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.

This is a spin off from one of the Mawloc threads and related to the poll I made on the Hive Tyrant where the majority thought the hive commander reserve bonus should work from reserves.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278543.page


I was going to bring up the same issue as Broodfather, but he got to it first. Here's the exchange with yakface in the Mawloc thread:

yakface wrote:

BROODFATHER wrote:
I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?

Exactly how do we contradict ourselves with the ruling on Deathleaper? I'm honestly not understanding the point you're trying to make, but I would like to.

This refers to the INAT FAQ 3.2 questions that deal with nid abilities functioning from reserves:

+TYR.34B.04 – Q: Can the „Hive Commander‟ Reserves bonus be utilized even if the Hive Tyrant is in Reserve?
A: No, as the ability doesn‟t specify that it can be used while not in play [clarification].
Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.56G.02

and

+TYR.59B.03 – Q: Does „It‟s after me!‟ reduce the enemy character‟s Ld value even while Deathleaper is in Reserve?
A: Yes, as the Ld reduction occurs at the beginning of the game [clarification].


The contradiction that Broodfather sees is because of the language of each special rule. Hive Commander says "...whilst the Hive Tyrant is alive you add +1 to your reserve rolls."

The deathleapers "It's after me" rule says "Nominate a single enemy character at the beginning of the game as the victim of Deathleaper's psychological attacks. Roll a D3. Whilst the Deathleaper is still alive, that model's leadership is reduced by the result rolled."

The consistency Broodfather is looking for is in the treatment of the two powers that say they work while the models are alive. It stands to reason that they both should work from reserves or both not work from reserves the same way because of the similar language. The only wiggle room is the part of the deathleaper's rule that says to nominate the target character at the start of the game. But that doesn't necessarily mean the power starts working at the start of the game, only that you have to pick the target then. I think the RAI in the deathleaper's case is that it does work in reserve because of how the deathleaper is really hiding on the table revealing himself and not arriving from reserves like the tyrant.

The only thing that's absolutely sure is that Mr. Cruddace really likes "whilst." (it's in the IG codex too).


What are your thoughts on this matter?

It certainly does seem like a good RAI indication that they should apply while the models are in Reserve.

With the inclusion of "Whilst alive/Whilst the Deathleaper is still alive" in both instances, I would say that they do indeed work from Reserves.

1. There are instances in which special abilities only work while the model is "on the table" and they are specified as such. The distinct lack of those limitations lend itself to working while in Reserves.

2. INAT has ruled such instances wrong before with the High King while Logan is not on the board and GW has overruled them.

To me the Tyrant is alive while held in reserve. He might be destroyed due to mishap if you deep strike him (wings) but he's not count as destroyed until the mishap occurs. There is also the case you could suffer a mishap and the Tyrant goes back into reserve and then fails to re-arrive prior to the end of the game but then it wouldn't count as destroyed until the game ends. If without wings you could also hold the Tyrant in reserve and walk it onto the table but then there is no chance of a mishap occurring. To me the +1 for reserve due to Hive Commander should work while the Tyrant is in reserve.

G

I think that within the context of the nid codex it does certainly appear that the hive tyrant ability should work from reserves. The INAT FAQ council, however, considered other factors. They had previously ruled that the IG advisors, Astropath and Officer of the Fleet, don't work from reserves because their rules don't say they do like the rule for the Eldar Autarch specifically says it does. They're being consistent in that regard.

But we're stuck again with a weird situation caused by a weird model. If the deathleaper's rule doesn't work while he's "off the table" then he's not worth much - certainly not 140 points.

Yeah, the IG advisor's have the same phrasing, while alive, yeadda yadda. But they don't work from off table and don't stack. While Autarchs, who also have the same phrasing, while alive, yadda yadda, do work from off table and do stack. So who knows how th Nids are supposed to work? Not me. One would think that the first precedence set by the Autarchs would apply to all similar situations (hmmmm, like the one GW FAQ for Spore Mines is being applied to kinda similar situations witht he Mawloc, Monolith, etc).

But no.

However Arsch, between the IG codex and the Nid codex, we have had the SW codex released that has Logan and his High King rule that the INAT ruled did not work from Reserve but lo and behold the GW FAQ stated it does.

So while I can understand the volunteer work the INAT does indeed do, they have been overridden in their ruling in regard to an example that is very similar.

Logan's High King rule is different. It doesn't work in reserves because it only affects Logan and his attached unit. INAT said Logan's High King doesn't work on the turn he arrives from reserves. Their ruling made sense given the wording of the rule. They could guess that High King was supposed to work on the turn Logan arrived, but that's not what GW actually wrote. So GW FAQ'd it to work.

The INAT guys are always working at a disadvantage since they aren't there when GW cooks up the rules and they can't know the hive mind of GW.

Arschbombe wrote:Logan's High King rule is different. It doesn't work in reserves because it only affects Logan and his attached unit. INAT said Logan's High King doesn't work on the turn he arrives from reserves. Their ruling made sense given the wording of the rule. They could guess that High King was supposed to work on the turn Logan arrived, but that's not what GW actually wrote. So GW FAQ'd it to work.

The INAT guys are always working at a disadvantage since they aren't there when GW cooks up the rules and they can't know the hive mind of GW.

However the High King, as written, did not put a requirement to being on the table or "Whilst alive". It only stated the beginning of each turn. It didn't matter if the High King was in Reserves or on the can for his pre-fight dump, the High King took affect at the beginning of the turn.

In the face of the decision that came down from GW that countered the INAT FAQ, with the inclusion of the specific wording now in the Nid codex of "whilst alive" and "on the board" we are seeing a clear distinction in when abilities work and do not work.

Would you contend that if Deathleaper used his "Where'd it go?" ability his "It's after me!" ability would then stop working since he has been taken off the board?

Arschbombe wrote:Logan's High King rule is different. It doesn't work in reserves because it only affects Logan and his attached unit. INAT said Logan's High King doesn't work on the turn he arrives from reserves. Their ruling made sense given the wording of the rule. They could guess that High King was supposed to work on the turn Logan arrived, but that's not what GW actually wrote. So GW FAQ'd it to work.

The INAT guys are always working at a disadvantage since they aren't there when GW cooks up the rules and they can't know the hive mind of GW.

Actually, The High King doesnt get Logan to do anything. The Player is the one choosing the action.

Brother Ramses wrote:Would you contend that if Deathleaper used his "Where'd it go?" ability his "It's after me!" ability would then stop working since he has been taken off the board?

I think there's a very solid, strict RAW argument to be made for that, but I wouldn't want to make it. I think it's quite clear what the deathleaper is supposed to do and that's how I would play it.

GW seems to be adept at breaking their own rules paradigms. Units used to be on the table or in reserves. Now we have units in reserves affecting other units, units in reserve that are "really" already on the table, just hidden (ymargl stealers, lictors and the deathleaper) and a unit that can back into hiding/reserves (deathleaper). It definitely shakes things up.

I would also like to point out something else in regard to Lictors.

Pheromone Trail specifically mentions that lictors must be on the board. I just noticed that in addition it ALSO specifically does not work the same turn that lictors arrive from reserves.

This again points out specific time frames of when an ability can and cannot be used for a unit. Limitations that are not in the entry for hive commander or "It's after me!".

That's been the crux of the discussion. Within the nid codex, given the specificity of the pheromone trail rule, it sure seems like the hive commander rule should work from reserves since it lacks the same restriction. But then someone brings up that pesky eldar book and the master strategist rule that says it works whether the autarch is in play or not and we're back to square one.

To which I would just say,

Eldar Codex =/= Tyranid Codex!

The first thing I would like to say is the people voting on the rulings for the INAT are not even close to always a united front. Pretty much any ruling that generates a big discussion on a forum or gets people angry is one that ends up being a split vote of 5 vs. 4, and that was definitely the case regarding this whole situation.

IMHO, while I was on the fence before the Tyranid codex about the 'whist alive' statements in the IG codex, I'm now convinced that 'whilst alive' should be considered necessary specificity even within our existing INAT ruling to be allowed to function off the table...but that's just me and one of the important parts about being involved with the INAT is that we all agreed to check our egos at the door to the best of our ability and allow for the fact that the rulings are sometimes going to go the opposite of what we think...that's just the deal when you're dealing with a group of people with differing opinions putting them to a vote.


While everyone can agree that the Eldar codex doesn't equal the Tyranid (or IG codex) the one problem is that the wording in that rule clearly states something...that GW considers units that are in Reserves 'out of play', and that being 'out of play' is a good enough reason for the Autarch's Master Strategist rule to need a printed exception.

So again, nobody is saying that rule in the Eldar codex directly affects any other codex, but the sentiment expressed is an issue.

The truth is, for tournament play there needs to be some sort of rule on the books about how models in Reserves can affect gameplay...if you don't have such a ruling then there are all sorts of bizarre rules that suddenly come into play from models that are safely protected off the table.

The other issue is that GW has clearly in the past stated in a few cases when abilities could be used when in Reserve. 'Master Strategist' is one, the old IG vehicle 'improved comms' is another and I'm sure there are a few more I'm not even thinking of.


So this has put us in a tricky situation. We have rulings on the books disallowing models off the table from using their abilities unless those abilities specify otherwise. So now everytime an ability comes out, we have to try to figure out what constitutes that level of specificity, and that is especially tough since we have one precedent set down with 'Master Strategist' and perhaps another with the newer IG/Tyranids codices.

I can't say with 100% certainty exactly why the other members of the INAT council voted the way they did, but from the arguments I heard, it seemed mainly based around the fact that we have a ruling already in the FAQ that is certainly needed, and we have an existing precedent in the Eldar codex (and previously) of how GW writes a rule that clearly works off the table, so until we get some sort of clear ruling from GW about this type of thing, we stick with the ruling we have.

I am personally hopeful that GW will rule on the 'Hive Commander' issue with their FAQ and put this to bed once and for all.


And to Broodfather, you were wondering why the apparent inconsistency between the Hive Commander ruling and the Deathleaper's ruling...the answer is because the Deathleaper's ability occurs at the beginning of the game, and our ruling regarding these types of things allows that abilities that specifically occur at the start of the game or before still have an effect even if the model is off the table.

I agree that the logic is tenuous at best here, and I'll make sure to bring this up the next time we update the FAQ to see if anyone has changed their mind about this whole deal...or again, hopefully GW will release something definitive in their FAQ that will make this much easier for everyone to accept.

In Deathleaper's case, the wording is actually "while still alive" rather than the "while X is alive" phrasing used with the Hive Tyrant rule.

Since Deathleaper's rule has timing which begins with the start of the game, and continues "Whilst Deathleaper is still alive ...", it seems to me that it would make more sense for Deathleaper's modifier to be in effect even if the model was in reserve. That seems a good enough reason for Deathleaper's rule to work until destroyed, however the "while X is alive" rules work this time around.

yakface wrote:
While everyone can agree that the Eldar codex doesn't equal the Tyranid (or IG codex) the one problem is that the wording in that rule clearly states something...that GW considers units that are in Reserves 'out of play', and that being 'out of play' is a good enough reason for the Autarch's Master Strategist rule to need a printed exception.

Wouldn't that same thought process apply to the whole Spore Mine/Mawloc/Monolith debate. IE GW considered Spore Mines to need a printed exception so that they could be placed over enemy models, but the others do not have such a printed exception..............???

don_mondo wrote:

yakface wrote:
While everyone can agree that the Eldar codex doesn't equal the Tyranid (or IG codex) the one problem is that the wording in that rule clearly states something...that GW considers units that are in Reserves 'out of play', and that being 'out of play' is a good enough reason for the Autarch's Master Strategist rule to need a printed exception.

Wouldn't that same thought process apply to the whole Spore Mine/Mawloc/Monolith debate. IE GW considered Spore Mines to need a printed exception so that they could be placed over enemy models, but the others do not have such a printed exception..............???

It sounds like you're assuming that the inclusion of the Spore Mine ruling in the Tyranid FAQ represents an exception to the normal rules, which isn't necessarily the case. FAQs can, and are written simply because the question is asked a lot. So if a whole lot of people asked 'Can Spore Mines Deep Strike directly onto enemy models' and GW answers 'yes they can', that can just be GW answering the question based on how they believe their rules are written, not necessarily as an exception to the existing Deep Strike rules.

I personally believe that GW thinks that (by their RAW) all units can theoretically attempt to Deep Strike directly over enemy units, its just that in the case of 95% of those units its a terrible idea to try. There was nothing I read in their Spore Mine ruling back in 4th edition that made me think any differently. They just seemed to say, 'of course you can (dummies)', rather than something like 'Yes, Spore Mines are an exception to the normal rules' (or something of that ilk).

I only have one of the FAQs from the previous Nid codex, but it did not have a specific allowance for deepstriking the spore mines onto a target, but it did answer questions as if they expected it to happen that way.

Yes, I am assuming that the inclusion of the spore mines indicates an exception to the rules, just as you did with the Eldar Autarch answer. So to me, the same standard should be applied to the Spore Mine/Mawloc/Monolith etc question.

And no, I do not believe (nor do I think that GW believes) that it is permissable to start a deep striking unit in a location that would cause a mishap if it rolled a hit (even it it has special rules to avoid that mishap) unless taht unit/model has a specific printed statement that it can do so. So basicly, we disagree on the starting point for the debate and all else follows from that disagreement.

And just so no one thinks I'm just being anti-Nid, Nids are one of my armies, currently rebuilding due to the new codex.

As we have said before if that is the case a Mawloc has a less than 25% chance to actually do for what it was made for.......Fun I now need to play upwards of 5 games to get a yay my mawloc worked moment.

You mean what you assume it was made for, not what might just be a bonus ability that kicks in if it scatters onto the enemy............................

Now spore mines, yeah, they were made to land on the enemy, and explode, killing themselves in the process. Does your (our, as I also play Nids) Mawloc die? No, so why should we think that it's equivalent to the spore mines and intended to land on top of the enemy? Answer, no reason at all, other than (IMO) wishful thinking.

But in which case is the points value worth it for this beastie, after all it's base stats aren't that bad =P

Points value, etc, has nothing to do with whether or not it can perform an action under the rules. Might mean it's not worth it's points, but we cannot base whether or not a unit is able or unable to do something based upon it's points value. There are a great many units out there that aren't "worth their points".

(I was asking for an opinion )
I think it would still be worth it, but not the superstar that I've come to expect of the HS choices I've taken in the past.

Oh sorry. I haven't played with or against the new codex enough yet to have really decided. Theory is nice, but you gotta put the models on the table and see if they actually perform. Or at least, I do. I THINK it would still be worth it, but only time will tell.

don_mondo wrote:Yes, I am assuming that the inclusion of the spore mines indicates an exception to the rules, just as you did with the Eldar Autarch answer. So to me, the same standard should be applied to the Spore Mine/Mawloc/Monolith etc question.

And no, I do not believe (nor do I think that GW believes) that it is permissable to start a deep striking unit in a location that would cause a mishap if it rolled a hit (even it it has special rules to avoid that mishap) unless taht unit/model has a specific printed statement that it can do so. So basicly, we disagree on the starting point for the debate and all else follows from that disagreement.

And just so no one thinks I'm just being anti-Nid, Nids are one of my armies, currently rebuilding due to the new codex.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I still don't see the parallel between the two.

From our perspective (the 9 of us voting on the INAT) the Deep Strike rules do allow any deep striking unit to attempt to arrive directly over other models...its just pointless to do so with most units. So when GW issue their ruling on the Spore Mines I certainly didn't read that as them making an exception to the rules, rather it was merely a confirmation of what the rules already said (that's IMHO, of course).

In the Case of the Autarch I think most people would agree (even with a complete lack of a concrete printed rule) on the need for a general principle of models in Reserve being unable to affect the game unless specified otherwise. While the Autarch sets a benchmark for what we all hope that specificity would look like, the issue is whether 'whilst alive' is sufficient to also qualify.


So how again are these two instances related from your perspective?

yakface wrote:

From our perspective (the 9 of us voting on the INAT) the Deep Strike rules do allow any deep striking unit to attempt to arrive directly over other models...its just pointless to do so with most units. So when GW issue their ruling on the Spore Mines I certainly didn't read that as them making an exception to the rules, rather it was merely a confirmation of what the rules already said (that's IMHO, of course).

And this is the main point where we disagree. Given that I do not think that it's ok to do so, that is what makes the two situations (to me) similar.
If, and yes, I say if, I'm correct, and the spore mine statement is pointing out an exception to the rules, just as you decided that the Autarch FAQ is pointing out an exception to the rules, then the Mawloc and Monolith, lacking that specific exception, cannot perorm in the same fashion as spore mines, just as the off-the-table ability of the Autarchs is an exception while the IG Advisors are the rule. Make sense? It all boils down to what we believe as far as the ability of any unit to start it's deep strike in a position where it would mishap if it does not scatter. I do not think that a unit/model can do so. You do think they can do so. All else in each of our respective arguments flows from that basic disagreement. That is, to me, the parallel, that spore mines are the exception, just as Autarchs are the exception. Meaning that any other unit which does not specifically have that exception in print cannot perform in that fashion, whether it's units off-the-table ala IG advisors/Autarchs or whether it's deep striking units ala Spore Mines/Mawloc/Monolith.

Here are the flaws in your arguments:
1) FAQs are not erratas. They may not change a rule, only explain it.
2) The Autarch was not in a FAQ, it was in the rulebook!
3) You assume that because there are (supposed) exceptions, any other model MUST conform.

I agree that there is an inconsistency in this 'ruling'. There's basically two ways of looking at it that seem reasonable to me:

1.) Both the Hive Commander and 'It's After Me' abilities work regardless of whether the respective models are held in reserve or in play on the table. It would imply that the term alive extends to models held in Reserves.

2.) Both the Hive Commander and 'It's After Me' abilities only work when the respective models are in play on the table. This approach would clearly indicate that 'alive' means on the board.

I don't see any problem with maintaining consistency for the 'It's After Me' ability in regards to approach #2. You'd break it down in two sections. First, you are directed, at the beginning of the game, to nominate a single enemy character and roll a d3. Second, when the Deathleaper then comes into play that character's LD stat is immediately reduced. This maintains consistency with the Hive Commander ability, by requiring both models to be in play (i.e., Alive).

Looking at it this way, I'm more inclined to think that both the Hive Commander and the 'It's After Me' abilities should be active while the models are in Reserve as well as on the board.

-Yad