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.

There's still about 15 Tau Drone questions that need answering.

Posted By Aeon on 09/30/2006 4:11 AM
How do you put you Emperors Champion in reserve with a drop pod in the first place?

You could hold him in reserves if the scenario is escalation.

They kind of dropped the ball on the whole Hit and Run vs Non-Ws vehicles however.  I don't care too much either way about whether they allowed it, but in the process of explaining why they didn't allow it, they categorically said that non-locked combatants are NOT engaged, either.  Which is kind of a problem, for 2 reasons:

1. If they aren't engaged, what how exactly did the assualters manage to assault the vehicle?  They can ONLY do this by becoming engaged in the start of the assault phase, otherwise they can't come within an 1" of the enemy model.  By the RAW, Locked is a sub-set of Engaged, not the other way around.

2.  I really dislike the bizarre explanation/suuggestion to move the vehicle and/or assaulting infantry units apart 1" at the end of the combat.  Since when do we get free movement that doesn't take place in the actual rules (either in the movement phase or consolidation)?  It's like they couldn't acknowledge the RAW leaves the assaulters in a real combat (by definition in the rules on assault as well as the rules for vehicles assaults), so they fudged it by adding in the new "move an inch away" post combat phase.

On another note, I don't play Tau, but man, how lame is the Pathfinder situation? Not too crazy about forcing independent characters to place all of their attacks on a single unit, either.

As for the new uber gun barrels of doom... uggh.  Why can't they actually follow the rules they printed in the 4th edition book.  Seriously, they spent plenty of time and money on the thing, only to fundamentally change the way they play this.  Why didn't they do this BEFORE the book caem out, instead of over a year later?  So, by their reading, if I go through the trouble of creating an actual base for my vehicles now, I'll legally be able to mount my land raider crusader guns in the back and measure from the BASE instead of the gun barrel. 

Exactly as the rules on page 71 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook state. Also note that 'Locking' a unit is a reasult of engaging them, not the other way around. You do not 'engage' a unit because it is locked.

Posted By Ebon on 09/29/2006 5:35 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 09/29/2006 2:35 PM
Well I guess that answers the friendly model/deepstrike debate.

It also ends the drop pod scattering onto friendly models debate.  Friendly models = impassable terrain.  Drop pods reduce scatter if it would take them into difficult terrain.  Drop pods = happy.

It doesnt precisely  transfer over to drop pods, as drop pods do not technically deepstrike. They just act similar.

May as well transfer that to pods too though, as that is as close as were going to get until the SM FAQ is updated.

I hope this is what GW intended for pods, as this just makes them even more attractive than teleporting for DW. This is just one more score for drop pods in the "Teleporting vs. drop pods" debate for DW.

Thank goodness! Since they made Kustom Force Fields only half as good in 4th edition as they were in 3rd I've been constantly questioning whether or not I should take them in my Kult of Speed army. Since they now can't be used in vehicles that has question has finally been answered! Bravo to GW for nerfing the overpowered Ork and Kult of Speed armies!

In the Ork FAQ there is a specific ref that the Mekboy can use the KFF from in a vehicle and it tells you how to use it.

I'm not convinced this general FAQ invalidates that.

plc

I hope I get to play against you a lot then.

It would appear after reading the second-to-last entry in the FAQ about Reserves and joining units that you may indeed dice for all of your reserves at once, and then deploy them all together. What do you guys think?

I may have read it wrong but I think the movethe models engaged with a non-ws vehicle 1" away from the vehicle was their way of saying "oh just shut up and stop complaining, just do it if it's that important to you" because there are people who would/will/are.

Oooh, a rather clever Ork on the-waaagh pointed out that Kustom Force Fields are two-handed weapons, NOT wargear, and since you can obviously use a two-handed weapon while in a transport the KFF is unaffected. <whew>

true its a two handed weapon, but does it replace a shooting attack? If not it cant be used.

Um, open-topped anyone?

Transport rule in the new facts does not apply. With open-topped vehicles the models are supposed to be actually on the vehicle.

Thus, they are on the table and the CFF can be used.

And no, I don't play orks. I play chaos. But even I can see the obvious.

I can see that logic, but as the FAQ talks about open topped vehicles in that paragraph, and only mentions the firing ports, I still feel that it doesnt work, which sucks as I was planning to do a Kult of Speed.

The current Ork FAQ states that when a mekboy is "riding in a vehicle, the force field is measured from the mekboy model himself, not his vehicle". This statement assumes the forcefield works from within the vehicle.

You guys are missing the much more fun implication of the passenger ruling: Passenger in their vehicles are not on the table, therefore at the end of the game they are "off table" per the VP rules and give up their full VP value to the enemy.

Make sure you don't leave your models embarked in the final turn of the game!!!

So, no last-turn 24" moves with a fast transport to claim an objective. If the guys can't jump out, they can't claim.

Posted By yakface on 10/01/2006 10:23 PM

You guys are missing the much more fun implication of the passenger ruling: Passenger in their vehicles are not on the table, therefore at the end of the game they are "off table" per the VP rules and give up their full VP value to the enemy.

Make sure you don't leave your models embarked in the final turn of the game!!!

Hello Yak,

I believe you are mistaken, as these clarifications state no where that units lose their scoring unit status whle embarked, nor do they imply that you counts as destroyed.  the FAQ does say they may DO nothing, but that does not affect their state of BEING.

If you believe I am mistaken, can you point me to the specific lines so I may jump onto the "same page" as you?

wns,

Tim

 

Posted By Jayden63 on 09/29/2006 4:39 PM
I'm not sure what is sadder. The fact that the FAQ had to be 4 pages long or the fact that it is only 4 pages long.

There is still a lot of questions that need answering. Lets hear it for another half ass effort by GW.

I know what's sadder.  The fact that there is a fairly comprehensive FAQ on this very website that the Dev team likely never knew about, because posts like this tend to push them away.  I know I wouldn't go to a party where all of my cranky ex-girlfriends did nothing but complain about me.

Also please note that the Errata and FAQ process has reported now to be one that is continiously updated, and there is some small evidence in the Tau and Nid FAQs of that actually happening.

I know sarcasm and cyncism can be fun, but dontcha think it might also be counter productive?

 

wns,

Tim

 

This new FAQ officially kills scorpions combined with the new codex.....

They lost 2 points of strength on the claw.

they lost their high initiative attacks with the mandiblaster change

They lost haywire grenades

No more fortune in the transport on the way to target...

 

Need nay better reason to take harlies?

 

Lazarus.

It didn't kill it.

You just have to now deploy them separately before the battle, fortune them at the start of the turn, then embark, then move. Why is that so hard? The new ruling really isn't game breaking.
As far as the mandiblaster being changed...good. I'd rather have an additional attack in my statline vs than one that might work. Besides their initiative is 5 already...so.. Also taking haywire grenades on them was worthless anyways since the storm guardians could do it so much cheaper. Scorpions were good for tying up units of marines that you didn't want to be interfering with your other units, not busting vehicles. A str 6 powerfist still gets the job done.

Capt K

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="Normal">Posted By</td> <td>derling </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

To the contrary, I think this particular makes them significantly better.

Please, explain how this makes them better. Against lower WS troops they could now hit on 3's instead of 4's from the mandiblasters but they'll wound the same pretty much. Over 85% of all my opponents have T4 WS4 and a 3+ save.....I lose out against high initiative troops now.

I wonder who would win in a Scorpian/Harlie fight...when the harlies charge, and when the scorpians charge?

My money is on the harlies.....higher initiative and no worries about the madiblasters getting one of them before attacking. Lots of rending goodness, especially on the charge will destroy the scorpions.....fortune won't help vs. rending.

 

Lazarus.

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="Normal">Posted By</td> <td>CaptKaruthors </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

You just have to now deploy them separately before the battle, fortune them at the start of the turn, then embark, then move. Why is that so hard? The new ruling really isn't game breaking.

Do you realize what you are saying? So I fortune them and get in transport....I won't be unloading them in the same turn as I embarked. That means that when I do unload my unit is not fortuned anymore and will have to endure close combat in my turn and my opponents turn without the use of fortune.....god forbid that they fail to make combat and get to shoot me......so your tactic basically means that only if my serpent is shot down the same turn I got in it I'll benifit from fortune.....asuming it stays on the unit since they are not on the table.....see what I'm saying here?

As far as the mandiblaster being changed...good. I'd rather have an additional attack in my statline vs than one that might work.

Against MEQ's it's identical except mandiblasters will go on higher initiative....the only real benifit is the weakend claw getting another attack.

Also taking haywire grenades on them was worthless anyways since the storm guardians could do it so much cheaper.

But not with the survivability the scorpions had. What unit of mine survived every game at the RTT this last saturday? Do you think that the stormies could have waded through 20+ necrons? The scorps even got to use haywires on the lith.....they also used it on robert's immobilized dread on game 2. Over all a very usefull and versitile unit that lost much in the new codex...

Scorpions were good for tying up units of marines that you didn't want to be interfering with your other units, not busting vehicles. A str 6 powerfist still gets the job done.claw

Any unit with versatility in the eldar list is worth it's weight in gold (it's why spiders are also one of our best choices). Scorpions were great for vehicles due to their overwhelming ability to destroy them (claw, haywire, witchblade from nearly mandatory accompaning seer)

I didn't use them to "tie up units". Most marine units I see number 7 or less....I use my scorpions to kill them. Now if a dread wanders over to the combat I can kiss the scorpions goodbye....I already have to worry about that with my banshees.......guess it's harlequins for me...

Lazarus.

Do you realize what you are saying? So I fortune them and get in transport....I won't be unloading them in the same turn as I embarked. That means that when I do unload my unit is not fortuned anymore and will have to endure close combat in my turn and my opponents turn without the use of fortune.....god forbid that they fail to make combat and get to shoot me......so your tactic basically means that only if my serpent is shot down the same turn I got in it I'll benifit from fortune.....asuming it stays on the unit since they are not on the table.....see what I'm saying here?

Yeah I realize what you are saying....and I am saying it makes no difference. You can't assault anyways if you stayed in first, moved, then got out, so what's your point? So what is the difference in having it the other way around? You are still fortuned and the result is the same, except this time you are in your transport waiting to disembark. This way they are much safer in the transport against a counter attack and also with vectored engines/ holofield ensures that your unit will live to disembark and move next turn. Having a Farseer on a bike would eliminate the need to have him travel amongst the scorpions (something I never understood since if they lose a combat and get chased down you end up loosing 2 units vs. 1.) and can keep up with the transport to stay in range of fortune.


As far as the mandiblaster being changed...good. I'd rather have an additional attack in my statline vs than one that might work.

Against MEQ's it's identical except mandiblasters will go on higher initiative....the only real benifit is the weakend claw getting another attack.


Good. I'd rather have one more Str6 attack than a couple of crapping mandiblaster attacks. When I used scorpions the mandiblaster hardly ever worked or made much difference



Also taking haywire grenades on them was worthless anyways since the storm guardians could do it so much cheaper.

But not with the survivability the scorpions had. What unit of mine survived every game at the RTT this last saturday? Do you think that the stormies could have waded through 20+ necrons? The scorps even got to use haywires on the lith.....they also used it on robert's immobilized dread on game 2. Over all a very usefull and versitile unit that lost much in the new codex...


You didn't take them for survivalbility, you took them to shread a pricey unit and then die...all for the rock bottom price of like 70pts. Why do you think they changed them in the new codex? Because top tier players were using them as cheap units to do just what I said. A warlock, 2 fusionguns, and haywire was plenty to take down any armor, or in a pinch knock a few termies down if need be. Give them 2 flamers and a destructor and they would kill far more horde units than the scorpions could. While the scorpions are versatile, they weren't as much so as the storm guardians. Scorpions are taken for primary purpose of surviving through a game. Their resilience is why you take them. They are one of the only units the Eldar have that have longevity throughout a game. They also made great roadblocks against stuff to lock it down so your other stuff can do their thing. Scorpions still serve that role despite the reduced claw strength and mandiblaster change.



I didn't use them to "tie up units". Most marine units I see number 7 or less....I use my scorpions to kill them. Now if a dread wanders over to the combat I can kiss the scorpions goodbye....I already have to worry about that with my banshees.......guess it's harlequins for me...



We'll see how good they are. I think that ulitmately they will be too expensive and most will choose other units over them. I see only the really harlequin starved players that will field them on a regular basis.

BTW, good job on the win hoss, boy did that last mission and match up bone me...but that story is for another time. I have suggested to Mark that that mission should be removed as it heavily favors the defender and they already start ahead for doing nothing but standing there. I have played that mission 10-12 times and very few ever meet the objective, they usually go around it and just kill stuff. Kind of pointless. I ended up 7th overall.

Capt K




Lazarus.

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="Normal">Posted By</td> <td>CaptKaruthors </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Yeah I realize what you are saying....and I am saying it makes no difference. You can't assault anyways if you stayed in first, moved, then got out, so what's your point?

My point is that I will not have fortune on the unit when it needs to be on it. I can only look forward to it being used when the serpent crashes. Also, I often will be assaulting after the serpent has been sitting there from last round's movement. I did it twice on saturday...the only times I don't pull this off is when they get shot down to begin with.

This way they are much safer in the transport against a counter attack and also with vectored engines/ holofield ensures that your unit will live to disembark and move next turn.

Serpents don't get the holo-field. Vectored engines will indeed help though....

Having a Farseer on a bike would eliminate the need to have him travel amongst the scorpions (something I never understood since if they lose a combat and get chased down you end up loosing 2 units vs. 1.) and can keep up with the transport to stay in range of fortune

I think seers on bikes will be standard in nearly every eldar list we see as soon as the codex is released. I always ran the seer with the scorpions as it gave them LD10 and the seer benifited from the very same fortune he was casting on them.....not to mention more wounding / anti-tank punch. I think I've lost the seer a single time from failed leadership....measure that against my wins.      Also, the fact that the bike can keep up with a transport still does not enable the seer to dump fortune on the scorps unti after they are exposed......I suppose I could go back to the days when I infiltrated them and then caught up to the unit with a turbo boosting seer to fortune them next turn....(just hate the thought of a bassie template landing on them first)

Good. I'd rather have one more Str6 attack than a couple of crapping mandiblaster attacks. When I used scorpions the mandiblaster hardly ever worked or made much difference

I guess this is just where our play experience differes. My mandiblasters always kill stuff. Many times my scorpion exarch may not get to swing that claw due to some I5 troops that killed him simultaneously as my regular scorpions attacked.

You didn't take them for survivalbility, you took them to shread a pricey unit and then die...all for the rock bottom price of like 70pts. Why do you think they changed them in the new codex? Because top tier players were using them as cheap units to do just what I said. A warlock, 2 fusionguns, and haywire was plenty to take down any armor, or in a pinch knock a few termies down if need be. Give them 2 flamers and a destructor and they would kill far more horde units than the scorpions could.

I used to use stormies like that. Usually 6 in a falcon with 2 flamers / destructor / SS / haywire. Sure they could toast anything (still unimpressive vs MEQ's) but as you said they will die. I need a scoring unit that can still score later in the game.

Scorpions are taken for primary purpose of surviving through a game. Their resilience is why you take them. They are one of the only units the Eldar have that have longevity throughout a game. They also made great roadblocks against stuff to lock it down so your other stuff can do their thing. Scorpions still serve that role despite the reduced claw strength and mandiblaster change.

I don't take them to survive. I take them to kill the enemy infantry / tanks as well as score objectives....you just want to "survive" then take a seer council.....Scorpions cannot serve the same role effectively when disembarking from a transport in the new rules. Their ability to "survive" as been severely hindered.

We'll see how good they are. I think that ulitmately they will be too expensive and most will choose other units over them. I see only the really harlequin starved players that will field them on a regular basis.

I could be wrong. However, I bet we'll see less scorpions overall......

BTW, good job on the win hoss

Thanks, I didn't think I could pull it off when I saw the matchup....pretty sure I wasn't the only one who thought that either...lol

boy did that last mission and match up bone me

Yeah, I didn't care for the mission itself but it wouldn't have changed anything for me whichever side I was on. I still was going for phase out as it was my only chance to beat that monstrosity of a list.

I have suggested to Mark that that mission should be removed as it heavily favors the defender and they already start ahead for doing nothing but standing there. I have played that mission 10-12 times and very few ever meet the objective, they usually go around it and just kill stuff. Kind of pointless.

Agreed. There are a few missions overall that they use sometimes that I really hate....not as bad as Tampa missions though huh? (lol)

I ended up 7th overall.

Still not bad considering how many players there were and that fact you straight up got hosed by a mission.....a mission hosing is what kept me from sweeping the tourney before this one. 

 

Lazarus.

Posted By derling on 10/02/2006 9:07 AM

Hello Yak,

I believe you are mistaken, as these clarifications state no where that units lose their scoring unit status whle embarked, nor do they imply that you counts as destroyed.  the FAQ does say they may DO nothing, but that does not affect their state of BEING.

If you believe I am mistaken, can you point me to the specific lines so I may jump onto the "same page" as you?

wns,

Tim

Tim,

The FAQ says:

"As transported models are not physically on the table, they cannot do anything (unless differently specified)".

Now flip to page 84 and look at Non-Vehicle units in the Victory Point scoring chart. The status required for giving up full Victory Points at the end of the game is: "Destroyed, off-table or Falling Back".

If transported units are not considered physically on the table as the FAQ suggests then they will give up full VPs at the end of the game if still embarked.

Also, if models aren't on the table when embarked, you're going to have a hard time explaining how they're going to be considered within a specific distance of an objective or within a particular table quarter in order to actually "score".

 

The FAQ ruling is particularly sloppy because the rules never even suggest that embarked models are removed from the table. . .it is only a gaming convention that we all practice because we generally cannot fit our models in/on the transport vehicle.

With GW's new "RAW" FAQ policy they have absolutely no business ruling that embarked models aren't physically on the table. It is a terriblely short-sighted ruling and it therefore leads to some ridiculous conclusions.

 

 

I figured this was where you coming from, and I agree in that it may suggest that embarked units are not on the table.  This said, I would say, though, that it does not state your drawn conclusion, and makes no attempts to address it.  That would make it hard to actually draw your conclusion in anything other than a theoretical discussion. 

Had the answer actually changed the wording of the rule and said this, I would agree more. Looking at specific verbiage in a FAQ QnA answer and trying to use it to apply to other non-related topics I think is a stretch.  I hope I am being in clear in what I’m suggesting.

I do think that this may highlight an inherent failing of a RAW philosophy, as this kind of attention to such a miniscule detail in wording may well allow just as many holes as looking at theoretical “intent” of a rule.

As to it’s sloppiness, it may be a sloppy rule.  But I also feel that  that in your regards to gaming conventions, I think I could use the same argument to say that models on the table may never move because they are unmotorized.  It is only a gaming convention that allows the player pick up and move the model himself. (this last bit is a joke BTW)

@Yakface

What do you make of the section of the faq that talks about IC joining squads in reserve and coming on table in their trasports? The reason i ask is because of the poll you posted asking how players bring on reserves. I agree that rolling, then placing is closest to RAW, however, the writer of the FAQ deffinately implies that the rule was intended to be played out as roll for all reserves then place troops, other wise their is no way you could bring the IC on table in a transport with a squad.

Do you think this is sufficiant evidence to play the rule as roll for all reserves, then place? Since the rule is unclear in the book, i would say yes, however interpreting rules through implication is makeing a judegment on shakey ground at best. I was curious as to how you felt about it.

Well, if you look at the results of the poll it is clear that the majority (of those who took the poll) already play that you make all of your reserve rolls first and then deploy your deep strikers first, followed by your regular reserves.

Most players just feel you need to complete this stuff before moving your units that were already on the board.


I am all for FAQs changing the rules to match how most players already play. GW should do more of that and less of RAW FAQ answers.

ok, point taken. That is how i play as well, and now i feel confident that i am not in violation of RAW, as your poll actually made me realize that I had not been playing strictly that way in the past, but now it appears to be justified.

Thanks.