of interpreting it.

But the same entry supports me as well. For example on page 26 of Codex Witch Hunters I am allowed to take 0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord. Within that entry is a stat line that includes only the line for an Inquisitor Lord. I take it by your reading I am to presume these are not connected names? But if so how am I ever to take an Inquisitor Lord if I am always limited to 0-1 Ordo Here- blah, blah, blah (I presume you can easily see the tangent I'm taking for this debate).

I'm curious, am I misreading your standpoint here, if so how, if not how do you address the above?

Gwar! wrote:

Thor665 wrote:But in those books aren't they defined as either a Ordo Malleus or Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord - they're clearly different units.

No, they are not. They are both called "Inquisitor Lord" or "Inquisitor".

Page 22 of Codex Daemonhunters: 0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord
Page 24 of Codex Daemonhunters: Ordo Malleus Inquisitor
Page 26 of Codex Witch Hunters: 0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord
Page 28 of Codex Witch Hunters: Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor

There are references in those books to simply "Inquisitor Lords" or "Inquisitors" but the unit entries are very clear that they are not the same.

Regarding the topic of the thread there's no reason for the rule "in any mission where there is an attacker and a defender, the Dark Eldar are always the attackers." to not apply to planetstrike, of course, if you wan't to break it you may as well because you are playing planetstrike.

But planetstrike has an attacker and defender, so the RAW is still as valid as ever and the codex would supercede planetstrike in this case.

The models statlines and names are the same, but thier options are not. This is what I meant by "Same name Different Rules."

In this case, Attackers and Defenders in the DE codex refers to the old missions, not the new planestrike missions. Same Name, different rules.

But as you said, Planetstrike = Mini Apoc, so "work it out yourselves" is the correct answer here.

@Drunkspleen: Your argument means I can take a DH Inquisitor and a WH Assassin, as the assassin does not specify which Ordo the Inquisitor has to come from...

Gwar! wrote:@Drunkspleen: Your argument means I can take a DH Inquisitor and a WH Assassin, as the assassin does not specify which Ordo the Inquisitor has to come from...

Assuming you are not playing in an environment where a document providing rulings to the contrary is used I do support this stance.

Your argument means Tyranid Monstrous Creatures aren't Monstrous Creatures because they are "same name different rules" compared to 4th edition MCs...

Gwar! wrote:@Drunkspleen: Your argument means I can take a DH Inquisitor and a WH Assassin, as the assassin does not specify which Ordo the Inquisitor has to come from...

No more so then I could take Lootas in a IG list since Lootas have no requirements in HQ for joining an army.

They come from different Army Lists

Personally, I welcome the role of defender in planetstrike.
At our LGG we agree that in Planetstrike the DE can be both the attackers and the defenders... Decided as the book states. After all, they could be defending a network of webway gates... or even in Dawn of War... dont you have to defend your base on occasion?

Thor665 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:@Drunkspleen: Your argument means I can take a DH Inquisitor and a WH Assassin, as the assassin does not specify which Ordo the Inquisitor has to come from...

No more so then I could take Lootas in a IG list since Lootas have no requirements in HQ for joining an army.

They come from different Army Lists

The difference here being there are rules allowing Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters to both be in the same army, and there aren't for orks and IG.

Good point there abused alcoholic body part.

Yeah, barring the FAQ I wouldn't see an issue with that then.

Pg. 4 DE codex

Any mission were there is an attacker and a defender, the dark eldar are always the attackers.

It seems pretty clear to me.... Any time the word attacker or defender is used in a mission DE get to attack.

In this case, Attackers and Defenders in the DE codex refers to the old missions

Are you interpreting the intent now instead of RAW?

Iago wrote:Personally, I welcome the role of defender in planetstrike.
At our LGG we agree that in Planetstrike the DE can be both the attackers and the defenders... Decided as the book states. After all, they could be defending a network of webway gates... or even in Dawn of War... dont you have to defend your base on occasion?

Somehow I doubt the defensive tactics for the Dark Eldar would differ very much from their offensive tactics ( see also: Chaos Deamons ). The attacking forces push from the Drop Zone and look around puzzled. "Where the feth are they?" And then a horde of Raiders, Warriors with dark lances and assorted other nastiness jumps on their face.

Thorheim wrote:Right, so this dicussion comes up quite often with my friend... atleast when it comes to older yet valid codexes and rules (if they havn't be corrected by FAQ & Erreta). Recently it was about Dark Eldar's Piratical Raider rule, that says "in any mission where there is an attacker and a defender, the dark eldar are awlays the attackers". And my friends keeps aruging that such rule are overruled by "how to determine attacker and defender" rules in the planetstrike book. Even though that goes against all logic of the Dark Eldar special rule :S
The one thing that is a bit confusing is that GW themselves talks about DE being defenders here http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat60017a&categoryId=6000002§ion=&pIndex=5&aId=15700002&start=6 but I guess that they have just forgoten about their own rules, just as in the same article they write: "The Talos is easily overlooked in Planetstrike, since it's not a monstrous creature." which in the recent FAQ, it is a monsterous creature.

Yay? Nay?

Personally, I don't see how a third edition rule from a codex should affect a 5th edition expansion, that the third edition rules were never written to take into account.

Additionally, you're playing planetstrike. Like Apocalypse, you work stuff out with your opponent. If someone wants to always be the attacker, and never the defender, then they may not get many games in. My group likes to play two games, and swap attacker/defender roles. Up to each player on how to play PS and Apoc, they have looser rulesets that are open to abuse.

If I had to enforce a ruleset for a PS style tournement, I'd ignore the idea that DE only attack.

As has been said, Planetstrike does not even pretend to be a comprehensive ruleset that you can rules lawyer over.

Yes, the DE player has some validity to the idea that he should never be the defender, but this is Planetstrike. If you can't come to an agreement over this, how are you going to handle the various rules that are left completely up to the players to determine the details?

Kaaihn wrote:As has been said, Planetstrike does not even pretend to be a comprehensive ruleset that you can rules lawyer over.

Yes, the DE player has some validity to the idea that he should never be the defender, but this is Planetstrike. If you can't come to an agreement over this, how are you going to handle the various rules that are left completely up to the players to determine the details?

rock, paper, scissors, shotgun

mikhaila wrote:Personally, I don't see how a third edition rule from a codex should affect a 5th edition expansion, that the third edition rules were never written to take into account.

Additionally, you're playing planetstrike. Like Apocalypse, you work stuff out with your opponent. If someone wants to always be the attacker, and never the defender, then they may not get many games in. My group likes to play two games, and swap attacker/defender roles. Up to each player on how to play PS and Apoc, they have looser rulesets that are open to abuse.

If I had to enforce a ruleset for a PS style tournement, I'd ignore the idea that DE only attack.

I don't know, maybe because its a valid codex for the current ruleset? And codex trumps main rules (specific trumping general)?

So if, theoretically speaking, the IG codex had the same exact rule, saying in all scenarios where there is attacker and defender, that IG are the attacker, that would be fine in Planetstrike because the codex is '5th edition' while the Dark Eldar wouldn't apply? Okaaaay.

However, I think that in just about any situation where this comes up, Apoc and Planetstrike, as mentioned, should have discussion in advance, and any decision by the group about how to play it is just fine. After all, Apoc and PS are not "regular, pick-up style games" for the most part.

Wow, a PS tournament? How on earth would that work? And again, as TO, it'd be perfectly within your rights to determine the ruleset you'd be using.

But, strictly by RAW, the DE rule would apply, especially since there is nothing in the DE FAQ (which makes it '5th edition' to say otherwise.

I'd also have to say that DE must be attackers based on the rule in their Codex. Unless attacks/defenders are somehow called something different in Planetstrike (which I don't have, so forgive me if they are), the DE Codex says they are always attackers.

Though, as with ALL games of 40k, questionable rules should be discussed with your opponent. If your gaming group wishes to have Dark Eldar as defenders then by all means... go for it.