The most controversial rules

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.

**rigeld2**

Krellnus wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
^ I think this is actually addressed in the rulebook when it says Vehicles take cover saves exactly like non-vehicle models.

It is.

I'm surprised that no-one has brought up the stupid barrage FAQ that makes them incredibly slow to play and more accurate snipers than, well, snipers.

Because they're not that slow to play?
And it's not controversial?

**Abandon**

Some IC questions.

If two IG ICs join a SM unit and on the next turn all the SM models are destroyed, are the two IG ICs still part of a SM unit?

If an MC (such as a HT) joins a unit of infantry (such as Tyrant Guard) and they are attack by an enemy with preferred enemy MC, does the attacking unit get the preferred enemy bonus?

If an IG IC joins a unit of Space Marines, can the unit embark in a SM transport?

That's alI that comes to mind for now. I'm sure there's more.

**PrinceRaven**

The answer to the second is clearly no, as the unit in question is Infantry not MC, but the others are subject to debate as far as I'm aware.

**Kommissar Kel**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The answer to the second is clearly no, as the unit in question is Infantry not MC, but the others are subject to debate as far as I'm aware.

Explanation, not debate.

"Unit type" is a misnomer. it does not mean that the unit is of the type, it is the models individual classification.

The unit in question is made up of both Infantry and MC models.

Otherwise the HT would cease being a MC

**Co'tor Shas**

I have one if FW is alowed.
How the heck does commander ra'lai's warlord trait (preferred enemy(IC)) work?

**PrinceRaven**

I would assume that following the 6th edition rules it only works against Independent Characters that haven't joined a unit and units made up entirely of Independent Characters, which is kind of hilarious given how unlikely it is you will encounter either option. It could also work on any unit that has a single model with the Independent Character rule in it, which would be scary good.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
The answer to the second is clearly no, as the unit in question is Infantry not MC, but the others are subject to debate as far as I'm aware.

Explanation, not debate.

"Unit type" is a misnomer. it does not mean that the unit is of the type, it is the models individual classification.

The unit in question is made up of both Infantry and MC models.

Otherwise the HT would cease being a MC

So if you shoot at the Hive Tyrant it is an MC, and when you shoot at the unit as a whole it is a Tyrant Guard unit, and Tyrant Guard are Infantry.

Much like how when you join an Imperial Guard IC to a Space Marine unit it is still an Imperial Guard unit, which cause the other rules issues you brought up.

**Abandon**

I believe this settles the question as to whether or not the question is controversial enough to be considered controversial. As this is not a thread for actual debate I believe we should move on.

**JinxDragon**

Abandon,
Awww, but but but... but I was going to ask how to tell if a unit is an 'infantry unit' because the rule book only informs me if units are troops or heavies.

No you are right, it is not the right place and time for that but it is a question I keep meaning to ask whenever I see that controversial topic come up. Normally I don't because there is usually far bigger problems at hand, in particular the whole 'unit type' being a model characteristic thing. The duel use of terminology throughout that section of the book, and the fact unit type is central to any argument about how you determine what a entire units 'type' would be, is problematic enough on their own without all the 'citation please' arguments.

**DJGietzen**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The answer to the second is clearly no, as the unit in question is Infantry not MC, but the others are subject to debate as far as I'm aware.

As Kel pointed out, the HT will retain its unit type as the unit type is a property of the model, not the unit. Since a shooting attack directed at a unit that contains the HT is considered attacking the HT then the answer to the question should be yes.

**PrinceRaven**

So it does, in fact, fulfil the requirement on being on this thread.

**Kommissar Kel**

PrinceRaven wrote:
So it does, in fact, fulfil the requirement on being on this thread.

It belongs in this thread, but not because you believe the unit is infantry(We can disprove that to you in another thread); but rather because we have no way of dealing with a mixed type unit and Preferred enemy(or Hatred) X-unit-type.

**greatbigtree**

Sorry to create a rules discussion in the midst of your question, but I challenge that the rules never say that vehicles take cover saves exactly like non-vehicle models.

It says they take rolls on the same values, but on pg 75, top left, 2nd bullet point, it says that... "If the save is passed, the hit is discarded, no Hull Points are lost, and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage Table." This in no way references rules outside of vehicle rules, such as being "wounded".

Therefore, "Ignores Cover" has no effect on vehicles, that take Armour Penetration rolls resulting in HP loss, rather than Wounds.

Certainly worthy of noting how your tournament will deal with this. Only takes one line of text.

**PrinceRaven**

You are aware that vehicles take cover saves exactly like non-vehicle models, right?
So how does a non-vehicle take cover saves against an Ignores Cover shot?

**greatbigtree**

Quote me the page. I'm reasonably certain they don't.

**grendel083**

greatbigtree wrote:
Quote me the page. I'm reasonably certain they don't.

From the "Vehicles and Cover" section:

"The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:"

If you read that section you'll note that the "ignores cover" rule isn't noted as being resolved differently from a non-vehicle (since it lists the difference between how vehicles and non vehicles handle cover).
Therefore this rule must be handled the same.

**Quanar**

greatbigtree wrote:
Quote me the page. I'm reasonably certain they don't.

Page 74 Vehicles and Cover - Obscured targets "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry" is presumably what you're referring to?

PrinceRaven is presumably referring to page 75, the third bullet point (the first being on the previous page) "Obviously, [...] If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" (emphasis mine)

**Co'tor Shas**

Check out this thread about FMCs and deepstriking. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576454.page It's getting pretty controversial.

**PrinceRaven**

Yep, definitely controversial. The sides are interpreting a certain rule in completely different ways and neither's going to budge as far as I can see.

**greatbigtree**

pg 75, second bullet point.

"If the target is obscured, and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of X+ for a wood, and so on). If the save is passed, the hit is discarded, no Hull Points are lost and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table."

Note, that such a hit doesn't cause a wound. It causes HP loss.

pg 38, bottom left.

"Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule."

While the vehicle take a cover save in the same manner, using the same mechanics as a non-vehicle model, it does not suffer a Wound if it becomes damaged. It takes a HP, and potentially a Damage Table roll. Therefore, Ignores Cover does not effect HP damage, because HP damage isn't a Wound. The cover save is taken the same way, but the result is different. The use of Ignores Cover is dependent upon what results from an attack. [Does the attack cause a wound, or does it cause HP loss?] If the attack causes a Wound, Ignores Cover has an effect. Since a Vehicle takes HP damage, no wounds are caused, so no "trigger" for Ignores Cover to come into effect.

Many people still play 6th edition with holdovers from 5th, and this happens to be one that has been brought to my attention. In a tournament setting, it is worth taking one line of text to explain how you will resolve this in game. The Ignores Cover effect is remarkably powerful, and reduces the effectiveness of Jink, which is a key element to many armies. Further, some armies deploy tough tanks behind an Aegis [IG comes to mind] and they might expect Ignores cover to not be able to remove that save.

If you wish Ignores Cover to work against vehicles, and RAI I think it probably should... no reason that vehicles can't take advantage of cover when infantry couldn't... You should make a mention of it in your Tourney pack. WAAC players will validly raise the point I've made.

- Taking a save just like a non-vehicle model doesn't equate to suffering a Wound if you're damaged. That's the trigger for Ignores Cover, if you would take a wound. Vehicles would take HP if they fail their save.

**Formosa**

Gate of infinity, we all know why lol

**Scipio Africanus**

Jimsolo wrote:
Can you Gate of Infinity out of close combat?

Yes, you can gate of infinity out of combat. You can also gate of infinity to become unpinned/gone to ground.

you can cast a blessing while in close combat. You cast GoI on one model within the unit. You then place a marker 24" away from said model. You then Deepstrike there. You have left the combat without allowing your opponent to consolidate, because you arrived by deepstrike, like a reserve.

**Happyjew**

I was about to argue against Gating out of cc, but then remembered this thread was not for arguing, but listing.

**Scipio Africanus**

Happyjew wrote:
I was about to argue against Gating out of cc, but then remembered this thread was not for arguing, but listing.

There's absolutely no RAW argument that can defend it, but you're right.

If that's the case, why is this in YMDC and not in GD?

Here's another one:

Why the hell can't I shoot at my opponent's bastion. It can shoot at me.

**Shandara**

Scipio Africanus wrote:

Why the hell can't I shoot at my opponent's bastion. It can shoot at me.

The new Stronghold Assault book changes this, doesn't it?

**grendel083**

Scipio Africanus wrote:
Why the hell can't I shoot at my opponent's bastion. It can shoot at me.

It can only shoot you if it's occupied.
If it's occupied you can shoot it.

**PrinceRaven**

You do run into the issue with Firestorm Redoubts though.

**Scipio Africanus**

grendel083 wrote:
Scipio Africanus wrote:
Why the hell can't I shoot at my opponent's bastion. It can shoot at me.
It can only shoot you if it's occupied.
If it's occupied you can shoot it.

Interesting. Thankyou.

**deviantduck**

grendel083 wrote:
Scipio Africanus wrote:
Why the hell can't I shoot at my opponent's bastion. It can shoot at me.
It can only shoot you if it's occupied.
If it's occupied you can shoot it.

If unoccupied, but still claimed by a player, the bastion fires all 4 heavy bolters and the quad/icarus (if it has one, and deployed on the battlements) at BS2, at the nearest target within LoS and range.

**Kommissar Kel**

Scipio Africanus wrote:
grendel083 wrote:
Scipio Africanus wrote:
Why the hell can't I shoot at my opponent's bastion. It can shoot at me.
It can only shoot you if it's occupied.
If it's occupied you can shoot it.

Interesting. Thankyou.

As shandara mentioned, Stronghold assault changed both of these rules. A bastion starts as owned by the purchasing player with the ability to auto fire, you can fire at or assault player owned buildings(occupied or not).

Random buildings start play unowned(with the possibility of active weapons), and cannot be shot at or assaulted until they become owned(via occupation).

**Makinit**

Ork Shokkattack gun. Every time I roll doubles there is an argument over how to resolve it. The FAQ offers little help.