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.

So I emailed GW Customer Service to ask about when the Tyranid FAQ would be out, and in the meantime asked for a definitive answer as to whether Doom's power affects units on board vehicles -- here's the answer I got:

"It does not as these units are not on the board. That would be like having Nurgle's rot effect units in a vehicle if with in 6" of the model using it. These things just do not happen."

Sounds logical, although presumably it is just one Customer Service person's opinion...

No news on the FAQ though.

The GW FAQ is taking so long because they have to find a way to justify answering the opposite of what I wrote in mine!

As for his opinion, it is wrong.

The Doom can nom on units inside transports just fine. By his logic, KFFs don't work from Wagons or those new BA things from Land Raiders. The reason Nurgles Rot doesnt work is because the GW FAQ specifically states Psychic Powers cannot affect units inside Transports. The DoM's ability is NOT a psychic power.

But as stated in the Tenets of YMTC, Emails from them are not to be used in this forum.

I can just as easily go: I have an email from them, it says "Gwar! is always right and you should listen to him because he is made of Hafnium".

Just to remind you, their job is to pack boxes. They do not have a detailed knowledge of the rules, and I am 110% certain if you email them again, you will get a different answer.

Oops, sorry, it's a while since I read the Tenets.

I can see it going either way (largely because all those things are things the passengers can do *from* inside the transports, rather than things that affect the passengers from outside the transports) -- I'd just like them to get on and FAQ it so that we have a genuinely definitive answer. :(

Ian Sturrock wrote:Oops, sorry, it's a while since I read the Tenets.

I can see it going either way (largely because all those things are things the passengers can do *from* inside the transports, rather than things that affect the passengers from outside the transports) -- I'd just like them to get on and FAQ it so that we have a genuinely definitive answer. :(

There is a definitive answer though, the one supported by the rules.

Do you need an FAQ on how many shots a Heavy 4 Weapon shoots? Do you need an FAQ on how far Infantry move?

This isn't a Dig at you, not by a long shot, so please don't take it that way. I just find it odd that people keep clambering for FAQs for questions that have a incredibly clear RaW answer.

If it said "Spirit Leech can even affect units in transports," then it would be "incredibly clear." While I agree that it does work on units in transports, this isn't obvious just by reading the rules for Spirit Leech, therefore it's anything but clear. Certainly nowhere near as clear as "How far do Infantry move?"

MasterSlowPoke wrote:If it said "Spirit Leech can even affect units in transports," then it would be "incredibly clear." While I agree that it does work on units in transports, this isn't obvious just by reading the rules for Spirit Leech, therefore it's anything but clear. Certainly nowhere near as clear as "How far do Infantry move?"

It is clear if you read all the relevent rules though.

There is the nasty possibility that Dom might actually be a passive psychic power tho. Or at least GW could rule it that way if they ever get their act together and think about psychic powers again.

The tyranids codex more or less just ignored the idea of what are psychic powers (beyond the active powers listed) and how passive psychic powers fit into the game. There are some passive (tests arent taken evey time that they are used, possibly because they are always on) psychic powers in the tyranid codex, and then there are other things that might quite possibly be psychic powers....but of course we really dont know what most of them are.

Codex tyranids is just another fine example of the clear, concise and complete rules writing that we have learned to admire over the years


Sliggoth

Being told "you can then charge as normal" is a clear rule, however is less clear than "you can charge 6" if you assault as infantry, 12" if...."

This is the same - there is a clear logical progression (to find distance to embarked unit do X, only Y and Z may not affect units inside embarked transports) to the rules, so it IS clear, just not *as* clear as it could be - be if you made every rule as clear as you would want the book would be fifty times the size...

GW already made it incredibly clear after the codex was released that spirit leech is not a psychic power. They released the psychic battle cards for tyranids on their website after the codex was released. Spirit leech was not in the cards.

Do the rules for “leech” specifically state that they may target and embarked unit?

Prestofet wrote:Do the rules for “leech” specifically state that they may target and embarked unit?

It doesn't have to. The permission to hit them is on page 66 of the Rulebook.

Oh -- I've long been convinced by the argument that RAW, the Doom can affect embarked units. However, it's a somewhat convoluted, unclear argument, and I hate having to have it all over again with each new opponent -- particularly considering that there really *isn't* any other power or unit that has this kind of effect without specifically stating that it affects embarked units. So while I agree that RAW, it does affect embarked units... that doesn't take away my opponents' feelings that they're being rather hard-done-by if I do insist on RAW. I would far rather that GW just went ahead and FAQed it one way or another. :(

Maybe I'll write back to the customer services rep & ask if he can call the studio up and ask them...

Ian Sturrock wrote:Maybe I'll write back to the customer services rep & ask if he can call the studio up and ask them...

And this makes a difference, because?

Cruddace could shout it from the rooftops for all I care. If they want to stop it working vs Embarked units, either rewrite the fething codex and do it properly or issue an errata.

Well -- it makes a difference because they pretty much have to include it in the FAQ (it must be one of their most frequently asked questions about the new Nids) and because it will presumably be one of the studio staff writing the damn FAQ in the 1st place.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Well -- it makes a difference because they pretty much have to include it in the FAQ (it must be one of their most frequently asked questions about the new Nids) and because it will presumably be one of the studio staff writing the damn FAQ in the 1st place.

Sadly though, it seems the Studio staff don't bother to write the FAQs anymore.

No it just gets nicked off Gwar! for the most part.
like the SW FAQ that you pointed out Gwar!.

Gwar!, i have another question and I apologize if the answer is glaringly obvious.

RAW, do wounds caused by 'leech' allow cover saves? Even from inside transports? I ask because i heavily disagree with the INAT ruling that they do.

tetrisphreak wrote:Gwar!, i have another question and I apologize if the answer is glaringly obvious.

RAW, do wounds caused by 'leech' allow cover saves? Even from inside transports? I ask because i heavily disagree with the INAT ruling that they do.

No, they do not allow cover saves of any sort to be taken against them.

The INAT ruling seems to be a compromise. They were a bit rushed to get the Nids rulings done in time for Adepticon and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are revised in the next update.

Mannahnin wrote:The INAT ruling seems to be a compromise. They were a bit rushed to get the Nids rulings done in time for Adepticon and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are revised in the next update.

To something even more arbitrary...

No, to something even more carefully considered by the group of extremely experienced players and TOs who comprise the INAT FAQ Council.

Mannahnin wrote:No, to something even more carefully considered by the group of extremely experienced players and TOs who comprise the INAT FAQ Council.

Yes, like their astounding "lets change how Wolf Claws work completely and label it clarification" was "something even more carefully considered by the group of extremely experienced players and TOs who comprise the INAT FAQ Council."

I have nothing against the INAT FAQ, just don't lie about rules changes.

Gwar! wrote:No, they do not allow cover saves of any sort to be taken against them.

Why not?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, they do not allow cover saves of any sort to be taken against them.

Why not?

Because cover saves can only be taken against Shooting attacks.

Where does it say that?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Where does it say that?

Well, it says in the shooting rules you can take cover saves against wounds caused by shooting.

You show me where it says I can take cover saves against wounds caused by Spirit Leech.

Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

GW will publish the FAQ in which they classify Spirit Leech as a pyschic power and thus unable to affect embarked units. Gwar will complain. Life will go on.

Because cover saves can only be taken against Shooting attacks.

And if it was a shooting attack then it couldn't have effected those in the transport...

That is the weirdest thing it is a ruling that totaly doesn't make sense. Not quite as biazrre and just plain worng as that on Hive Commander but bizarre never the less. It is as if they just felt he was over powered so wanted to cut him back, but lets be honest the 'Nid codex is far from overly compteitive compared to the other 5th ed codexes...

Gwar! wrote:

This isn't a Dig at you, not by a long shot, so please don't take it that way. I just find it odd that people keep clambering for FAQs for questions that have a incredibly clear RaW answer.

I need a FAQ because so many people disagree with me then get upset when I try to explain it to them, if I can just point to a faq it has more legitimacy than the pointing out the rule interactions and logic. And when I tell them to read what you've said on the topic Gwar, to try to show them that i'm not the only one who thinks this way, they say "Thats just some idiot on the internet, what does he know?" and that has no legitimacy... essentially, people only MIGHT pay attention to what a FAQ says, not everyone will, but i think more people will and in the end it'll make the conversation go one way or the other more quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 20, Take Saving Throws, first paragraph.

Cover Saves can't be taken in close combat, but only because you're explicitly denied it. I've seen you argue that you get cover saves from Gets Hot wounds, I'm not sure why you're arguing this position.

still that doesn't show where a cover save can be taken against non-shooting, non-targeting, non-psychic, non-LOS abilities that cause wounds. A cover save represents some interaction which causes it to be harder to execute an ability or shot on a target, please show me where the rulebook describes anything of the sort other the "embarking" section which states that when the rulebook is asking to find where a unit is, and the players have to measure to it, then measure to the hull of a transport to find an embarked unit. Since this is the only place which talks about this interaction, and the rules are permissive, then nothing else governs them and the ability is executed without any impedance.