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.

Hulksmash wrote:But seriously, It's been hashed out repeatedly in many places. Personally I think Mike made the right call on this one. I'm not bringing FMC's to the event but, because he's ruling it as RAW, those FMC's have a solid chance at being competitive choices which wouldn't happen if it wasn't RAW.

I've been playing a Daemon Flying Circus lately and in the test games we have been using Mike's ruling.

Oddly enough, in the games I've played its worked both for me and against me. One of my DPs in my last game vs orks failed 3 grounding tests in the same turn, which did 2 wounds to it.

Flying circus benefits greatly from it as it makes it much harder to bring volume of fire ans special/heavy weapons to bear. With re-rollable invulnerables the problem with multiple grounding wounds is largely negated. For example, let's take 10 marine rapid firing at at the DP. 20 shots hitting on 6s is somewhere around 3 hits. That is 3 grounding checks averaging 1 wound with a re-rollable save. At BS4 after grounding, that is somewhere around 14 hits with 4.4 wounds with re-rollable saves. It also means any plasma, melta, etc. in the squad is greatly reduced in effectiveness against the DP if grounding doesn't nefate flying.

Your assuming that you can always re-roll invulnerable saves. In every game vs a competent opponent, fateweaver has died or was tied up in an assault he could never get out of (6 wraiths + 15 scarabs). Simply put, good players don't let me keep fateweaver around.

You misunderstand the grounding rules. You don't make a grounding check for every hit, you make a grounding check for every unit that hits. In your example, the MC would make one check.

The bouncing grounding rules work against you when you are facing MSU builds or builds. A wraith that hits with its particle caster is an example. 5 CSM at 20" is another example. These are two examples of things that caused groundings on my FMCs this past weekend.

There are times when the bouncing MC rule works in your favor, such as when 10 bolters are in rapid fire range -- but there are cases where it works against you.

Honestly we don't make any rules for balance reasons. That said, the damage output of the flying circus is actually quite low ... limited # of shots, and limited # of attacks. Armies with large units (which are becoming more and more common) tend to pull them apart and/or simply pin them down irrevocably.

Quite few 'Interesting' rulings in there. FMC I completely understand, as it is RAW.
But some other rulings are made against RAW for no good reasons given, you can't argue RAI or that it makes rules simpler in either of these cases:

1) MSS / Challenge mechanic is very simple by RAW: current player chooses which is done first, Challenge or MSS. It has been replaced by far more complicated rule for no gain that I can see.

2) Anrakyr can use MiTM while embarked, which is also obviously against RAW. No permission is given to draw LOS for MiTM while embarked.

Funnily enough, this means still means that Coteaz cannot IBEY while embarked, as it requires LOS and was not FAQ'd.

Fair enoughs, I just think most people are missunderstanding how this was deisgned to work.

Personally I think making a grounding test for a hit isnt right either, I think it would make more sense if it was on a wound (saved or unsaved).
But clearly (Or should I say hopefully) GW play tested this to death and felt it was fair.

I'm pretty sure it will be FAQ'd soon enough stating the FMC looses it's chosen flight mode.

I'll shut up now, good luck to everyone going to NOVA

Luide wrote:2) Anrakyr can use MiTM while embarked, which is also obviously against RAW. No permission is given to draw LOS for MiTM while embarked.

That's a little nit picky isn't it?

I'm pretty sure it will be FAQ'd soon enough stating the FMC looses it's chosen flight mode.

I think if that was intended it would have been stated (as you say, such a thing makes not only logical sense but would be fairly obvious as a result of smacking into the ground). That they didn't word it that way seems more deliberate than like an oversight.

Part of it though, I think that if FMC's were FAQ'd as such, they would be honestly worthless. Especially Flyrants, who pay such a huge premium to fly (but then a lot of things in the Nid Dex I think cost way too much).

You may want to rule on C:SM Special Characters and allies (i.e. Pedro, Khan, etc). RAW their abilities affect allies, and there seems to be RAI as well (since others, like He'Stan were FAQ'd to not work with allies) but it causes a lot of heated debate.

LordofHats wrote:

I'm pretty sure it will be FAQ'd soon enough stating the FMC looses it's chosen flight mode.

I think if that was intended it would have been stated (as you say, such a thing makes not only logical sense but would be fairly obvious as a result of smacking into the ground). That they didn't word it that way seems more deliberate than like an oversight.

Part of it though, I think that if FMC's were FAQ'd as such, they would be honestly worthless. Especially Flyrants, who pay such a huge premium to fly (but then a lot of things in the Nid Dex I think cost way too much).

I agree with your statement. Potentially having FMC's work as FAQ'd for NOVA though could make them somewhatly stupidly overpowered. (And I play Nids so I don't really want to be weakened but to me its the logical way in which it should work).
Oh and I was meant to shutup so sorry everyone.

Imagine an Iron Armed Flyrant with Telkekine Dome cast on it as well.
He rolls a 3 for Iron Arm.

That's a Toughness 9 Flyrant that as soon as it goes into Swoop mode ALWAYS requires 6's to hit, takes a grounding test on a 3+, if fails takes a grounding wound on 4+ with a 5+ Invuln...
To me that doesnt sound right...

The problem w/ that unit like any of the flying units, is that in practice they aren't hard to ground, and they have VERY low damage output in combat. So they all have an easy enough solution, in, "fire 3 units at them to ground them, then charge with anything that isn't too fragile or small, and proceed to ignore for several turns or remainder of game."

These kinds of problems - flying mc's, scoring/denial needing to be afoot, etc. - are pushing the meta well away from 5e mindset and toward larger units, more fearless / leadership durability to be able to pin / tie / etc., and subsequently LESS concern for things like daemon princes and flyrants who can only kill a couple of models at most in CC.

@l0rdf1end

Lordy. That unit requires you to roll both those powers on two different psychic units, be within range for the second power, and while resilient still doesn't produce damage in the quantity needed.

FMC's don't have the damage output. They are, at the moment, worth their points individually but personally wouldn't take more than 2. If you change the rules, which you would be, to grounded doesn't equal swooping then you make FMC's pointless. You'll never see them at a tournament and they won't sell for anything.

It's the selling point that makes me think that the way the FMC rule is written is actually what they meant. Especially since it doesn't break anything in the game to play it as written.

Hey HulkSmash,

Yeah, I really do see your point. And I actually agree that FMC's would be easily killed on one failed grounding test if it was to be played how the rule could be read logically (Lose all flight modes).

I also realise the cost of wings and the other points you made about GW sales tactics.

Essentially though, its just a standard unit with wings. What does wings grant a model to do?
Move a crazy distance and still able to fire all of its weapons.
In turn, if it gets grounded its treated like any other model for shooting at purposes.
First...you got to hit it...then it has the fail a grounding test.

There are some aspects of the rule that don't seem fair as it stands but the whole concept being that this one dude could potentially take a lot of fire to ground it which then secures you the chance to take it down with other fire and combat.

It just doesn't make literal sense that a grounded FMC would still be classed as hard to hit, no matter how unfair or weak we feel the current rules look on paper and after play testing.

Who knows what the official word will be...
I kinda hope I'm wrong, although making subsequent grounding checks when already grounded also is completely illogical.

I disagree that the subsequent grounding checks are illogical.

Think of all of this happening at one time. The FMC is hit and fails his first grounding test, he's plummeting toward the ground, he's moving fast and likely erratically toward the ground and out of control, you keep shooting, some more hits impacting on him. He hits the ground, because of all hits (i.e. failed grounding tests) he lands even more uncontrolled causing more wounds.

It makes sense cinematically as well as rules wise. And I'd point out that they consider the benefits to be excellent for FMC's since they didn't give it to CSM DP's who would be dirt cheap. If you aren't hard to hit after a failed grounding test it's not really that powerful of an ability.

Like I've said before. It could go either way. But I've only been wrong about how GW was going to rule something when they did the Nid book. And since this doesn't only effect Nids I think they'll come down on RAW. But until then I'll keep clearing how the rule works with TO's and taking the armies I like or not to events

LordofHats wrote:

Luide wrote:2) Anrakyr can use MiTM while embarked, which is also obviously against RAW. No permission is given to draw LOS for MiTM while embarked.

That's a little nit picky isn't it?

Considering that the 5e FAQ that 'disallowed' MiTM and IBEY from working while embarked only pointed out that this was actually how rules were written, no it is not nitpicky.
No more than it is nitpicky to say that "You cannot Snapshoot Blast/Template weapons" or that "If you shot Rapid Fire weapons, you may not charge". (Some exceptions may apply, but those are written out).
RAW MitM (and any other special ability that requires drawing LOS) just don't work while embarked. This basic principle is even written out for Psykers (see page 67 if you don't believe me).

LordofHats wrote:

I'm pretty sure it will be FAQ'd soon enough stating the FMC looses it's chosen flight mode.

I think if that was intended it would have been stated (as you say, such a thing makes not only logical sense but would be fairly obvious as a result of smacking into the ground). That they didn't word it that way seems more deliberate than like an oversight.
Part of it though, I think that if FMC's were FAQ'd as such, they would be honestly worthless. Especially Flyrants, who pay such a huge premium to fly (but then a lot of things in the Nid Dex I think cost way too much).

Knowing GW? It was definitely oversight. Remember that this is the ruleset that by (strict) RAW breaks down in CC the first moment someone brings Power Fist or Axe.

Most of GW's shotty rules are shotty because they're ambiguous or ignore some rule in the BRB that causes a problem with other rules, or are just poorly worded.

The rules for grounding tests are clearly stated and aren't ambiguous at all. They just not necessarily adhere to outside logic when one looks at the word "grounded" and what we think it should mean.

I still can't agree with the "weapons that don't roll to hit can't affect fliers" ruling.

I'm not sure why; while I've seen the arguments people have made, shots cannot be resolved against flyers unless they have Skyfire, or used snap shots.

You can't snap shot something that does not fire at BS1.

It has nothing to do with how you hit them, or target them, or whatever. It has to do with shot resolution, which cannot occur w/out snap shot (and your lines / etc. can't snap shot).

Hulksmash wrote:I disagree that the subsequent grounding checks are illogical.

Think of all of this happening at one time. The FMC is hit and fails his first grounding test, he's plummeting toward the ground, he's moving fast and likely erratically toward the ground and out of control, you keep shooting, some more hits impacting on him. He hits the ground, because of all hits (i.e. failed grounding tests) he lands even more uncontrolled causing more wounds.

It makes sense cinematically as well as rules wise. And I'd point out that they consider the benefits to be excellent for FMC's since they didn't give it to CSM DP's who would be dirt cheap. If you aren't hard to hit after a failed grounding test it's not really that powerful of an ability.

Like I've said before. It could go either way. But I've only been wrong about how GW was going to rule something when they did the Nid book. And since this doesn't only effect Nids I think they'll come down on RAW. But until then I'll keep clearing how the rule works with TO's and taking the armies I like or not to events

I stand to be corrected when the official FAQ ruling comes out.

As soon as 6th hit my friends and I played games and read the ruling as grounded and no longer swooping and therfore without even thinking about it does not get the hard to hit ability once grounded.
It feels like picking holes in a ruling because its not perfectly laid out and because of that people can pick at it and make of it what they wish.
Grounded is grounded. Not grounded but im still falling and oh look, i bumped into the ground 3 times.. funny.

I do think its an oversight on GW's behalf to not make this perfectly clear but at the same time its pretty cler to me how it should work.

Lets agree to disagree, you have your NOVA ruling, will be interesting to hear how FMC's do over all with this ruling on how some believe it to work.

Good luck guys, wish you all fun.

I agree to disagree

One last question though. If the word used hadn't been "Grounded" but instead "Clipped" would you have jumped to the same conclusion?

Hulksmash wrote:One last question though. If the word used hadn't been "Grounded" but instead "Clipped" would you have jumped to the same conclusion?

I honestly think this is the problem. Nothing in the writing of the rules is unclear, ambiguous or suggestive of an intention other than what is plainly there. I think its just that the word "grounded" invokes an image that is not in line with what the rules state.

Hulksmash wrote:I agree to disagree

One last question though. If the word used hadn't been "Grounded" but instead "Clipped" would you have jumped to the same conclusion?

Grounded clearly states to me "The model is now on the ground".

Replacing the word grounded with clipped actually opens up this ruling for possible missinterpretation in regards to how NOVA and you think it should be played.
Using the original grounding term clearly states the unit comes down to the ground and can be attacked therfore is on the ground and is no longer flying and is no longer hard to hit.
Pretty straight up and clear to me.
You can't be on the ground and Swooping? Or you disagree with that?

"To take a clipped test roll a d6. On a 3+ the FMC maintains control and suffers no addtional effect.

If a 1 or 2 is rolled, the beast comes crashing to the ground - it suffers a single Strength 9 hit with no armour or cover saves allowed and becomes clipped. A clipped creature can be charged in the following assault phase".

Whereas clipped as I said can mean missunderstanding because it doesnt fully clearly imply the creature is on the ground where as the original term and wording does.

To clear things up the grounding rule needs one more sentance. "Grounded FMC's lose Hard to hit as they are no longer classed as Swooping".
Although for me this isn't needed. its pretty damn clear.

Sorry for the amount of edits.My ability to press the keyboard keys seems to deteriate with lack of sleep and long days.

Not sure if you missed my point or didn't understand it. I'll try again.

If the word grounded was never used and instead a different term was would you have drawn the same conculsion?

My point is I don't think you would. Lordofhats hits it on the head.

The rule and the format is perfectly clear. And written in the same way as rules since 3rd edition (i.e. main rule to sub rule). It follows the established format. It's the word they chose to use that is causing the confusion, not the rule itself.

But agree to disagree. GW might or might not set it right. If they do I'd abide by it no problem. Granted if it was ruled the way some people are reading (i.e. grounded loses swopping) then you'll never see a FMC outside of possibly a friendly game

*Edit*

I do disagree with the you can't be grounded and swooping. But I disagree from a rule stand point. FMC's have two "modes". Each follows certain rules and you determine them at the beginning of your turn and they last until the beginning of your next turn. Glide's rule are defined elsewhere. Swooping's rules are defined, and then sub rules are introduced. The way rules are written is the primary rule is in effect unless a subrule changes it. So the subrule "grounded" changes the ability to be assaulted and lose jink. Doesn't do a thing about the rest of swooping.

Me personally, I can easily visualize a FMC being shot at in the sky, the impacts causing him to lose control, and him hitting the ground hard, causing him damage. How hard would depend on how much control he had over his landing, the less control (i.e. more failed grounded tests) the more damage. Doesn't make him easier to hit as he's crashing.

You assertions of what it clearly states are incorrect. You draw inferences from titles but the actual rules are quite clear in how they affect the primary rule.

Edited.

So we are basically saying it never actually leaves Swooping mode through being grounded because the rule implies you are setting one movement mode which lasts until your next turn.
I can accept that too. .
I think I need to be honest and say it could be interpreted either way until its made perfectly clear.
The parts that makes it unclear are; that you can be assaulted; the grounding rule dosnt specify you stop swooping, if you can be assaulted why would it be more difficult to shoot you still.

I disagree, I think FMC's would still be used as their sheer maneuverability is king for a non Flying veichle that can start on the board.

There's also additional tactics that one could adopt with the Flyers rule.
I don't think they were designed to be king and a choice that you just had to take in a list but FMC's do open up options and tactics.

knightpredator wrote:

Units embarked upon Night Scythes are not affected by S10 hits when the vehicle is destroyed

Awesome!

Since I don't own the Necron Codex, why was this an issue? What makes them immune from the zooming drawback?

Hulk here is the thing that counters your logic though; if they had used a different word the interpretation would be misconstrued further. BUT they chose grounded for a reason and so you need to think about why they chose that word.

Regarding my personal feel for the rule : I believe Nova has it right.

People need to understand that there are 2 and only 2 choices for a FMC: swooping and gliding. Consider those the primary categories. Now taking the grounded test (Grounded being capitalized for a reason) opens up a sub-category that FMCs can be considered. The rules specifically state what rules the FMC loses when in Grounded mode (jink and can now be assaulted). If the intentions were to lose Hard to Hit, then it would explicitly be stated in the Grounded rules.

I'll use an analogy to show sub-categories and the retaining of normal rules. Flyers and hard to hit. My flyer is going fast man, real fast, because that is the mode I chose. I don't want to hover, I want to zoom. Hover = gliding.. Zoom = swooping. If I'm zooming and I get immobilized (ie by Webster definition, I cannot move) I keep moving straight forward. Odd because I'm immobilized, but RAW I keep going because "my engines are stuck". Point being, you cannot just take the word GW uses and apply the assumed definition to the rule. The second part, if I am hovering and get immobilized I stop moving, because now I am immobilized because the rules say so. Because the rules do not specifically say the same thing happens, you take what is the written effect apply it.

Ending statement; when you apply the rule changes as GW states you should instead of making your own inference: a swooping FMC retains all rules as he would if he were regularly swooping but enters a sub-phase called Grounded in which he takes the str9 hit, loses jink, and can be assaulted. Besides that, all else stays equal. Nova ruled it correctly.

No mention of weapons that ignore LoS?

RAW Impaler Cannons cannot wound a model when fired out of LOS, but they're allowed to target one.
That's not the only weapon.

rigeld2 wrote:No mention of weapons that ignore LoS?

RAW Impaler Cannons cannot wound a model when fired out of LOS, but they're allowed to target one.
That's not the only weapon.

???

Impaler Cannon's rules state "can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not." There's nothing about not being able to would.

LordofHats wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:No mention of weapons that ignore LoS?

RAW Impaler Cannons cannot wound a model when fired out of LOS, but they're allowed to target one.
That's not the only weapon.

???

Impaler Cannon's rules state "can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not." There's nothing about not being able to would.

It is allowed to shoot at it, but normal wound allocation forbids you allocating wounds to models out of LoS.

Labmouse: Ah yes, I got too optimistic. Should have been 3 hits with 1 grounding check. My bad. Still, my point is that bouncing grounders are much more survivable than non. Hard to hit means a 6 to hit, 5 or 6 to wound, 1-2 to hit the ground and then Invulns. That mean you are looking at less than 3% chance per shot of wounding with S3 and less than 6% with S4 (normal BS4/S4 is 22% and BS3/S3 is 16.6%). Odds of grounding are 5% (1/6*1/3). Odds of taking a grounding wound are 13.8% before saves (so ~3.5% if Fateweaver is around).

What does that mean? It takes about 60 bolter shots (before saves) to strip off three wounds. Specials and heavies don't hurt nearly as much because with hard to hit, at best they are throwing in a ~14% chance to wound.

MSU may force more grounding checks, but its still better than them firing at you normally (5 CSM with bolters is 27.7% chance of grounding/ 23.1% chance of a wound v. the 1.1 wounds you would otherwise have to save). If the squad has a high S weapon, it gets even better for the FMC.

As to damage output, CC isn't the only threat. while a BloodThirster certainly want to be in CC, A LoC or Tzeentch DP causes it's problems though ranged attacks as well. Whether that is OP or even competitive was not my point.

The point was the ruling clearly benefits FMCs. That is all.

Okay I found it. Was looking at page 15 before realizing I should try turning the page over @_@

That there, is an oversight that seems like RAW being counter to RAI and should probably be FAQ'd.