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.

D-Wraiths in Serpent, how novel, I thought it was DE Archon with WWP was the D-bomb plan of choice...

None of the tactics matter.

Just the rules; you in YMDC now.

A skimmer tramsport jinking has the exact same effect on the passengers as an IC with Jink joined to the unit. The FAQ didn't actually change the function of the rule, it just applies it to the passengers.

Makes sense to me!!

I am trying to think of a unit that can jink but also ride in a transport.....

IIRC bikes can go in a thunderhawk.

Also if you have a skimmer that jinks and then the unit disembarks and is then joined by an IC on a bike/jetbike; the unit is still considered as having jinked and grants the IC the cover save and snapshots. Shouldn't come up often as it requires quite the series of events but...

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
IIRC bikes can go in a thunderhawk.

Also if you have a skimmer that jinks and then the unit disembarks and is then joined by an IC on a bike/jetbike; the unit is still considered as having jinked and grants the IC the cover save and snapshots. Shouldn't come up often as it requires quite the series of events but...

Super-heavy Vehicles can't Jink so that rules out the Thunderhawk, so I think the joined-by-Bike/Jetbike-IC is the most likely situation this would matter from a RAW perspective.

I think the intention was to have them suffer the penalty as if they had the Jink special rule, of course.

What about the Night Scythe? Can't it carry Tomb Blades?

Nope

Also if you have a skimmer that jinks and then the unit disembarks and is then joined by an IC on a bike/jetbike; the unit is still considered as having jinked and grants the IC the cover save and snapshots. Shouldn't come up often as it requires quite the series of events but...

From the wording of the FAQ, that seems like an accurate interpretation, if a rather silly one. He rides up and says "What are you guys doing? Ducking and weaving? Don't mind if I do!"

I think a good solution that would alleviate some of the consternation about this change would be to allow units embarked upon the jinking transports to make a leadership check after disembarking in order to ignore the effects of having jinked. It retains the intent that makes Jink a tactical decision, as it has the chance to significantly reduce the embarked squads firepower, while not removing it entirely. This may not effect a unit like Wraithguard with D-Scythes that often (thanks to bloody LD10) but would happen enough to still warrant the question: do I risk jinking and potentially stand there like a fool to soak up firepower or risk my transport being shot at and potentially wrecked, stranding my unit too far away to be effective?

But will GW do that? Likely not. The modus operandi is simply to slap a band-aid on the problem and walk away with a smile saying "Fixed!"

If you can get people to play it that way. But no one in my group is.

A better fix would be to disallow voluntary embarking/disembarking from jinking transports, force go to ground for those units wrecked out, and have embarked units snapshot when the tranport jinks.

All of those would be more in line with what y
The FAQ was trying to say.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
A better fix would be to disallow voluntary embarking/disembarking from jinking transports, force go to ground for those units wrecked out, and have embarked units snapshot when the tranport jinks.

All of those would be more in line with what y
The FAQ was trying to say.

I don't think Space Marines would like those rules on their drop-pods.

Why would Space Marines crash into the ground, disembark and perform at normal effectiveness or even at higher effectiveness when in formation and benefitting from relentless or gaining permission to charge from reserve?
Compared to that, a wraith construct not being fazed by evasive manoeuvres sounds plausible and reasonable to me.

What does a drop pod have to do with jinking transports?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What does a drop pod have to do with jinking transports?

Both are transports that unload their passengers.

The same logic/motivation/fluff should apply to both, yet in-game the imperial droppod buffs the passengers while people seem to to think a jinking serpent needs to impair the passengers.

I do agree that the new FAQs mean that units that disembark from a transport which jinked in its previous turn can only snapfire.

I also think that this doesn't apply to necrons dropping out of a nightscythe since they aren't actually aboard it!

Ffyllotek wrote:


I also think that this doesn't apply to necrons dropping out of a nightscythe since they aren't actually aboard it!

Ah, but the jinking Nightscythes Invasion Beams might be off target, with warriors deployed out of formation, or even a few feet off the ground etc .

 Stephanius wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What does a drop pod have to do with jinking transports?

Both are transports that unload their passengers.

The same logic/motivation/fluff should apply to both, yet in-game the imperial droppod buffs the passengers while people seem to to think a jinking serpent needs to impair the passengers.

So then it should apply to a rhino as well?

Drop pods never jink.

And it is not "people think"; it is that the FAQ says the passengers also jink, but that doesn't actually do anything. What I posted was how jink and transports should interact if GW wants it to have any effect on the passengers. Right now, the answer is almost as meaningless as saying the passengers do not count as jinking.

The unit jinking or not jinking without any models having the jink special rule are the exact same outcome.

In a similar sense: that chaplain on a bike in a tac squad can choose to have the unit jink; only the chaplain gets the cover save, and only the chaplain snapshots.

I think that is possibly twisting language a little much; if you count as having jinked, then you follow the rules for jink.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What does a drop pod have to do with jinking transports?

Both are transports that unload their passengers.

The same logic/motivation/fluff should apply to both, yet in-game the imperial droppod buffs the passengers while people seem to to think a jinking serpent needs to impair the passengers.

Drop Pods cannot Jink. Their Embarked units are not in there long enough to be affected by it even if they could Jink, since they immediately have to Disembark on arrival.

If you are talking about an in-universe concept, no other Transport that Deep Strikes is considered Jinking when they arrive, and Deep Striking is a planned maneuver. Jinking is an unplanned and deliberately chaotic maneuver made to generate a "miss". The Embarked unit is expecting everything that comes with a Deep Strike, but not when it comes the pilot suddenly jinking around in a small space.

Ffyllotek wrote:
I think that is possibly twisting language a little much; if you count as having jinked, then you follow the rules for jink.

Yes, exactly; and what do the rules for jink say?

jink special rule wrote:If the unit Jinks, all models in the unit with this special rule gain a 4+ cover save until the start of their next Movement phase, but they can only fire Snap Shots until the end of their next turn.[/quote ]

 Charistoph wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What does a drop pod have to do with jinking transports?

Both are transports that unload their passengers.

The same logic/motivation/fluff should apply to both, yet in-game the imperial droppod buffs the passengers while people seem to to think a jinking serpent needs to impair the passengers.

Drop Pods cannot Jink. Their Embarked units are not in there long enough to be affected by it even if they could Jink, since they immediately have to Disembark on arrival.

If you are talking about an in-universe concept, no other Transport that Deep Strikes is considered Jinking when they arrive, and Deep Striking is a planned maneuver. Jinking is an unplanned and deliberately chaotic maneuver made to generate a "miss". The Embarked unit is expecting everything that comes with a Deep Strike, but not when it comes the pilot suddenly jinking around in a small space.

Of course the drop pod does not jink - it crashes, and is immobilized by the impact. True - just like all ordnance dropped by the air-force hitting the ground without fail, that is expected. Yet, I dare say that evasive maneuvers are just as expected when riding a fast skimmer APC towards the enemies lines. With the beloved D-scythe wraith tougher than Space Marines and fearless, a generic movie pilot's warning "this could be a bit bumpy..." can be considered redundant the 27h time they do this.

 Stephanius wrote:


Of course the drop pod does not jink - it crashes, and is immobilized by the impact.

Where are you getting this from?

The drop pod does not crash.

The drop pod is not "immobilized by the impact".

It is simply an immobile vehicle.

 Stephanius wrote:
Of course the drop pod does not jink - it crashes, and is immobilized by the impact. True - just like all ordnance dropped by the air-force hitting the ground without fail, that is expected. Yet, I dare say that evasive maneuvers are just as expected when riding a fast skimmer APC towards the enemies lines. With the beloved D-scythe wraith tougher than Space Marines and fearless, a generic movie pilot's warning "this could be a bit bumpy..." can be considered redundant the 27h time they do this.

Apparently you missed the part where I said "chaotic maneuver", you know, the kind that only the pilot has any idea of what is coming next. Drop Pods are designed to get a unit down alive and in one piece, and aside from hitting bad terrain or being completely off target (table), and even unharmed itself. Jinking involves the kinds of maneuver that causes civilians to loose their lunch (and Hicks to fall asleep). They should be unplannable and unaccountable by even the gunners, much less their riders who may not even be able to keep a point of reference outside the Transport.

But that is Real World example, and that is not ever going to be a thing to assess rules that ignore a lot of other Real World concepts.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Of course the drop pod does not jink - it crashes, and is immobilized by the impact. True - just like all ordnance dropped by the air-force hitting the ground without fail, that is expected. Yet, I dare say that evasive maneuvers are just as expected when riding a fast skimmer APC towards the enemies lines. With the beloved D-scythe wraith tougher than Space Marines and fearless, a generic movie pilot's warning "this could be a bit bumpy..." can be considered redundant the 27h time they do this.

Apparently you missed the part where I said "chaotic maneuver", you know, the kind that only the pilot has any idea of what is coming next. Drop Pods are designed to get a unit down alive and in one piece, and aside from hitting bad terrain or being completely off target (table), and even unharmed itself. Jinking involves the kinds of maneuver that causes civilians to loose their lunch (and Hicks to fall asleep). They should be unplannable and unaccountable by even the gunners, much less their riders who may not even be able to keep a point of reference outside the Transport.

But that is Real World example, and that is not ever going to be a thing to assess rules that ignore a lot of other Real World concepts.

Real world or in universe, sure. However...

Wraithguard have no lunch to lose.
Wraithguard cannot fall asleep (for a while now).
They dont look like T800, but they wont stop until destroyed.
Serpents are also designed to deliver their passengers, with more reliable technology than Imperial junkyard dregs.

Drop Pods are capsules accelerated by rockets towards the ground and fire rockets going the other way to brake just before impact. While expected, this is way more violent on weaker physique passengers. Yet, as far as the rules go, drop pods could be rhinos or even land raiders as far as the passengers are concerned.

My point being:
If evasive manouvers warrant snapshots for in-universe reasons of bumby ride, then drop pods would - with the same reasoning - at least force snapshots, if not a pinning test on top.

 Stephanius wrote:
Real world or in universe, sure. However...

Wraithguard have no lunch to lose.
Wraithguard cannot fall asleep (for a while now).
They dont look like T800, but they wont stop until destroyed.
Serpents are also designed to deliver their passengers, with more reliable technology than Imperial junkyard dregs.

Wraithguard are piloted by spirits with only a vague understanding of the universe behind them. They are not civilians, but the disorientation that causes civilians to lose their lunch would still be in affect, especially due to the vagueness that they are experiencing the world around them in play.

 Stephanius wrote:
My point being:
If evasive manouvers warrant snapshots for in-universe reasons of bumby ride, then drop pods would - with the same reasoning - at least force snapshots, if not a pinning test on top.

Then they should have a special Wargear or rule for that. They don't, so that's where we are at. Maybe you should suggest the upgrade for the next Craftworlds codex?

Tbh I think a general rulebook FAQ and Errata should of came before the codexes. Simply amending the line about jinking saying something along the line of "All embarked units inside a jinking vehicle also must fire snap shots until the end of their next turn" would get the message across easily enough.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Tbh I think a general rulebook FAQ and Errata should of came before the codexes.

They did release a general rulebook draft FAQ, before they released any of the draft FAQs for the codices.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Tbh I think a general rulebook FAQ and Errata should of came before the codexes.

They did release a general rulebook draft FAQ, before they released any of the draft FAQs for the codices.

Sorry never saw it, just googled it seeing I couldn't find it on the GW facebook (just the codex FAQ's), seems the jink thing has been mostly answered.

The problem with the current FAQ, as I read it, is while it states they would JINK, it can be read in a way that people may say Rulebook>FAQ, like we have already in this very thread. The FAQ is rather clear, troops that disembark from a jinking vehicle must fire snap shots. The whole point of the FAQ is to answer situations not directly considered in the Rulebook. The whole reason we have less Errata and more FAQ's is because it would be an absolute pain to Errata every single issue that has been answered and even then people could still argue over the meaning of the rules via wording and an FAQ would be needed anyway.

Once they're official FAQ+Errata>Rulebook I'm afraid.