Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/18 23:53:08
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Sslimey Sslyth
Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.
|
Incubi unit. (wytches too fragile, so are warriors) Mount in Raider.
Equip raider with + 2d6 movement, and +1d3 armour on tank shock wargear.
You now have the possibility of a str10 ram. Ram will penetrate the raider. Raider will go down on a 3+ damage roll.
Leaving the Incubi standing there ready to fire/fleet/assault? (30+ inch charge? )
Inat says no, states that you may not disembark after moving Flat out. I'm not certain that its a clarafication of this event though.
....If this is possible, we can call it "the Deadshane Maneuver"!
|
I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!
The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/18 23:57:32
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
|
What harm can it do to find out? It's a question that left bruises down the centuries, even more than "It can't hurt if I only take one" and "It's all right if you only do it standing up." Terry Pratchett, Making Money
"Can a magician kill a man by magic?" Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. "I suppose a magician might," he admitted, "but a gentleman never could." Susanna Clarke Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell
DA:70+S+G+M++B++I++Pw40k94-D+++A+++/mWD160R++T(m)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/18 23:58:41
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Commanding Orc Boss
|
Yes it is possible, however the vehicle must EXPLODE. That way the models are just placed there. If the vehicle is wrecked or wrecked due to being immobilized then the unit must disembark, and therefore dies instantly because they are not allowed to disembark due to moving flat out.
Therefore:
1-2 Raider and Unit are fine.
3-4 You are screwed and the unit dies instantly
5-6 **** YES!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/18 23:59:59
I hate hard counters. In a game of rock, paper, scissors, I hate playing any of the factions because no matter what you choose you might as well not deploy against your hard counter. I want to use a gun. Rock, paper, and scissors could all probably still beat gun, but gun will never feel like a game is a lost cause. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 00:13:13
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Ship's Officer
|
Also, watch out for that nasty pinning test. It'll screw you over when you least expect it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 00:15:23
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
People think they are amazing tacticians because they thought of this.
This was a thing 2 years ago when ork trukks could ram before they couldn't ram and now they can ram again.
If your transport Wrecks, everyone is dead instantly. Skimmers do one better with immobilization. If you are willing to risk your unit to totally die than go for it.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 04:39:53
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Xca|iber wrote:Also, watch out for that nasty pinning test. It'll screw you over when you least expect it.
And hope you don't lose over 25% of the unit to the explosion because there's such a thing as Morale too.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 04:45:45
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Please use this tactic, I beg you.
The large chance of being stranded after the ram, the large chance of the unit being completely vaporised, and the remaining possibilty of huge wounds from the explosions, a morale test, and the pinning test.
Please use this tactic, I beg you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 05:08:24
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
|
Yeah, my buddy did this in 3e by running his raiders into terrain. Dump between 4 and 7 raiders in the woods next to the enemy and at least one should immobilize itself.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 05:37:51
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Paragraph beginning with "Note:..." on pg 67 indicates models from a destroyed transport have disembarked.
Paragraph beginning with "If the vehicle has already moved..." on same page indicates models who have disembarked from a transport that has moved may not assault.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 05:46:34
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Ship's Officer
|
DarknessEternal wrote:Paragraph beginning with "Note:..." on pg 67 indicates models from a destroyed transport have disembarked. Paragraph beginning with "If the vehicle has already moved..." on same page indicates models who have disembarked from a transport that has moved may not assault. The placement of models after an Explodes! result is not disembarkation. The only reason your point hasn't come up, is that under a Wrecked result, the passengers must disembark, but cannot do so as models may not disembark from a vehicle that moved flat out in the same movement phase. (I stress that last point, cause if you force them to disembark in the shooting phase, they're fine). In practice this means that if you suffer a Wrecked result in your movement phase after moving flat out, the squad is destroyed.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/19 05:47:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 05:54:38
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
"However, if a transport is destroyed
(either result[Wrecked or Exploded]) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it
may assault the now disembarked passengers, if it is
allowed to assault according to the assault rules."
Certainly sounds like models that have disembarked from a destroyed transport have disembarked.
And before someone tries to mess with the semantics, it's the Destroyed result that causes the disembarking, not the ranged attack.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/19 15:03:13
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 06:11:02
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Angry Blood Angel Assault marine
AZ
|
Sounds great in theory, and would be fun to try in a friends game... however not in competition.
|
"While it is true that there is a very small sub-species of geek who are adept at assembling small figures and painting them with breath taking detail; the rest of us are basically the paste eating retards who failed art class. Because of this, what we build never even faintly resembles the picture on the box when we're done." - Coyote Sharptongue
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 06:18:56
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
-sigh-
This is the 4th thread on this so far.
The short of it is, yes, you can, but you need to explode (not wreck, since wreck = all dead), then pass pinning, then possibly pass morale.
It's a stupid tactic.
|
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 14:13:29
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Let's see. Damage result table.
1. Squad can't disembark
2. Squad can't disembark
3. Squad can't disembark
4. Squad is destroyed
5. Squad is destroyed
6. Squad is now free to assault, if they pass pinning.
So, the Deadshane Manoeuvre has a 13.89% probability of taking the enemy by surprise and getting off a brilliant first turn assault. On the other hand, it has a 33.3% probability of wiping out the raider and squad.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 14:31:09
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Scott-S6 wrote:Let's see. Damage result table.
1. Squad can't disembark
2. Squad can't disembark
3. Squad is destroyed
4. Squad is destroyed
5. Squad is now free to assault, if they pass pinning.
6. Squad is now free to assault, if they pass pinning.
So, the Deadshane Manoeuvre has a 33.3% probability of taking the enemy by surprise and getting off a brilliant first turn assault. On the other hand, it has a 33.3% probability of wiping out the raider and squad.
Fixed this for you, since the Raider is open-topped.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 14:39:55
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
Please now factor in that half the models inside will now take wounds, of which 5/6 will then die, take a pinning then take a morale check.
|
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:03:52
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Why are they free to assault after having disembarked from a transport that has moved? Exploding still makes them disembark according to the rules on page 67.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:06:24
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
The only reason this was even plausible with orks was immobilized doesn't kill the orks so it is 1/6th chance of utter destruction and ramshackle is forgiving to 'explodes' results.
Even then it isn't a reasonable tactic, more of a last ditch gamble in some circumstances.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:14:39
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
DarknessEternal wrote:Why are they free to assault after having disembarked from a transport that has moved? Exploding still makes them disembark according to the rules on page 67.
Might want to read it again, nowhere does it say they disemabrk, they're merely placed where the vehicle used to be...........
Copurse, the next paragraph does refer to any unit that gets out of a destroyed vehicle as a"now disembarked unit". But I don't want to be the one to open up that whole can of worms regarding whether aor not a unit can be disembarked without disembarking.......
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:15:41
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Exactly, it mentions in the rules that they have disembarked.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:17:33
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
NO, it says they are a disembarked unit, not that they performed a disembark.
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:38:10
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
DarknessEternal wrote:Exactly, it mentions in the rules that they have disembarked.
No, no it doesnt. As Don said there is a difference between "now disembarked" and "have performed the clearly defined action of "disembark" as defined in the 40k rulebook"
When you explode! you DONT disembark - you are placed where the vehicle used to be. This is NOT, repeat, NOT foloowing the disembarking rules, mainly because you never move. You also dont follow ANY of the dismembarking rules, so it really isnt disembarking.
However this is a can of worms, mainly through some posters insistence on confusing the two terms.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:41:05
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Grakmar wrote:Fixed this for you, since the Raider is open-topped. Good point. 33.3% chance of killing the squad. 27.8% chance of getting to assault (with incubi, much worse with warriors or wyches) 72% chance of failure is still not good odds in my book though.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/19 15:46:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:48:59
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Sslimey Sslyth
|
Alternatively, you could put a Flickerfield on the Raider and have a 1/3 chance to not have anything happen to the Raider at all
Reuseable S10 autohit torpedo!
(Though, I'd probably only try that with an empty Raider.)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/19 15:49:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 15:49:38
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Scott - because open - topped moves a 5 "wrecked" up to a 6 "explodes", same as Ap1 wouild do. Your damage chart didnt reflect this, which for DE does change it *slightly*...
So on an immobilise or wreck result you die, which requires a roll of 3 or 4 when open topped (and penetrating hit, of course!) and an explodes is now a 5 or 6 result.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 16:26:33
Subject: Re:Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:Exactly, it mentions in the rules that they have disembarked.
No, no it doesnt. As Don said there is a difference between "now disembarked" and "have performed the clearly defined action of "disembark" as defined in the 40k rulebook"
When you explode! you DONT disembark - you are placed where the vehicle used to be. This is NOT, repeat, NOT foloowing the disembarking rules, mainly because you never move. You also dont follow ANY of the dismembarking rules, so it really isnt disembarking.
However this is a can of worms, mainly through some posters insistence on confusing the two terms.
How can a unit be "disembarked" if they never "disembarked"?
This reminds me of the third edition debate over firing heavy weapons after disembarking from a transport. People claimed disembarking didn't count as moving since it didn't use the word "move". We all know how that one turned out.
Pg 67 clearly states that a unit has disembarked from a destroyed transport. Sure, the rules under Explode doesn't mention "disembarking", but then later the rules say they are "now disembarked". It's not logically possible for a unit to become "now disembarked" without "disembarking" at some point.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/19 17:07:01
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
You didnt really read what I posted.
You can be in the state of being disembarked despite never performing the action of disembarking. Disembarked is "no longer inside a vehicle", disembarking is "you have performed the action required to remove yourself from the vehicle"
One is passive, the other active.
If your vehicle explodes around you, vanishing into thin air, you HAVE NOT performed the action of disembarking the vehicle. YOU are not the one who has left the vehicle, the vehicle has left you.
However you ARE now disembarked, as you fulfil the requirement to no longer be in a vehicle.
The real clue is, as I showed you, that at NO POINT do you perform ANY of the actions listed in the BRB as happening when you disembark a vehicle. NOt a single one. This should hopefully convince you that given it doesnt look, smell or walk like a duck, it really isnt a duck.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/10/20 03:34:03
Subject: Valid Dark Eldar Tactic? INAT says no, what do the RULES state?
|
 |
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker
New Jersey
|
This is incredibly tactically unsound, but would be unprecedented amounts of awesome when pulled off succesfully.
|
"Order. Unity. Obedience. We taught the galaxy these things, and we shall do so again."
"They are not your worst nightmare; they are your every nightmare."
"Let the galaxy burn!"
|
|
 |
 |
|