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.

As for the 1h/2h weapons, I tend to look at it as a weapon being one-handed grants it a specific ability -- to give an extra attack when paired with a second one-handed weapon -- that should, in my opinion, be explicitly given to the weapon.

Consistency is not inherently a virtue. Personally I vote to err in the direction of accuracy over consistency.

Also this is awesome work, Yak. I'm going to adopt the FAQ wholesale as my default options for house rules.

Dude...I'm building a shrine...

 

Okay, I came up with a solution to the weapon-handed question:

RB.40.01 – Q: Many weapons in the codices are not defined as being either single or two-handed. How should those weapons be treated in close combat?
A: Any weapon defined as a “close combat weapon”, or that provides a special close combat attack, counts as a single-handed weapon unless specifically designated as two-handed. All other weapons are considered two-handed unless specifically designated as single-handed [rules change].

Fantastic work.

I think if you can convince Adepticon to adopt this, it has a good chance of becoming relatively universal.

I'd also contact Jeff Hall and get him to use it for the US GTs.

Lowinar, that is completely how I understood the WGBL situation, I never could find the way to say it. Like I told Yakface, i can see it being possible from fluff standpoint, but not via the rules.

 

Okay, I'm going to try to respond to most of your points Skyth, but I may break this up into a couple of replys if it starts getting too long.

That's an easy addition.

Well, I figured since its not going to happen very often that FP's are beyond 60" of each other I might as well stick with RAW in this case. I'll consider changing it. . .what does everyone else think about this?

Divination doesn't "conceal" the targets, Eldrad is actually looking into the future and allowing his units to get a jump on the enemy. The thing is if you don't count embarked units, you can easily have a situation where Eldrad is able to move more than double the number of units he rolled for.

Say he rolls that '4' units may be moved. If you allow embarked units, including an attached ICs (Eldrad too), you could be moving a total of 10 units, the 3 transports, 3 embarked units and two attached ICs.

That makes Divination really, really, really powerful (better than I think was intended). Especially for mech Eldar armies. Does anyone else disagree with me?

Have you ever played with or against someone with 3 Whirlwinds (honestly)? All it takes is one time to realize how ridiculous it can get, espeically if there is an objective or somewhere centralized where the SM player knows he can lay a ton of mines around. Basically you can get a pile of minefields all partially over-lapping each other stacking up several inches. It's hard to even stand minis in that garbage and its hard to tell which minefields they are actually in (since so many are overlapping each other).

It's ridiculous and unfun, so I've changed it.

If you consider the Furioso a seperate unit from a standard Dreadnought then it would actually be a rules change (ultimately it doesn't really make any difference, so when I was unsure of whether it was actually a clarification or a rules change I went with rules change).

I don't think so. It doesn't come from the weapon list, nor does it count against the total number of weapons a model can take, so you are essentially advocating that the model can take more items without any sort of limitation on them. The bike is a piece of wargear and the upgrade is a cost that comes into being because of that Wargear.

I know a LOT of people disagree with you, and I know Adepticon ruled the same way as I did. Besides the possiblity of infiltration along with first turn automatic summoning is a pretty ridiculous concept.

Well if Initiative could go above I10 I'd allow furious charge to boost that up to I11. There's a couple of reasons I ruled this way. First of all, whenever possible if rules can successfully work together, they should do so. Second, when a characteristic is doubled, it is always applied before a characteristic addition/subtraction. Obviously this is a different situation, but I believe that applying a similar mechanic makes it consistent and easy to remember.

 

 

Well, the summary in the back of the book indicates that models under an Ordnance blast marker are hit by it, so allowing any model in the unit to be removed as a casualty can be technically seen as a rules change. . .although again its not really a bid deal.

It appears as though you've misunderstood my answer, as I feared people might (since it is quite complex). Once the torrent of fire is triggered, the owning player can choose to wait until any point to actually make the save, so even if the Plasma cannon triggers the torrent of fire, the defending player can wait for a regular shooting wound to make the torrent save against.

I'll try to think of a clearer way to say this.

Nope, check out the rulebook. It just says casualties during a shooting phase.

They are slightly different circumstances since with SMF the vehicle has to actually end up more than 6" away from its starting point no matter how far it actually moves.

I guess I could write that a Skimmer which takes damage in its own movement phase has to declare whether it is going to end up more than 6" away from where it started, and if it can still move after that damage it must do so. That would make both ruling pretty consistent with each other.

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 4:03 PM
RB.69A.02 – Q: When a Skimmer is attacked during its own movement phase (for example, from a Castellan Minefield or a Death or Glory attack), do you use the Skimmer’s current or previous movement phase to determine if it benefits from the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule?
A: If a Skimmer is attacked in its own movement phase, at the point of the attack, if the Skimmer is more than 6 inches from where it started the movement phase, then it uses the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule against the attack [rules change].


The rule for this and for moving through difficult terrain should be the same. Either go with what you intend to move or go with what you actually move on both.

Well, this change turns out to be a pretty-long winded answer no matter how you slice it.

A: If a Skimmer is attacked during its movement, the player must declare whether it is going to end its move more than 6" from where it started or not. If it is, apply "Skimmers Moving Fast" to the attack, but the Skimmer must end its move more than 6" from where it started provided it can still move after the attack. If the player declares otherwise, the Skimmer does not benefit from "Skimers moving Fast" against the attack.

 

I think my original solution is more simple and elegant, personally.

 

I don't like the way you've done Minor Psychic Powers vs GKs/SoBs.

I'm not about to get into a whole Siren vs GK argument here, but you've gone and basically said things that have a 'direct' effect will be ignored by GKs/SoBs/BTs, and then defined 'direct' effect as 'everything'. Siren, like a lot of minor powers, does not have a 'direct' effect upon enemy units. It's target is Self. Or take Weaver of Fates (or whatever its called). It has no direct effect upon any particular unit, it affects the game as a whole.

You can't go and define that GKs/SoBs/BTs are immune to 'direct' minor psychic powers, like Stream of Corruption/Beam of Slaanesh and then go and say powers that don't have directed effects also count as 'directly' affecting enemy units. And while there is no such thing as a 'direct' or 'indirect' effect in the 40K rules, if you are going to change the rules to include direct effects, then you must include indirect effects (which Siren and Weaver of Fates quite clearly fall into).

Going back to Weaver of Fates, it means this power cannot be used if a single GK or SoB model is on the table, using your flawed and broad definition of 'direct'.

BYE

 

 Hey Yakface,

Nice effort and good work!

 

RB.47B.02 – Q: If a unit suffers 25% casualties in its own shooting phase (for example, by scattering Ordnance, or ‘Gets Hot’ weapons) does it take a morale check?
A: Yes. Casualties from friendly fire can be equally (if not more) demoralizing [RAW].

That's a rules change I believe. It's only (if memory serves) from enemy shooting/enemy shooting phase.

Nope, check out the rulebook. It just says casualties during a shooting phase.

This is incorrect. The rulesbook says: If a unit takes 25% or more cassualties from shooting. 

When a models fails his save after a 'Gets hot' result, he isn't a cassualty from shooting, but a cassualty from the 'Gets hot' special rule.  

Following RAW, suffering 25% cassualties from the 'Gets Hot' rule doesn't trigger a morale check.

Cilithan out...

 

 

I don't know what to tell you HBMC. Would it help if I simply removed the word "direct" from the answer?

Because I fully understand that Siren has a "target" of self, but it does directly do something to enemy units that then try to shoot or charge the enemy model with the power cast on him.

Every player I've ever encountered on this issue seems to somehow intuitively assume that Siren will not prevent a a GK unit from shooting at a Sirened psyker, but that Weaver of Fates can still be used in a game that contains GKs.

And I carefully checked my ruling against every single minor psychic power currently in the game (including the general ones in CA) and there should be absolutely no issue discening which ones work in a game with immune models and which ones don't (and in what case).


I mean honestly, if Siren's wording was changed to: "Any enemy unit that attempts to shoot or Assualt the psyker is targeted by Siren and may then not shoot or attack him"?

Because that's essentially what Siren does regardless of how the power is worded. The net result is that it prevents enemy units from doing something they would normally be allowed to do. Therefore that is a clear and recognizable thing that can be ignored by immune models.


Last question: What would do? Would you only apply the immune rule to powers that officially "target" immune models? Or would you simply bar minor powers in games containing immune models (like the Adepticon FAQ did)?

Because I feel my ruling is closer to the way most people I've seen actually play the game, which was the whole point of my FAQ.

Posted By Cilithan on 12/02/2006 5:13 AM
 

 Hey Yakface,

Nice effort and good work!

 

Nope, check out the rulebook. It just says casualties during a shooting phase.

This is incorrect. The rulesbook says: If a unit takes 25% or more cassualties from shooting. 

When a models fails his save after a 'Gets hot' result, he isn't a cassualty from shooting, but a cassualty from the 'Gets hot' special rule.  

Following RAW, suffering 25% cassualties from the 'Gets Hot' doesn't trigger a morale check.

Cilithan out...

 

 

Thanks, I appreciate it. What exactly constitutes a "shooting" casualty has always been a bit of a mystery (does a vehicle that explodes due to shooting and kills models; do those models count as having been killed by "shooting"?). So if you look in my FAQ at: RB.47B.01, you will see that I've defined any casualty that occurs in the shooting phase as a "shooting" casualty.

It's nice, simple and easy to remember.

Would it not be more appropriate (in some cases, at least) to qualify the FAQ answers as "dismabiguations" as opposed to "clarifications"? Of course, I'm going full steam into pedantry, but that appears to be the point of a rules FAQ in the end

As for the Daemon Icon, I would tend to agree that RAW allows summoning the first turn, but a) it's ridiculous, and b) it's somewhat ambiguous, and at the core of it, that's one of the big things I'd want such a resource to handle. Although I'd call it a "disambiguation" and not a "clarifcation"

Yak,

The problem is not so much with Siren, but more how you've chosen to define minor psychic powers. You've gone and defined 'direct' without defining 'indirect'. Worse, your definition of 'direct' seems to include everything.

Let's take... Fuelled by Pain as an example. It's less of a contentious issue than Siren is.

With Fuelled by Pain the Sorc casts the power on himself, and then gains additional attacks for each wound blah blah blah. How does this work with models immune to minor powers? Well, there are a few ways to look at it:

1. Absolute RAW. Everything that anything does in a game will have an effect upon every unit, no matter how small. Therefore, whether the Chaos Sorc is using Fuelled by Pain to fight Grey Knights, or using it to fight Guardsmen who have GKs in the army, the power will have an effect on the GKs, therefore the power can never be used during the game. This would then apply to every minor power in the game, no matter its rules, as everything has an effect on something else. I personally find this view absurd.

2. For a power to have an effect on something, it must target that unit. So, I can try to use a Beam of Slaanesh on a unit of Black Templars, but that ability of theirs stops me. I use Fuelled by Pain on myself, and I get the benefit because the BTs are not the target of the attack.

3. We change the rules to determine Direct and Indirect effects of powers, and allow GKs/SoBs/BTs to ignore Directed effects, but not Indirect ones.

If we go with three, we then have to define what powers have a direct effect, and what powers have an indirect effect. Powers that target Self, such as Fuelled by Pain, would very clearly come under the 'indirect' umbrella. Powers that target enemy units (Beam of Slaanesh) would come under the direct.

And, as I have said, your current change of the rules Yak doesn't do any of this. It defines Direct without defining the opposite, and then defines everything as Direct.

BYE

Posted By yakface on 12/01/2006 8:19 PM

ELD.51.01 -- Q: When Divination is used to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units or just one?
A: Two. Embarked units do count towards the Divination total [GW rulebook FAQ overrule].


I don't think Embarked units should count. On a fluff basis, it would take just as much effort to conceal the presence of a vehicle with passangers as a vehicle without pasengers...

Divination doesn't "conceal" the targets, Eldrad is actually looking into the future and allowing his units to get a jump on the enemy. The thing is if you don't count embarked units, you can easily have a situation where Eldrad is able to move more than double the number of units he rolled for.

Say he rolls that '4' units may be moved. If you allow embarked units, including an attached ICs (Eldrad too), you could be moving a total of 10 units, the 3 transports, 3 embarked units and two attached ICs.

That makes Divination really, really, really powerful (better than I think was intended). Especially for mech Eldar armies. Does anyone else disagree with me?

Sticky one that is. I am inclined to say i disagree, but regarding how it could be abused.... Hmmm.

let me put up the rule for reference while posting this.



For the independant characters, I can see the point, as it isnt part of the squad entry so it isnt an "upgrade", persay.

But transports are basically a squad upgrade as it implies such in the entry. Thus I would have to vote that embarked units and their transports count as a single "unit" for the purpose of divination.

By your line of thinking, it would be feasible to disloge a warlock from a gaurdian unit, because it has a seperate entry in the HQ section. I know thats not the implication, but it isnt a far stretch that way either.

I would exclude IC's from being part of the embarked "unit" even if attached, but leave embarked units as a "unit" themselves.

I think I have a solution. Non scoring units. Transports are non scoring units. The emabrked units and their transport "upgrade" should be allowed entry into the divination rules as a single unit, while non upgrade transports as well as IC's should not.

fire dragons attached to autarch riding in a  falcon, for example. This would count as three.

Dire avengers in a serpent would count as one.

I think this seems fair, as it wont punish people buying upgrades, but will for the stronger elements of the army, such as snakes on a plane with farseer, etc.

Make any sense?

Il'll leave it up to your sense of language to word it better than my free-flowing-typing-while-thinking approach.

By the way this is a great exhaustive FAQ you have going here. It puts to shame FAQ's written by GW, adeptus windy city, or anywhere else that I have seen.

A couple things:

ELD.60C.02 states that the farseer and warlocks are the same unit. I am still not convinced of this. It states by implication in atleast four seperate places how warlocks are autonomous of the farseer. They form a single "HQ choice", not a single unit.

Notice how there is no mention of retinue?






And finally from the rulebook:



I also disagree with ELD.35.01
The skyleap ruling.  My opinion is that RAW allows such to take place, much to my chagrin.





 Deepstrike rule doesnt discount skyleap's abilities, because skyleap isnt movement either. You simply skyleap during movement. Its like saying psychic powers are shooting because it happens in the shooting phase.

I appreciate your ruling, but since GW thinks their rules are so good, that they promote raw so strongly, that in this case they can infact skyleap the same turn as they deepstrike.

I dont think that this is imbalanced either, as they cant do much other than drop grenades on heads. They are a non-entity for the most part and risk high percentage of eventual failure due to deepstrike scatter.

Posted By yakface on 12/01/2006 8:19 PM

 

ELD.43.01 -- Q: Can†a Fire Prism contribute its Prism Cannon†to another Fire Prism that is more than†60" away?
A: Yes [RAW].

Personally, I'd say change the RAW here. Doesn't make sense to help things out of range. Not that they'd often be out of range of each other

Well, I figured since its not going to happen very often that FP's are beyond 60" of each other I might as well stick with RAW in this case. I'll consider changing it. . .what does everyone else think about this?

---

Like I said, was just a nit...Won't actually affect a game much...

---

ELD.51.01 -- Q: When Divination is used to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units or just one?
A: Two. Embarked units do count towards the Divination total [GW rulebook FAQ overrule].


I don't think Embarked units should count. On a fluff basis, it would take just as much effort to conceal the presence of a vehicle with passangers as a vehicle without pasengers...

Divination doesn't "conceal" the targets, Eldrad is actually looking into the future and allowing his units to get a jump on the enemy. The thing is if you don't count embarked units, you can easily have a situation where Eldrad is able to move more than double the number of units he rolled for.

Say he rolls that '4' units may be moved. If you allow embarked units, including an attached ICs (Eldrad too), you could be moving a total of 10 units, the 3 transports, 3 embarked units and two attached ICs.

That makes Divination really, really, really powerful (better than I think was intended). Especially for mech Eldar armies. Does anyone else disagree with me?

---

I like Hellfury's way of dealing with this.   Dedicated transports are allowed to be moved with thier squad if it's embarked.

As for being powerful in a mech list-In a mech list, Eldrad would be the only thing starting on the board in escallation.  Right there is a big weakness.

---

SM.39.02C – Q: If multiple Castellan Minefields occupy the same space on the table, do enemy models moving over that area test for each minefield, or just once no matter how many Minefields are stacked there?
A: A model rolls once to trigger a mine when moving through an area of the table covered by one or more minefields, no matter how many actual minefields are stacked in the same spot [rules change].


I think with stacked minefields, there should be a higher denisity, thus check for each one

Have you ever played with or against someone with 3 Whirlwinds (honestly)? All it takes is one time to realize how ridiculous it can get, espeically if there is an objective or somewhere centralized where the SM player knows he can lay a ton of mines around. Basically you can get a pile of minefields all partially over-lapping each other stacking up several inches. It's hard to even stand minis in that garbage and its hard to tell which minefields they are actually in (since so many are overlapping each other).

It's ridiculous and unfun, so I've changed it.

---

No, I haven't played someone that used mines at all.  I see what you mean about overlapping minefields around an objective.  I don't like take and hold, personally...So I forget about it.

---

CSM.16.02 – Q: If a character with a Bike upgrades the combi-bolter, do the points spent on the upgrade count against the character’s Wargear points limitation?
A: Yes [RAW].

I'd treat this like buying another weapon...So not count against wargear allowance.

I don't think so. It doesn't come from the weapon list, nor does it count against the total number of weapons a model can take, so you are essentially advocating that the model can take more items without any sort of limitation on them. The bike is a piece of wargear and the upgrade is a cost that comes into being because of that Wargear.

---

Well, technically it would be a two-handed weapon since it isn't defined. (Actually, combi-meltas are defined as two-handed).  Just keep the limitation on the two total weapons/three hands.  As for the upgrading counting as the same points as the original item, mastercrafted weapons don't follow that procedure.

---

CSM.18.02A – Can a Daemon Icon summon its bound daemons on the first turn of the game?
A: No, only on the second turn or later [clarification].

I think that's a rules change, and I don't really care for it. Seems to me the intent of the Daemon Icon is first turn summoning.

I know a LOT of people disagree with you, and I know Adepticon ruled the same way as I did. Besides the possiblity of infiltration along with first turn automatic summoning is a pretty ridiculous concept.

---

Personally, I don't find it ridiculous.  I don't see what the problem is with first turn infiltrated summoning.  Almost any army can do something nasty on the first turn.

---

CSM.55.01A – Q: Does a model behind cover who is charged by an enemy with Warp Scream fight at Initiative 9 or 10?
A: Initiative 9. Also, against abilities that double (or halve) a model’s Initiative, the -1 Warp Scream penalty is applied after the Initiative is doubled (or halved) [clarification].


I always see the going to I10 as the final thing after all modifiers. I don't think warp scream would overrule that any more than furious charge would.

Well if Initiative could go above I10 I'd allow furious charge to boost that up to I11. There's a couple of reasons I ruled this way. First of all, whenever possible if rules can successfully work together, they should do so. Second, when a characteristic is doubled, it is always applied before a characteristic addition/subtraction. Obviously this is a different situation, but I believe that applying a similar mechanic makes it consistent and easy to remember.

 

---

I still don't like it.  I think an absolute modifier should be applied last of all.

Here's a question-How would you resolve a model with furious charge assaulting a model with warp scream in cover?

---

And I should say, most of the FAQ I agree with, and I realize that was alot of work to put it together.  Just had some minor nit's about some things

 

Good work on it Yakface.

Posted By yakface on 12/01/2006 9:58 PM

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 4:03 PM
RB.69A.02 – Q: When a Skimmer is attacked during its own movement phase (for example, from a Castellan Minefield or a Death or Glory attack), do you use the Skimmer’s current or previous movement phase to determine if it benefits from the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule?
A: If a Skimmer is attacked in its own movement phase, at the point of the attack, if the Skimmer is more than 6 inches from where it started the movement phase, then it uses the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule against the attack [rules change].


The rule for this and for moving through difficult terrain should be the same. Either go with what you intend to move or go with what you actually move on both.

Well, this change turns out to be a pretty-long winded answer no matter how you slice it.

A: If a Skimmer is attacked during its movement, the player must declare whether it is going to end its move more than 6" from where it started or not. If it is, apply "Skimmers Moving Fast" to the attack, but the Skimmer must end its move more than 6" from where it started provided it can still move after the attack. If the player declares otherwise, the Skimmer does not benefit from "Skimers moving Fast" against the attack.

 

I think my original solution is more simple and elegant, personally.

 

I like this way.  It doesn't make sense to me that if a skimmer moved 12" last turn, and is moving 12" this turn, that because it got attacked 2" into the move, it would somehow be easier to damage.  It would have been going the same speed it was the turn before when it wasn't vulnerable to damage.

Posted By skyth on 12/03/2006 5:45 AM

 Dedicated transports are allowed to be moved with thier squad if it's embarked.

Thanks. I knew there was a better way of wording that beyond my extemporaneous fashion.

Though, for clarity I would go even further to state that:

A squad embarked in it's dedicated transport count as one unit for purposes of "Divination".

Posted By smart_alex on 11/30/2006 6:44 PM
The IG codex under the doctrine INDEPENDENT COMMISSARS says that they ACT as independent characters meaning they can leave a join separate units and be treated as elite. Does this mean that they ARE independend characters meaning they have to be in B2B to attack and that they can be targeted?

Well, in a game, if something acts as something else it would act as that thing in all cases so I don't really understand how that could be a legitimate question either from RAW or just from a common sense/intent point of view.

 

That is a valid question. I'll add it to the IG section.

 

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 12/02/2006 6:32 PM

3. We change the rules to determine Direct and Indirect effects of powers, and allow GKs/SoBs/BTs to ignore Directed effects, but not Indirect ones.

If we go with three, we then have to define what powers have a direct effect, and what powers have an indirect effect. Powers that target Self, such as Fuelled by Pain, would very clearly come under the 'indirect' umbrella. Powers that target enemy units (Beam of Slaanesh) would come under the direct.

And, as I have said, your current change of the rules Yak doesn't do any of this. It defines Direct without defining the opposite, and then defines everything as Direct.

BYE

You keep saying that I've defined everything as "direct" which simply isn't true. I did define what was direct and what wasn't direct in this particular case (minor psychic powers vs. "immune" models), you just don't care for my definition (which is fine).

I was attempting to replicate how I think the majority of players handle this issue without even thinking about it (what comes intuitively to them).

I can't be entirely sure if players would ignore the extra "Fueled by Pain" attacks when they were attacking "immune" models, but I felt that they probably do, although I could be wrong.

Even if I do change the "direct" definition" to those powers that target enemy units, Siren is still going to be an exception, as I am much more secure in the knowledge that most players intuitively let "immune" units ignore the Siren restrictions.

I would love to hear some other people's opinions on this issue. How do you play that units that are immune to minor powers handle some of the more obscure minor powers?

Posted By skyth on 12/03/2006 5:45 AM

CSM.55.01A – Q: Does a model behind cover who is charged by an enemy with Warp Scream fight at Initiative 9 or 10?
A: Initiative 9. Also, against abilities that double (or halve) a model’s Initiative, the -1 Warp Scream penalty is applied after the Initiative is doubled (or halved) [clarification].


I always see the going to I10 as the final thing after all modifiers. I don't think warp scream would overrule that any more than furious charge would.

 

Well if Initiative could go above I10 I'd allow furious charge to boost that up to I11. There's a couple of reasons I ruled this way. First of all, whenever possible if rules can successfully work together, they should do so. Second, when a characteristic is doubled, it is always applied before a characteristic addition/subtraction. Obviously this is a different situation, but I believe that applying a similar mechanic makes it consistent and easy to remember.

 

---

 

I still don't like it.  I think an absolute modifier should be applied last of all.

Here's a question-How would you resolve a model with furious charge assaulting a model with warp scream in cover?

 

The charging unit would strike at I10. Charging takes them to I10, the -1 for Warp Scream is cancelled by the +1 for Furious Charge.

Basically, I feel you apply modifiers if at all possible (i.e. "break no rule" where possible).

Posted By Hellfury on 12/02/2006 7:43 PM


For the independant characters, I can see the point, as it isnt part of the squad entry so it isnt an "upgrade", persay.

But transports are basically a squad upgrade as it implies such in the entry. Thus I would have to vote that embarked units and their transports count as a single "unit" for the purpose of divination.

By your line of thinking, it would be feasible to disloge a warlock from a gaurdian unit, because it has a seperate entry in the HQ section. I know thats not the implication, but it isnt a far stretch that way either.

I would exclude IC's from being part of the embarked "unit" even if attached, but leave embarked units as a "unit" themselves.

I think I have a solution. Non scoring units. Transports are non scoring units. The emabrked units and their transport "upgrade" should be allowed entry into the divination rules as a single unit, while non upgrade transports as well as IC's should not.

fire dragons attached to autarch riding in a  falcon, for example. This would count as three.

Dire avengers in a serpent would count as one.

I think this seems fair, as it wont punish people buying upgrades, but will for the stronger elements of the army, such as snakes on a plane with farseer, etc.

Make any sense?

Il'll leave it up to your sense of language to word it better than my free-flowing-typing-while-thinking approach.

By the way this is a great exhaustive FAQ you have going here. It puts to shame FAQ's written by GW, adeptus windy city, or anywhere else that I have seen.

A transport and its embarked unit are still clearly seperate units unlike a unit with a Warlock leading it. The transport moves seperately, fires seperately and is ultimately worth seperate victory points. In fact, the only thing a dedicated transport does at the same time as its parent unit is that they are deployed at the same time (although not necessarily near each other).

A Warlock leading a unit moves, shoots and is deployed as part of the unit (and must stay with it the entire game).

But I digress, although I think your solution of only penalizing non-scoring transports is a nice one, I don't feel comfortable making the distinction. I think you either need to count all embarked units or ignore all embarked units.

Ultimately redeploying a big chunk of your army is a pretty bid advantage but I don't think it is necessarily going to win the game for you. So I'm thinking maybe I should just stick with the RAW and not have any embarked units count for Divination moves.

I think the Mixed Armour rules change regarding invulnerable saves is very elegant, but is missing something. Going by the answer, I actually MUST put a wound on the chappie in a marine squad if there are enough wounds. I would rather have the OPTION.

Posted By onlainari on 12/06/2006 8:34 PM
I think the Mixed Armour rules change regarding invulnerable saves is very elegant, but is missing something. Going by the answer, I actually MUST put a wound on the chappie in a marine squad if there are enough wounds. I would rather have the OPTION.

I'm curious about your response. Are you refering to RB.76E.02 or to RB.25.03?

Posted By yakface on 12/04/2006 9:48 PM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 12/02/2006 6:32 PM

3. We change the rules to determine Direct and Indirect effects of powers, and allow GKs/SoBs/BTs to ignore Directed effects, but not Indirect ones.

If we go with three, we then have to define what powers have a direct effect, and what powers have an indirect effect. Powers that target Self, such as Fuelled by Pain, would very clearly come under the 'indirect' umbrella. Powers that target enemy units (Beam of Slaanesh) would come under the direct.

And, as I have said, your current change of the rules Yak doesn't do any of this. It defines Direct without defining the opposite, and then defines everything as Direct.

BYE

You keep saying that I've defined everything as "direct" which simply isn't true. I did define what was direct and what wasn't direct in this particular case (minor psychic powers vs. "immune" models), you just don't care for my definition (which is fine).

I was attempting to replicate how I think the majority of players handle this issue without even thinking about it (what comes intuitively to them).

I can't be entirely sure if players would ignore the extra "Fueled by Pain" attacks when they were attacking "immune" models, but I felt that they probably do, although I could be wrong.

Even if I do change the "direct" definition" to those powers that target enemy units, Siren is still going to be an exception, as I am much more secure in the knowledge that most players intuitively let "immune" units ignore the Siren restrictions.

I would love to hear some other people's opinions on this issue. How do you play that units that are immune to minor powers handle some of the more obscure minor powers?

I feel this goes back and forth way to much and here is my way of resolving it.

There is a clear diference between the target of something and the effect of something. For example, if I fire a rocket into a tank the target may be the tank but their is still a direct effect against the crew inside.

So logically, my solution to the problem would be to seperate those two definitions.

Checklist for whether or not an immune model will be effected by a minor power.

1. Does that power target the model directly.

2. Does that power prohibit the model from doing anything that it would normally be able to do.

If the answer to either or both of those is yes than the power is having a direct effect on a model that is immune.

And I already hear the counter arguement. "Well Mahu, everything has an ambigous effect in the game" which is a stupid arguement, Like I said above, if a power is directly effecting a model, not in a round about way but the actual rule for the power in question is doing anything to the model, it is a direct effect and therefore would be ignored by models that ignor Minor powers.

99% of the players play it that way. And this is the second custom FAQ to rule that way to. If you don't like the ruling fine. Maybe Yakface will change it, but when it come to a custom FAQ that is making rules changes, you need to have a better arguement than an ambigous rule interpretaion.

Okay, so I updated the rulebook portion of the FAQ (v1.1), mainly incorporating a bit more of a snazzy look that should make the whole thing even easier to decipher.

Please let me know what you think of the format, cause I'd like some feedback before I spend the time re-formatting the codex file as well.

Do you like the font, the size, the borders, etc?

I obviously also still need to create and add a few diagrams (unless someone wants to help me out).


Thanks for all your help!

I like the formatting. Only nit is the color picture on the first page. Granted, one must love Sean Connery, but a color picture like that would be printer intensive work.

Posted By yakface on 12/07/2006 8:15 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/06/2006 8:34 PM
I think the Mixed Armour rules change regarding invulnerable saves is very elegant, but is missing something. Going by the answer, I actually MUST put a wound on the chappie in a marine squad if there are enough wounds. I would rather have the OPTION.

I'm curious about your response. Are you refering to RB.76E.02 or to RB.25.03?

25.03 slightly clarifies my question with the note. 76.E.02 by itself appears to make the unit mixed armour, even if the wounds do not ignore the save. For example, chappy and 6 assault marines are wounded 9 times. Powerfist is allocated the torrent of fire save. I want to take the other 8 saves all on the assault marines, but if the unit is mixed armour, I must allocate 1 or 2 to the chappy (1 or 2 due to there being a choice of who to allocate to first, 3+ saves or 3+/4++ saves). I want the option of allocating 1, 2, or 0 wounds to the chappy.

Is that too much to ask?

Also, in your codex FAQ, I don't see anything related to shooting at monat IC's behind stealths. I don't think it's clear and should be FAQ'd. Some people will argue that RAW the Stealth Field Generator rules do not allow you to ignore the rule on page 51.