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.

ryan3740 wrote:
By the way, lots of people play dawn of war deployment incorrectly. It doesn't make them right. I still have to correct people that 1 HQ unit means farseer or warlocks, not both.

What? No it doesn't! They are the same unit!!!

ryan3740 wrote: Your B. is not supported by the rules.

It's supported by the INAT's interpretation of the rules (as stated) and I don't think I am wrong in stating that their ruling was based on the definition of "Last turn" in reference to the Immobilized portion of the rules for skimmers moving flat out. (Feel free to correct me Yak)

ryan3740 wrote:
The rules do not say I get a cover save or get wrecked the same turn I move flat out.

Actually, they do, if you are being shot at/the subject of some special ability during the movement phase/shooting phase that would allow cover saves, or even some magic rule that does not yet exist (but could one day) that would allow Cover Saves to be taken from a type of attack in the assault phase ((All of these on your opponents turn)) you would fulfill both requirements of
"Moved Flat out last movement phase(Yours)"
and
"Move flat out last turn(Yours)"

ryan3740 wrote:
What I'm saying is you're missing this interpretation

C: You get a coversave when shot at. If you fail your coversave and get immobilised you become wrecked.

This is right, and actually would fall under either A or B (As both cover the opponents shooting phase) The difference in interpretation depends on when YOU have to worry about being immobilized during YOUR(not your opponents) turn of moving flat out (either in the movement. shooting or assault).

ryan3740 wrote:
That's the only thing that makes sense to me. It's either that or A. I see no rules to support B. The only thing that I see that supports B is the 3rd and 4th edition rulebooks.

The problem is that C doesn't really apply to A or B, unless you are saying that C is the ONLY time you get the coversave/immobiwrecked, in which case, you'd need to cite in the rules where it says both of these instances only occur via Shooting attacks during your opponents shooting phase (Neither does, the Cover save merely says "If you moved flat out, you count as obscured till your next move" and the Immobiwrecked simple says "If you moved flat out, treat (any) Immobilized as wrecked."

ryan3740 wrote:
By the way, lots of people play dawn of war deployment incorrectly. It doesn't make them right. I still have to correct people that 1 HQ unit means farseer or warlocks, not both.

This has already been mentioned... but you are wrong here...

A Blood Angels player can begin a DoW Game with the following legal models deployed"

HQ: Honor Guard + Sanguinary Priest x 3 (1/1 unit of HQ)

Troop: Death Company with Lemartes + Astorath the Grim + Sanguinary Priest x3 (1/2 Unit of Troops)

Troop: Sanguinary Guard + Dante + Sanguinary Priest x 3 (2/2 Unit of Troops)

And still be perfectly legal in terms of deployment for the DoW rules... (I Suggest you reread page 48 Left hand Bullet 1)

Hope that helps,
~DAR

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
This has already been mentioned... but you are wrong here...

A Blood Angels player can begin a DoW Game with the following legal models deployed"

HQ: Honor Guard + Sanguinary Priest x 3 (1/1 unit of HQ)

Troop: Death Company with Lemartes + Astorath the Grim + Sanguinary Priest x3 (1/2 Unit of Troops)

Troop: Sanguinary Guard + Dante + Sanguinary Priest x 3 (2/2 Unit of Troops)

And still be perfectly legal in terms of deployment for the DoW rules... (I Suggest you reread page 48 Left hand Bullet 1)

Hope that helps,
~DAR

Sorry, but joining units, deploying units, and selecting units from the FOC are not the same.

If you play the way you mentioned above, then that's only 3 Kill Points. Since, in the annihilation mission it says all UNITS are worth one kill point.

DAR - to be fair you are wrong on this. DoW asks about *units*, not *FOC selections / choices* - so you may not put ANY sanguinary priests down (theyre elite arent they?) as they are an elite unit.

It also says that a transport vehicle and its unit are separate in terms of kill points and pretty much everything else, yet per official FAQ, the same squad can assault the passangers if they shot down the transport, even when the rulebook says you a unit can only assault another unit that they shot at in the previous shooting phase. For example.

FYI, Farseer and warlocks are 1 HQ choice. Warlocks cannot be fielded at all without a Farseer(or other units that they can be added to), so that would pretty much break the game for Eldar before it even starts.

As far as Shooting at Skimmers debate goes...well, it stands to reason they'd mention the "if it moved flat out in its last turn" because the only way the opponent's unit is going to shoot at your skimmer is if your turn has passed(hence the "last turn" turn of phrase) and you get a cover save because you moved flat out in your last turn.

The mistake is that they failed to mention anywhere what we should do for immobilization while failing terrain checks, but it's pretty obvious to me, since, in fact, the phrase "in its last turn" is said in the opponent's shooting phase, hence the movement phase in which the immobilize has happened can only be your last movement phase in reference to the opponent's next shooting phase.

ryan3740 wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Or B:
You have the chance of both occuring the moment you move flat out, and only until your next movement phase (Which is how the INAT rules it, and is the general way this rule is played)

You'd have the save and the Immobiwrecked at the same times (starting at the movement phase in which you move flat out) but NOT counting if you ram during that movement phase.

I agree it's how most people play it, myself included until today. Your B. is not supported by the rules. The rules do not say I get a cover save or get wrecked the same turn I move flat out. What I'm saying is you're missing this interpretation

C: You get a coversave when shot at. If you fail your coversave and get immobilised you become wrecked.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me. It's either that or A. I see no rules to support B. The only thing that I see that supports B is the 3rd and 4th edition rulebooks.

By the way, lots of people play dawn of war deployment incorrectly. It doesn't make them right. I still have to correct people that 1 HQ unit means farseer or warlocks, not both.

Ryan,

I think the thing you're still misunderstanding (from my point of view) is the idea that a rule which is written in a certain section of the rulebook *only* applies to that section of the game, when in reality the rulebook is literally riddled with examples that this is not the case.

I mean, just from a devil's advocate perspective what if a rule in the Vehicles Shooting Phase section said something crazy like: "If a vehicle is destroyed in an assault, then X happens." Based on your narrow interpretation that you've been sticking to, what would you do? Play that the rule only applies to vehicles destroyed in the shooting phase (somehow via an assault)? Obviously there are some situations where rules placed in one section of the rulebook can potentially apply to other sections of the rulebook. In fact, there are many, many such actual cases.

For example, if you look in the general rules for vehicles, you'll find that ALL the rules for damage are found in...that's right...the Shooting Phase section, so is it very surprising to find a rule related to damaging skimmers located in the 'Shooting at Skimmers' section?

But more importantly we've been talking about what happens when a vehicle gets immobilized in the movement phase. But hold on a second, the rules for immobilizing a vehicle are only found in the Shooting Phase section of the vehicle rules, so how can we be resolving that rule against damage inflicted in the movement phase?

The truth is, the rules are laid out so that you reference the Shooting Phase damage rules whenever the vehicle takes damage and this rule regarding immobilized skimmers that moved flat-out is exactly the same concept. It is *not* written to specifically apply only to damage suffered in the shooting phase and therefore it is always applied.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DAR - to be fair you are wrong on this. DoW asks about *units*, not *FOC selections / choices* - so you may not put ANY sanguinary priests down (theyre elite arent they?) as they are an elite unit.

I guess this is correct... I re-read the "example" they list Dawn of War is a worse deployment type then I originally thought...

Either way, the original point on the topic of the thread still stands... but Yak did a pretty good job encompassing that already...

Not really - it stops you from deploying 2 huge guard platoons who mass fire you as you appear. Or 2 dedicated BA LR fill with DC. Etc.

Yakface, I do understand your point. It is just more convincing to me that the two paragraphs I'm mentioning are right next to each other and use the same phrase. If you don't agree with my idea about choice C, then that's fine.

I think I need to start another post on Dawn of War. If there already is one, then can someone please sticky it. The forum Search is not working this morning. If not, I'll write up a detailed article / rules clarificaton and post it next week.

Araenion wrote:FYI, Farseer and warlocks are 1 HQ choice. Warlocks cannot be fielded at all without a Farseer(or other units that they can be added to), so that would pretty much break the game for Eldar before it even starts.

Page 92 Multiple Unit Choices and Page 87 Other exceptions explain it quite differently. In the Eldar codex it says for every farseer you may take a squad of warlocks. The warlocks count as an HQ choice, but do not take up a FOC selection. It's the same as Space Marine command squads, SM honor guard and Tyrant Guard. They still count as an HQ unit. If you still don't believe me, then how many kill points do you give them in a mission that assigns KPs based on Force Organization?

This is correct Ryan - you DONT get to deploy Farseer+ Warlocks as they are two HQ units until the game starts. You can deploy either, however there is no requirement for the warlocks to join the Farseer at all. They are NOT a retinue.

No need to start a thread on it, what a unit is and what can be deployed is a settled answer that still confuses some people. Easiest way is normally to point to the example given that a dedicated transport is a different unit to the troops that bought it.

Eldar have a vehicle upgrade called Vectored Engines that on any immobilized result that counts as a crash, Then the vehicle makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that round.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is correct Ryan - you DONT get to deploy Farseer+ Warlocks as they are two HQ units until the game starts. You can deploy either, however there is no requirement for the warlocks to join the Farseer at all. They are NOT a retinue.

No need to start a thread on it, what a unit is and what can be deployed is a settled answer that still confuses some people. Easiest way is normally to point to the example given that a dedicated transport is a different unit to the troops that bought it.

In the Eldar Codex it states that a Farseer may take up to 3-10 warlocks as a single HQ choice. I don't know how that counts in Kill Points, but they still are one HQ unit. Warlocks are retinue to the Farseer as they are upgradable under the Farseer's entry. Warlocks are not even a legit HQ they are like the DE 3rd edition Incubi or Space marine Command Squad. They can never be taken as a separate HQ they upgrade to make a larger HQ unit.

No, they are an HQ unit that doesnt take up a FOC slot. You can only BUY them if you take a Farseer, however NOTHING in the rules makes them a retinue.

As such they are a seperate unit, are hit seperately from any attached IC in close combat, and so on. And yes, this means they are a seperate KP as well.

I always play them as separate KP, but I wasn't aware the Farseer can detach from the Council at any point during the game. And yes, I knew they weren't a retinue, so that the Seer can be hit separately in CC. I just thought it's some weird Eldar-specific thing.

Daemonhound63 wrote:Eldar have a vehicle upgrade called Vectored Engines that on any immobilized result that counts as a crash, Then the vehicle makes a forced landing as if it had not moved that round.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is correct Ryan - you DONT get to deploy Farseer+ Warlocks as they are two HQ units until the game starts. You can deploy either, however there is no requirement for the warlocks to join the Farseer at all. They are NOT a retinue.

No need to start a thread on it, what a unit is and what can be deployed is a settled answer that still confuses some people. Easiest way is normally to point to the example given that a dedicated transport is a different unit to the troops that bought it.

In the Eldar Codex it states that a Farseer may take up to 3-10 warlocks as a single HQ choice. I don't know how that counts in Kill Points, but they still are one HQ unit. Warlocks are retinue to the Farseer as they are upgradable under the Farseer's entry. Warlocks are not even a legit HQ they are like the DE 3rd edition Incubi or Space marine Command Squad. They can never be taken as a separate HQ they upgrade to make a larger HQ unit.

Ya know, if that were true then Calgar could possibly have three retinues...................... Bottom line, the Warlocks are not a retinue, they are a separate unit, and you cannot deploy two HQ units during Dawn of War. Sure, you have to buy a farseer to unlock their availability, but the same is true of dedicated transports. Do you consider your Wave Serpents to be part of the unit for which they are bought? Didn't think so. So why is this any different? It isn't.

Really getting off the original topic on this one and there has been multiple threads already about it. DoW is about units, not FoC slots etc so transports are even considered seperate.

If you buy locks then they do not take up a 2nd hq slot however they are not a retinue so they are a seperate unit in all respects, thus you can not deploy locks a farseer because that is 2 HQ units. Additionally if you fielded something like a Farseer, 5 DA, and a Wave serpent then you have used your HQ and 2 troops because the transport is a seperate unit and was purchase for a troop slot therefor eats a troop allotment for DoW.


Yes, it makes DoW very restricting on deployment... but that is the purpose of DoW.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:DAR - to be fair you are wrong on this. DoW asks about *units*, not *FOC selections / choices* - so you may not put ANY sanguinary priests down (theyre elite arent they?) as they are an elite unit.

I guess this is correct... I re-read the "example" they list Dawn of War is a worse deployment type then I originally thought...

Either way, the original point on the topic of the thread still stands... but Yak did a pretty good job encompassing that already...

If I could deploy three dedicated land raiders and all my ics turn one halfway up the board, I'd never lose.

Also I'm a fan of B) even if I'll argue to the death against using the blanket INAT faq.

ryan3740 wrote:Yakface, I do understand your point. It is just more convincing to me that the two paragraphs I'm mentioning are right next to each other and use the same phrase. If you don't agree with my idea about choice C, then that's fine.

I don't think the problem is that he(nor I) doesn't agree with your "Point C" as your "Point C" is correct according to the rules, but your point C doesn't address Dangerous Terrain Tests or the Assault phase, and if you are saying "It does not have to because it does not apply to anything but enemy shooting" then you'd really need to use some rules to support that claim.


Also, I'ma start reporting kids who keep bringing up DoW in this thread. If you want to talk about DoW and how it works, please make a new thread about it. The grown ups are trying to speak. (Not directed at anyone in specific)

I in no way am talking about kill points. That said, Warlocks are retinue to the Farseer, meaning the Farseer is an upgraded character when accompanied by Warlocks meaning they cannot be called out in close combat and also can be fielded as one HQ unit in Dawn of War

Fact 1

Rulebook Facts (Retinue)

A armies codex that allows you to field characters with a special unit they cannot leave during the game. Units normally called a "retinue", "bodyguard", or similar. If the character is fielded as so, then they count as a upgrade character until all of the unit's other members are killed. If this occurs then the character counts as a Independent Character and will do so for the rest of the game.

pg 48 of Rulebook

Rulebook says IC with a special unit they cannot leave (Warlocks) it is a Retinue. Also says it is called Retinue, Bodyguard, or Similar. meaning there is no real term just says special unit, which in this case i think warlocks who are only available alongside the farseer count as a special unit.

Fact 2

Website:
Games Workshop advertises the unit as a farseer and warlock bodyguards.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440239a&prodId=prod1060080
Also under the Eldar tactics for Faseers it labels them a Bodyguard.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?pageMode=multi&categoryId=&pIndex=1&aId=4600008a&start=2

don_mondo wrote :

Ya know, if that were true then Calgar could possibly have three retinues...................... Bottom line, the Warlocks are not a retinue, they are a separate unit, and you cannot deploy two HQ units during Dawn of War. Sure, you have to buy a farseer to unlock their availability, but the same is true of dedicated transports. Do you consider your Wave Serpents to be part of the unit for which they are bought? Didn't think so. So why is this any different? It isn't.

The Magnus Calgar i would say yes there is a chance for 3. I need to read into a little more to see if one is for the master or all 3 are one unit, but i know Honour Guard and Command Squads are retinue (stated on pg 104 of space marines codex). Vehicles are not IC's there a different rules. Nice attempt and please do not say "didn't think so" before you got my answer. I admire the confidence.

Thank you.

Daemonhound63 wrote:Rulebook Facts (Retinue)

A armies codex that allows you to field characters with a special unit they cannot leave during the game.

Why do you think the Farseer cannot leave the unit of warlocks?

Because they are a special upgraded unit which implies they are a retinue. Which my quote was from page 48 of the rulebook stating they cannot leave.

1) your fact 2 is, well, not a fact that matters.

The Eldar codex does NOT list them as a bodyguard. Not at all.

Nothing states he cannot leave them. Nothing states he must be deployed with them.

NOTHING makes them a retinue. At all.

You are also wrong on Marines. Marines have no retinues any longer.

Daemonhound63 wrote:Because they are a special upgraded unit which implies they are a retinue.

That is not true however.

They are 2 units that takes one HQ slot. It does not even say the farseer has to join the warlocks, let alone that he cannot leave them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) your fact 2 is, well, not a fact that matters.

The Eldar codex does NOT list them as a bodyguard. Not at all.

Nothing states he cannot leave them. Nothing states he must be deployed with them.

NOTHING makes them a retinue. At all.

You are also wrong on Marines. Marines have no retinues any longer.

The codex not necessarily but the rulebook does not say precisely called bodyguards or retinue it states on page 48 of the rulebook that they are called retinue, bodyguards, or similar. Similar meaning it does not specifically have to state retinue or bodyguard. If you look at most the other armies codexs, any boxed unit under the HQ in the army entries means they are not an HQ choice but a retinue. Warlocks are boxed and are upgraded to the Farseer under the Farseer's entry. Case point retinue. Marines please read page 104 of the space marine codex where states specifically that honuor guard and command squad are retinue. Which is boxed (Way of showing special unit/retinue/bodyguard/seer council) in the space marine codex. I will make it easy page 104 marines codex under Mighty Heros 2nd Paragraph 3rd Sentence.

kirsanth wrote:That is not true however.

They are 2 units that takes one HQ slot. It does not even say the farseer has to join the warlocks, let alone that he cannot leave them.

(@kirsanth) No the farseer can just upgrade with the warlocks as a retinue,but is not required to take them. If they are taken retinue rules take over and makes the farseer an upgrade character which disallows him to leave till his retinue is all killed, then he counts as a IC.

@everyone DoW rules state one HQ unit and Eldar codex says farseer and warlocks are one so they equal 1 making all of them legit.

People that disagree please give me supporting evidence that you can show me please.

Daemonhound63 wrote:[(@kirsanth) No the farseer can just upgrade with the warlocks as a retinue,

It does not say this. It says "This unit and the Farseer are a single HQ choice." Not "are a single HQ unit"

Sorry Daemonhound63, you are unequivocally wrong on this point.

Farseer and Warlocks are two separate units, even though the Warlocks do not take an HQ slot.

Furthermore, when you have to use the GW website to try and prove your point instead of the codex... that's kind of a hint there buddy.

posting reply in a new thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/323933.page

Daemonhound63 wrote:
(@kirsanth) No the farseer can just upgrade with the warlocks as a retinue,but is not required to take them. If they are taken retinue rules take over and makes the farseer an upgrade character which disallows him to leave till his retinue is all killed, then he counts as a IC.

@everyone DoW rules state one HQ unit and Eldar codex says farseer and warlocks are one so they equal 1 making all of them legit.

People that disagree please give me supporting evidence that you can show me please.

Daemonhound: I agreed with you before this thread, but people have made their point, and it appears that I was playing Farseers wrong. Warlocks are, in fact, NOT a retinue. A Farseer is still an IC even if he has them, and isn't forced to stay with them or even start with them.

Also, no where in the Eldar codex does it say that they are one unit. It says they count as 1 HQ choice, but that has nothing to do with anything.

Incorrect. Page 104 is not even part of the rules section of the Space Marine Codex. Seriously.

So far you have tried to use the background section of a codex and the webpage ona sales website in order to claim they are retinues. Neither is true.

Daemonhound63 wrote:The codex not necessarily but the rulebook does not say precisely called bodyguards or retinue it states on page 48 of the rulebook that they are called retinue, bodyguards, or similar. Similar meaning it does not specifically have to state retinue or bodyguard. If you look at most the other armies codexs, any boxed unit under the HQ in the army entries means they are not an HQ choice but a retinue. Warlocks are boxed and are upgraded to the Farseer under the Farseer's entry. Case point retinue. Marines please read page 104 of the space marine codex where states specifically that honuor guard and command squad are retinue. Which is boxed (Way of showing special unit/retinue/bodyguard/seer council) in the space marine codex. I will make it easy page 104 marines codex under Mighty Heros 2nd Paragraph 3rd Sentence.

Please read the SM Errata:

Page 104, Mighty heroes, second paragraph. The third sentence should be changed as follows:
Each also has the option for an extra HQ unit […]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Incorrect. Page 104 is not even part of the rules section of the Space Marine Codex. Seriously.

So far you have tried to use the background section of a codex and the webpage ona sales website in order to claim they are retinues. Neither is true.

Not only is it background, it's background the errata'd to stop people claiming they are Retinues.

ryan3740 wrote:posting reply in a new thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/323933.page

Thank you... you get +1 internets