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.

We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models.

carmachu wrote:There is nothing in the rules that allow shooting attacks to effect emback units. You're effectively making up a new rule and new way of dealing with shooting attacks.

Oh, not so much. You can fire flamers at units embarked in buildings. That's very similar to this.

Broken Loose wrote:We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models..

oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

R3con wrote:It seems the spirit leech ruling opens a huge can of worms. Can Najal's Storm effects now hit embarked units? What about the Vibro Cannon? Those are just two that come to mind.

I understand why you guys made the choice, but it seems that it will cause more problems than it fixes.

Njal's special rules specifically require line of sight to affect enemy models (the rule is over on the left hand column of his rules).

The Vibro-cannon is a shooting attack and we've already ruled that shooting at embarked units is not allowed.



This is honestly something NEW that GW hasn't done before, IMHO, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't intend for it to do something fairly unique. Only they can answer the intent question via their own FAQ.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:
oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

Honestly, that's what we're trying accomplish. The thing is, with this particular case either way we ruled there would be a large percentage of gamers unhappy with the ruling in all likelihood. But since Tyranid Pods don't arrive until at least turn 2 and given that embarked units get cover saves against Spirit Leech wounds honestly this is far from a game-breaking unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Okay I have read it and it's not bad at all. I do think Hive Guard show ignore night fight rules... They are blind as a bat Jon.

G

Well, in the rules LOS has nothing to do with spotting distance and it would be ridiculous to rule one way on the Hive Guard and not the same way on other units which have weapons that don't require LOS (like Tau Smart Missile systems, for example).

If you need a fluff idea to wrap your head around just imagine that while the Hive Guard don't need LOS, their little living ammo that flies around terrain is affected by a lack of light and gets confused the further it has to fly at night.

Redbeard wrote:Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

mikhaila wrote:3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

It will still work even if you play it that mawlocs cannot target units to deep strike into. The odds of success are much lower without being able to target units, but the basic concept of destroying units that cannot move out of the way works.

I don't see why this is such a huge deal. The mawloc has a 33% chance of hitting where it wants whether you let it aim for a unit or not. The other 66% of the time he scatters and has no rule for reducing his scatter like a drop pod or even a trygon so he'll average a 7" scatter somewhere. He still mishaps if he hits impassable terrain just like everyone else.

mikhaila wrote:

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

I feel what you're saying but I'm really confident that if GW rules on the matter that they'll back up what we've ruled exactly the same way. The only time they ruled on the subject before was with Spore Mines and they did rule that they were allowed to Deep Strike onto enemy models so I don't see why they'll suddenly change that idea for a unit that does essentially the same thing (i.e. wants to Deep Strike onto things).

And please remember, if you're using the INAT, then the only way players are getting a 2+ Reserves roll on turn 2 is if they have both the Swarmlord and a Hive Tyrant with 'Hive Commander' on the table at the start of the game (i.e. not in Reserves themselves), which is quite a few points to have on the table to 'unlock' this combo.

While it is possible to use Lictors to box in units to a degree, the models can move in any direction in order to escape the Mawloc's attack, so as long as the opponent leaves a bit of space between his units the Tyranid player will likely have to get all 3 units of Lictors in on the same turn in order to pull it all off. And if the Mawloc scatters (2/3 of the time), he could easily end up eating some of the Lictors instead!

But regardless of the potential for combo, the fact comes back to if you read the rules and fluff for the Mawloc and compare his points cost to that of the Trygon, IMHO it is really abundantly clear that GW intends for the emergence attack to be able to target whatever spot the Tyranid player wants.

Frankly, I'll be a little surprised if GW even FAQs this question as it seems like the kind of thing they think is 'obvious' to the casual player but if they do I'll be even more shocked if they rule the way you're suggesting (although I've been that shocked before, so it wouldn't be the first time).

mikhaila wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Since you're in an explaining mode, how is it that Mawlocs (and I noticed you all went back and added this to other sections, such as the monolith, as well) are allowed to deep strike without placing the model on the table, as the rules on page 95 clearly state?

I'm very disappointed in this latest set of "clarifications". In the past, the INT has been very conservative with regard to the interpretation of questionable rules. Disallowing a lash sorcerer joined to a unit from moving the target prior to a flamer in that unit from working, disallowing deff rollas from affecting vehicles, and generally erring on the side of caution.

Every questionable ruling on the tyranids is the liberal interpretation, in favour of the tyranid army. How you can claim that it's balanced to allow a hive tyrant to claim a cover save when he and a guard stand behind a couple of gaunts, but it's unbalanced to let a deff rolla hit a vehicle is beyond me.

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

So, against that list...don't have your troops in the vehicle?

The Mawloc displaces any unit it touches. If you put a few of your own models around the vehicle, it cannot possibly hit the vehicle but not the troops. The rest of the unit just needs to cover enough space that Lictors are inconvenienced trying to prevent the displaced units from sliding. Add in the improbability of a direct hit with the Mawloc, and this goes from "SCARY!" to "gimmick." But yes - you do have to deploy differently for different opponents.

(And if they've got 3 Mawlocs, and that many lictors, and a Hive Tyrant for the other +1...that's most of their army right there. And none of it has any meaningful guns.)

Not to mention that the Tyranid player is basically relying on a S6 pie plate fired at ballistic skill ZERO.

agnosto wrote:

Broken Loose wrote:We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models..

oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

"You people?" What's that supposed to mean?

Considering each of these 6T 6W MCs can be taken down by lasgun fire (impossible to do to vehicles) and with a single exception aren't scoring, I dare say the person complaining that their super special librarian hooding out my entire army from inside a land raider is entirely invincible is the one being cheesy. Not to mention that each of your units has a plethora of weapon choices capable of taking down these units with ease (meltas, plasmas, missiles) whereas I have to dedicate a maximum of 6 choices in my army to the job-- 5 if I'm taking the Doom, and that's not even accounting for the fact that the heavy support choices for taking out said vehicles are in the range of 265 points or more. Certainly you can avoid a single T4 creature with a 5+/3++ save and without an immunity to instant death? Or perhaps you'd like to be on the receiving end of a Lone Wolf, who you effectively have to avoid for the same purpose, as he kills your dudes while also bending the rules in such a way as to be quite possibly unfair. Killing a LW hurts your army and actively reduces your chance to win missions. Should we ban those?

I'll tell you what. I can pull random army lists out of random threads and find easily double to triple the number of vehicles in those lists as one could physically field 666 MCs in a Tyranids 5 army, much less a plethora of them. Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

We're not talking about game balance. We're talking about a bunch of people who are holding "block" in Street Fighter 2 and complaining when the opponent throws them. There's no way the Doom will kill you on turn 1, and there's no way he alone will kill you on turn 2 or 3. It's a single model unit that takes up a possible anti-tank slot in an army absolutely desperate for anti-tank weapons, whose purpose is to be anti-infantry in an army bleeding anti-infantry weapons out the ass. Not only that, but by stating that I'M a bad person for not liking to lose while complaining about how a certain unit will make you lose makes you incredibly hypocritical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

yakface wrote:
So from my reading, there is nothing in the rules preventing Spirit Leech from affecting embarked models. It is not a psychic power (which GW has disallowed from being used on embarked models) and it is not a shooting attack (which we have disallowed), so if we were to disallow Spirit Leech to not affect embarked models I do think we would most certainly be changing what the rules seem to indicate.

So?

The first iteration of the INAT FAQ had to contend with the Lash question. A rule that, in my opinion, was written quite clearly, and that the GW FAQ confirmed to work that way. It did something that nothing in the game had done before. And, for the sake of not having Adepticon break out in fist-fights (I think that was the justification), the INAT council took it upon themselves to change how that power worked, nerfing it.

That's been the precedent for how the council works. Yes, you change rules. There are any number of places in the FAQ labelled as rules changes. Because, in the absence of any very specific rule saying you can do something that hasn't been done before, it's a good idea to err on the side of "no you can't". Only, not for nids.

There are powers in the game that you've rule changes with this last edition. Aura of Decay may be a shooting attack, but the power clearly states that it affects "all enemy models within 6" of the daemon". Last time I checked, specific rules from codexes trumped general rules (requiring line of sight) from the rulebook. I don't know how much clearer a rule can be that says, "all enemy models within 6" of the daemon", but you rule changed this to protect models that aren't within line-of-sight. And this isn't even a big deal, oooh a S2 hit with no AP.

Yet on powers that could potentially have a large impact on games at Adepticon (mawlocs and doom, specifically), sure, let them do whatever they want. It's not even a question of whether there would be rules changes or not. Who cares. The INAT team has shown willingness to make rules changes for a better balanced game, or for a better Adepticon. The question is why did the nids get the beneficial rulings, while other armies are getting already weak powers further nerfed.

Janthkin wrote:
Except it's not a shooting attack. It doesn't even follow the majority of the shooting attack rules.

Irrelevant. There is NO precedent for allowing anything to harm models in transports while the transport is intact. None. In any edition. Not in 4th, not in 3rd, Not in 5th.

Thats an absolutely bad ruling.

Perils of the Warp.


Flamers used on units embarked in buildings.


Overheating plasma guns, pistols, and cannons.


Let's see what else I can think of in the next 30 seconds.

Broken Loose wrote:Not to mention that the Tyranid player is basically relying on a S6 pie plate fired at ballistic skill ZERO.

agnosto wrote:

Broken Loose wrote:We're talking about a passive special rule that affects embarked models, just like psychic hoods, straken's leadership aura, and so on.

It seems that you people really want your impenetrable metal boxes to be magical god mode containers for your models..

oh contrare; it seems that YOU people are bound and determined to break every new army book that comes out. Geez, just play the game and try, I know it's hard, to have some fun instead of just attempting to find a way to win in 1 turn or make it where no one wants to play against you.


Not all of us can take a plethora of 6T 6W monstrous creatures so we have to have some way to protect our squishy scoring units.

"You people?" What's that supposed to mean?

Considering each of these 6T 6W MCs can be taken down by lasgun fire (impossible to do to vehicles) and with a single exception aren't scoring, I dare say the person complaining that their super special librarian hooding out my entire army from inside a land raider is entirely invincible is the one being cheesy. Not to mention that each of your units has a plethora of weapon choices capable of taking down these units with ease (meltas, plasmas, missiles) whereas I have to dedicate a maximum of 6 choices in my army to the job-- 5 if I'm taking the Doom, and that's not even accounting for the fact that the heavy support choices for taking out said vehicles are in the range of 265 points or more. Certainly you can avoid a single T4 creature with a 5+/3++ save and without an immunity to instant death? Or perhaps you'd like to be on the receiving end of a Lone Wolf, who you effectively have to avoid for the same purpose, as he kills your dudes while also bending the rules in such a way as to be quite possibly unfair. Killing a LW hurts your army and actively reduces your chance to win missions. Should we ban those?

I'll tell you what. I can pull random army lists out of random threads and find easily double to triple the number of vehicles in those lists as one could physically field 666 MCs in a Tyranids 5 army, much less a plethora of them. Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

We're not talking about game balance. We're talking about a bunch of people who are holding "block" in Street Fighter 2 and complaining when the opponent throws them. There's no way the Doom will kill you on turn 1, and there's no way he alone will kill you on turn 2 or 3. It's a single model unit that takes up a possible anti-tank slot in an army absolutely desperate for anti-tank weapons, whose purpose is to be anti-infantry in an army bleeding anti-infantry weapons out the ass. Not only that, but by stating that I'M a bad person for not liking to lose while complaining about how a certain unit will make you lose makes you incredibly hypocritical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

At risk of sounding childish, you in fact started the whole "you people" train.

I play tau; I have none of the beardy nonsense you're talking about. Sure I have railguns but it would take me an entire round of shooting to possibly down 1 carnifex, not to mention a whole unit of 3. Turn 2 the mawlocs come in and kill my transports and tanks because they all have rear armor 10. Yay for me, the models I've spent hours and hours painting are on the field for all of 15 minutes. Leadership 7 means doom kills off any firewarriors or kroot I've got hiding in woods or buildings (more like cringing). With 9 or more monstrous creatures coming at me across the field, there's no way I can support enough fire to down them before they wipe out my entire army and this beardy nonsense with giving powers that wipe out models based upon leadership is just icing on the cake for my army.

So no, I'm not ashamed of myself because the only thing my tau will be good at when playing the new nids is dying and I never said you, or anyone, is a bad person. I stated that it's a game, we should be trying to have fun not take away our opponents' fun. I see people at my FLGS that nobody wants to play against because there's no point. I mean would you want to play when you know for a fact that there's no chance you'll win? I don't. Heck, I'm not a good player but I love my tau, weak as they are, and play nearly every week because for me it's a fun game and I enjoy the time with friends.

I loved the three amigos quote by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Broken Loose wrote:Perils of the Warp.


Flamers used on units embarked in buildings.


Overheating plasma guns, pistols, and cannons.


Let's see what else I can think of in the next 30 seconds.

He clearly stated transports, not buildings so flamers are obviously out.

your other choices are things you do to yourself not what you opponent does to you.

Well, pass your leadership test and you won't hurt yourself.

Janthkin wrote:
It's kinda funny - simultaneously, many Tyranid players are bitching about the horrible rulings that prevent reserves bonuses from stacking/applying, and various other fun topics. If no one's happy, I think that means they did their job?

You're kidding, right? The reserve thing is identical to GW FAQ for the identically worded guard advisor bonus.

Other than that, what horrible rulings for tyranids?

Let's see, ignoring "what happens" type questions, we get:

Does Shadow of the Warp hit embarked psykers - yes
If there is no area terrain, can a lurking unit move to other terrain to get a save? - yes
Do two tyrants let you outflank two units - yes
Can you stack a lictor's reserve bonus with a tyrants - yes
Does the Old Adversary rule grant preferred enemy everything - yes
Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes
Do the guard work like a retinue in assault though - yes
Can a tyrant with guard get a cover save from hiding behind gaunts - yes
Do tyrant guard get blind rampage from the swarmlord - yes
Can Blinding Venom hurt enemies too tough for gargoyles to wound - yes
Can different zoanthropes use different powers - yes
Spore mines ignored as Kill points/victory points - yes
Do assault spore mines get to have as many models in contact with them as possible before they explode? - yes
Can spore mines deep strike ontop of enemy models - yes
Do exploding pyrovore hits count for combat resolution - yes
Can a Mawloc deep strike on top of an enemy model - yes
Can a mawloc move an immobile object - yes
Can a mycetic spore shoot when it arrives - yes
Can IC's join a unit with a spore - yes
Can you drop empty mycetic spores - yes
Can swarmlord grant himself powers - yes
Does swarmlord's preferred enemy hit every possible enemy - yes
Can swarmlord's Alien Cunning stack with a lictor or hive tyrant - yes
Does Doom count as a zoanthrope for getting a 3+ inv save - yes
Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes
Can Doom gain wounds from models dying when a vehicle explodes - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" get passed on, by units that do that - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" work when he's in reserve - yes
Can Deathleaper render a unit completely unable to move - yes
Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes
Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

Can you stack tyrant reserve bonuses - no*
Can your commander get his bonus if he's not on the table - no*
Can you stack lictor reserve bonuses - no*
Can swarmlord's reserve rules be used if he's in reserve - no*

These four all directly correspond to GW's rulings on guard advisors though. And you can stack a lictor's bonus with a tyrants...

Can raveners climb stairs - no**
Can tyrant guard ignore night-fight - no**
Can swarmlord use the same power twice - no**
When a unit of lictors are placed, can they avoid unit coherency rules - no**
Does swarmlord get an invul save against shooting - no**

I think those ones fall under wishful thinking...


So, what rulings actually went 'against' the Tyranids:

A few that say other armies get cover saves against tyranid attacks:
Do Mawlocs ignore cover when arriving- no
Does spirit leech ignore cover - no
Can an impaler cannon ignore cover-granting effects - no

One that says that a tyrant who can leave his retinue has to be worth a separate KP:
Are the guard and the tyrant worth only one kill point - no

One that says that you can't deliberately allocate wounds to the tyrant for the purpose of getting furious charge on the guard in the same phase:
Can tyrant guard retroactively get furious charge if the tyrant dies - no

And one that mirrors the rulings for other "all models in a range" shooting powers (like Aura of Decay):
Can Psychic Scream ignore LOS restrictions - no


Even counting the "wishful thinking" rulings (like raveners being able to not be beasts for purposes of entering upper levels of ruins), the pro-tyranid outnumber the 'rulings against' by more than 2 to 1. And all of the rulings with the potential for real game-breaking effects went in favour of the tyranids. If you take out the rulings that directly mimic GW's IG FAQ, and the wishful thinking ones, the overall tally is more like 6-1 in favour of pro-nid rulings.

Any tyranid player complaining about this set of rulings isn't thinking straight.

Redbeard wrote:

Let's see, ignoring "what happens" type questions, we get:

Does Shadow of the Warp hit embarked psykers - yes
If there is no area terrain, can a lurking unit move to other terrain to get a save? - yes
Do two tyrants let you outflank two units - yes
Can you stack a lictor's reserve bonus with a tyrants - yes
Does the Old Adversary rule grant preferred enemy everything - yes
Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes
Do the guard work like a retinue in assault though - yes
Can a tyrant with guard get a cover save from hiding behind gaunts - yes
Do tyrant guard get blind rampage from the swarmlord - yes
Can Blinding Venom hurt enemies too tough for gargoyles to wound - yes
Can different zoanthropes use different powers - yes
Spore mines ignored as Kill points/victory points - yes
Do assault spore mines get to have as many models in contact with them as possible before they explode? - yes
Can spore mines deep strike ontop of enemy models - yes
Do exploding pyrovore hits count for combat resolution - yes
Can a Mawloc deep strike on top of an enemy model - yes
Can a mawloc move an immobile object - yes
Can a mycetic spore shoot when it arrives - yes
Can IC's join a unit with a spore - yes
Can you drop empty mycetic spores - yes
Can swarmlord grant himself powers - yes
Does swarmlord's preferred enemy hit every possible enemy - yes
Can swarmlord's Alien Cunning stack with a lictor or hive tyrant - yes
Does Doom count as a zoanthrope for getting a 3+ inv save - yes
Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes
Can Doom gain wounds from models dying when a vehicle explodes - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" get passed on, by units that do that - yes
Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" work when he's in reserve - yes
Can Deathleaper render a unit completely unable to move - yes
Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes
Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

Which of those do think are actually wrong? The only ones I think are even questionable are the lurkings nids going to non-area terrain, the tyrant guard as retinue and how the spore mines work when assaulted. The rest seem to be simple RAW to me.

If you take out the rulings that directly mimic GW's IG FAQ, and the wishful thinking ones, the overall tally is more like 6-1 in favour of pro-nid rulings.

Any tyranid player complaining about this set of rulings isn't thinking straight.

So you're assuming that all of these questions have an equal impact on the game, and that simply by virtue of having a positive answer these questions somehow unbalance the game in favor of the nids?

yakface wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

I am with you on this, in regards to being able to target units with deepstrike. I've gotten six calls from players asking about this for upcoming tournaments. 3 mawlocs popping in on a 2+ on turn 2 seems to be the idea, along with surrounding vehicles with lictors so units can't move and are destroyed.

Really, really disagree with this.

That does essentially the same thing (i.e. wants to Deep Strike onto things).

And please remember, if you're using the INAT, then the only way players are getting a 2+ Reserves roll on turn 2 is if they have both the Swarmlord and a Hive Tyrant with 'Hive Commander' on the table at the start of the game (i.e. not in Reserves themselves), which is quite a few points to have on the table to 'unlock' this combo.

While it is possible to use Lictors to box in units to a degree, the models can move in any direction in order to escape the Mawloc's attack, so as long as the opponent leaves a bit of space between his units the Tyranid player will likely have to get all 3 units of Lictors in on the same turn in order to pull it all off. And if the Mawloc scatters (2/3 of the time), he could easily end up eating some of the Lictors instead!

In defense of that tactic/Mikhaila, you could do this rather easily with a pod assault Nid army.

Start the Mawlocs on the board, first turn burrow (Guaranteed second turn attack)
Say 6ish pods in your army, should get at least 3
2 Lictor broods, should get at least 1


Really, if you were to play a Pod assault army I don't see why you shouldn't attempt something like this. 3 attempts at a hit should yield you one and if that's a Land Raider full of Thunder Terms + Vulkan.....ouch. Again though, this is situational/risky.

Ah, Yakface's "interpretation" of how the rules work is always a good read. Always makes me laugh.

I love how the rulings continually contradict themselves or established rules in the BRB.

Oh, well. Makes me happy I didn't buy an adepticon ticket, as if I had went, I would have wanted to play 40k...

CptZach wrote:Ah, Yakface's "interpretation" of how the rules work is always a good read. Always makes me laugh.

I love how the rulings continually contradict themselves or established rules in the BRB.

Oh, well. Makes me happy I didn't buy an adepticon ticket, as if I had went, I would have wanted to play 40k...

The Adepticon council is a group of players whom do this outside of their personal/professional lives with no financial incentive. They do this to increase players enjoyment of the game at the Con and help make the event run smoothly.

Now, while I may or may not agree with each individual ruling I certainly don't consider this as allowance to be rude (We are after all, discussing a game regarding toy soldiers). They always attempt to answer any concerns players may have and are transparent with the online community regarding their reasons.

i'm kind of surprised by spore mines cant assault since they are infantry which are allowed to assault, and nothing in any rule anywhere i could find says they couldnt.
though not "moving" in the movement phase because they have a mandatory movement requirement i'm fine with.


i think inat missed one, tervigons shooting a friendly unit with psychic power. can they also target a enemy unit with a different power/shooting? assault a differen unit? or maybe its answered somewhere else but i didnt see it. as this also is one that gw has never done before with shooting your own units.

Arschbombe wrote:

If you take out the rulings that directly mimic GW's IG FAQ, and the wishful thinking ones, the overall tally is more like 6-1 in favour of pro-nid rulings.

Any tyranid player complaining about this set of rulings isn't thinking straight.

So you're assuming that all of these questions have an equal impact on the game, and that simply by virtue of having a positive answer these questions somehow unbalance the game in favor of the nids?

That's right. Because we're not thinking straight. Clearly the Doom was intended to be something used against mech armies, and the various alternative deployment options weren't intended to be good or useful against the same or otherwise.

And that is my way of saying I'd trade many of these "positive rulings" for some positive rulings around reserves, because neutered alternative deployment has many implications for Tyranids in the current metagame. But it is what it is. Hopefully GW will get us a good FAQ in a timely fashion like they did with SW.

Arschbombe wrote:
Which of those do think are actually wrong? The only ones I think are even questionable are the lurkings nids going to non-area terrain, the tyrant guard as retinue and how the spore mines work when assaulted. The rest seem to be simple RAW to me.

Which ones do I think are questionable:

If there is no area terrain, can a lurking unit move to other terrain to get a save? - yes

There's no reason for this. If there's no area terrain, sitting where you are is just as supported by RAW.

Can a tyrant leave a unit of guard - yes

Nothing supports this either. The rule says that the tyrant may join a unit. It says nothing about being allowed to leave it as an IC.


Can a tyrant with guard get a cover save from hiding behind gaunts - yes

I think they got the ruling right here, but I can see the argument from the other side. RAI, Monstrous Creatures cannot claim cover saves unless they're 50% obscured. It's not cut&dried.


Do assaulted spore mines get to have as many models in contact with them as possible before they explode? - yes

Again, nothing backs this up. One model from a unit moves into contact with the spore mine, and then the condition ("touches an enemy model") is met, and the "immediately explodes" should apply, immediately, not after you move all the other assaulting models. Order of moving assaulting models is clearly defined to be one at a time (every model must move to be in coherency with another model that has already moved), and so these are individual events. Moving into an assault is non-atomic, and so this explosion should interrupt the rest of the models moving.

Can spore mines deep strike ontop of enemy models - yes
Can a Mawloc deep strike on top of an enemy model - yes

The rules for deep strike, on page 95 of the main rulebook state that you must "place one model from the unit anywhere on the table". My models are not the table. They don't say 'point to where you want to deep strike', or 'indicate where you want to land', they say 'place a model on the table'.

Can Spirit Leech hit units in vehicles - yes

Nothing in the rules has ever allowed this.

Can Doom gain wounds from models dying when a vehicle explodes - yes

A model that dies when a vehicle explosion was not killed by a wound inflicted by the Doom, it was killed by a wound inflicted by an exploding vehicle. No reason for Doom to gain life off of this.


Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes

Why? Setting a trait to a value is modifying that trait just as much as applying a +1 or a -1. This is a modifier, and stubborn units ignore modifiers.


Can Deathleaper render a unit completely unable to move - yes

I don't think there is a unit in the game that only rolls 1d6 for movement distance, so this is probably academic, but RAW, Deathleaper's rule even says, "to a minimum of one".


Do tyranid close-combat weapon effects stack - yes

I can see both sides of this argument. I think they got it right, but it's not cut&dried.

Do lash whips trump positive initiative modifiers - yes

Why?? If I can get +1i, why is that applied before, not after, the lash whip modification?

So you're assuming that all of these questions have an equal impact on the game, and that simply by virtue of having a positive answer these questions somehow unbalance the game in favor of the nids?

Nope. But I think that the great disparity between those that favour the nid codex and those that don't shows some sort of unintended bias. I'll repeat again, so that there's no misunderstanding, that I don't believe this bias to be intentional on the part of the FAQ writers. I don't believe they're doing it for personal gain. But I do believe there is a bias in these rulings.

Oh god... this reminds me of the game I played in 3rd Ed with my nids vs a Blood Angels Mech army.

I was shooting Spore Mines and he used the same TFG argument. The codex says when you shot a spore mine that you can place the mine anywhere on the table and roll for scatter.

I was aiming for his tank and put it on the Rhino and he called a judge over, the spore mine was not "ON THE TABLE".

Spineless Judge said, "um, yep thats what the codex says". I just left the game after that.

This is what happens when people are TOO literal, there is no easy way to say you can place the spore mine anywhere you want to, GW would have to list ever piece and type of terrain and model etc... That could be a paragraph or two just by itself.

lixulana wrote:i think inat missed one, tervigons shooting a friendly unit with psychic power. can they also target a enemy unit with a different power/shooting? assault a differen unit? or maybe its answered somewhere else but i didnt see it. as this also is one that gw has never done before with shooting your own units.

The Tervigon has only psychic shooting attack (Onslaught). Per the existing rules, nothing gives the Tervigon an exemption from the "only shoot one target" rules, or the "assault what you shoot" rules. So, if you use Onslaught, you're not assaulting the enemy that turn. Seems pretty clear, without much need for additional clarification.

Do we know for a fact the council does not financially benefit from Adepticon?

G

AgeOfEgos wrote:

CptZach wrote:Ah, Yakface's "interpretation" of how the rules work is always a good read. Always makes me laugh.

I love how the rulings continually contradict themselves or established rules in the BRB.

Oh, well. Makes me happy I didn't buy an adepticon ticket, as if I had went, I would have wanted to play 40k...

The Adepticon council is a group of players whom do this outside of their personal/professional lives with no financial incentive. They do this to increase players enjoyment of the game at the Con and help make the event run smoothly.

Now, while I may or may not agree with each individual ruling I certainly don't consider this as allowance to be rude (We are after all, discussing a game regarding toy soldiers). They always attempt to answer any concerns players may have and are transparent with the online community regarding their reasons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
the forgeworld spore mines were extremely controversial that year.

G

Chapterhouse wrote:Oh god... this reminds me of the game I played in 3rd Ed with my nids vs a Blood Angels Mech army.

I was shooting Spore Mines and he used the same TFG argument. The codex says when you shot a spore mine that you can place the mine anywhere on the table and roll for scatter.

I was aiming for his tank and put it on the Rhino and he called a judge over, the spore mine was not "ON THE TABLE".

Spineless Judge said, "um, yep thats what the codex says". I just left the game after that.

This is what happens when people are TOO literal, there is no easy way to say you can place the spore mine anywhere you want to, GW would have to list ever piece and type of terrain and model etc... That could be a paragraph or two just by itself.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Do we know for a fact the council does not financially benefit from Adepticon?

G

Without seeing their books, no =p. Greg pretty much stated as much in this thread "without any true benefit beyond the knowledge that we are hopefully helping community members remove potential arguments during game play and increase the chances of having a fun time." I'm assuming that includes financial gain.

Well Greenie .. as with any volunteer at AdeptiCon they get a badge maybe depending on what else they are involved with an event ticket. I am sure that figures out to be about 25 cents an hour for most the guys. Less for Yakface...

I'm sure it's well worth it for the amount of abuse that they are then subject to by segements of the community.

Do we know for a fact the council does not financially benefit from Adepticon?

Adepticon is set up as a NFP. They do not financially benefit.

muwhe wrote:Well Greenie .. as with any volunteer at AdeptiCon they get a badge maybe depending on what else they are involved with an event ticket. I am sure that figures out to be about 25 cents an hour for most the guys.

I'm sure it's well worth it for the amount of abuse that they are then subject to by segements of the community.

Don't forget the free ticket to the after-con poker tournament, Hank!

*sigh*

It doesn't get said enough, but thank you again for running the best convention I've ever had the opportunity to attend. The FAQ helps the 800+ games of 40k that are played over the 3 major tournaments to run more smoothly, and that's an incredible thing.

Does Deathleaper's "It's after me" overrule - stubborn - yes

Why? Setting a trait to a value is modifying that trait just as much as applying a +1 or a -1. This is a modifier, and stubborn units ignore modifiers.

Stubborn only works when Morale Checks are needed.

I'm not 100% in agreement with all the Nid rulings, and I think Redbeard makes some useful points, which may be worth consideration later this year, the next time the council guys can get to reviewing them.

That said, the INAT remains the best, most useful, and most comprehensive FAQ in the world. It has helped make my Adepticon experiences the past two years smoother and more fun.

Thanks again to Hank and to all the volunteers on the council. It’s an absolutely class act, and it’s no accident that this is one of the premier wargaming events in the world.