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.

InquisitorBob wrote:I'd like to bring up an intriguing non-Devilfish, non-Cronius ruling I found in the INAT FAQ.

It goes like this

RB.41C.01 - Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing closed combat that is charged by another unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The "beggining of combat" is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

That seems to be incorrect (or at least, not RAW, more like a rule change).

Page 41 says this under Multiple Combats, under Attacking:

In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply.
- Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
- Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any models attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. (Declare blah).

It seems that the FAQ people missed the past tense of the first bullet point. Models that -were- engaged with just one unit must attack that unit.
So the answer to that question should be Yes.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Okay, I've found a rules issue. The INAT says that a techmarine can fix the vehicle he is in. The majority of players believe that you cannot, as you need to be in base contact with the vehicle. Base contact is not the same as 0'', as this would allow enemies to assault the units inside their transports by moving into base contact with the transport.

thebetter1 wrote:Okay, I've found a rules issue. The INAT says that a techmarine can fix the vehicle he is in

No, it doesn't. The latest INAT (v3.0) Fixed that error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:The majority of players believe that you cannot

This is irrelevant. If the rules said you could (they don't, but if they did) It wouldn't matter if "majority of players believe that you cannot", you can.

Okay, I had the old version.

Reading over the latest version, I found quite a few problems in the Space Marine section.

It says that if Marneus Calgar's ability is used to auto-pass a morale check in close combat, this is no retreat. How is this any different from rolling the morale check and passing, which would not be no retreat?

Why can't Land Raiders fire a weapon when they use smoke? The case against it is pretty weak, relying on a specific interpretation of the word "normally," while the case for it uses the distinct wording in the rule which is basically impossible to argue against.

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

I'm not totally convinced that you can't use an orbital bombardment out of a Land Raider. Is the Chapter Master firing a weapon? I would say he is not.

yakface wrote:
I don't think you quite understand what a big can of worms it would be opening to rule the way you suggest. Almost every codex has units in a certain section of the army list that are in grey boxes.

No, he doesn't, but he's not interested in other codices. All he cares about is the Tau codex. Even then he doesn't realize what he's asking for.

Devilfish as troops choices means:

- mech tau can only ever have 3 mounted fire warrior squads because 3 FW squads + 3 devilfish would take up all six troops slots.

- mech tau with those three 3 mounted squads could not take any pathfinders because the pathfinders are required to take a devilfish.

- a legal Tau army can be built without any scoring units because vehicles are never scoring even if they come from a troops choice.

Che-Vito wrote:

yakface wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
I find it very strange that Drones are part of a Tau vehicle (and NOT an upgrade, at least Gun Drones aren't.) but give an extra KP, while the Techmarine from a Thunderfire Cannon only counts as one if both the Marine and the Cannon are destroyed.

In the case of Chronus its a little stickier, but to us, the rules seem to indicate that he is simply an upgrade to the vehicle UNTIL it is destroyed, at which point the unit of Chronus is effectively 'created', and therefore worth a Kill Point when killed.

In the case of the Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon, if the Cannon is killed he becomes an IC, but there is no indication that he has suddenly become a new unit and therefore it is only 1 Kill Point if both models are killed.

You kill a Devilfish without disembarking the Drones = 1 KP
You kill Devilfish + disembarked Drones = 2 KP
You kill vehicle and Cronus = 2 KP
You kill TF Cannon and Techmarine = 1 KP

The arguement was made earlier that Drones disembarking makes "another unit to kill", but so does a Techmarine! I see no reason for this one unit to be an except, nor do I see the need to "clarify" the Tau codex when it clearly allows standalone Devilfish to be taken as Troops choices.

These are examples of the arbitrary rulings that are upsetting.

Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between Tau drones and Cronus is that drones can be dismounted voluntarily, in which case the enemy has to make an extra effort to attack them.

All these problems would be avoided by using VPs instead of KPs, but that isn't the way the game works now.

The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

No, the problem arises because of using KPs not VPs.

Under 4e the two drones would have been worth 24 points and the 30 Boyz would have been worth 200 points or whatever 30 Boys are worth.

That was a relatively fair and balanced system, which had the disadvantage that it made people have to do bigger sums at the end of the game.

Heh, I didn't even realize this thread was going on...

I have a request for the Tau Section. Can it be explained how Multi-Trackers work in situations not using Battlesuit Weapons Systems? Rules:

Tau Codex, p26 wrote:The multi-tracker is a sophisticated fire control system mounted in a sensor node, often upon a battlesuit's shoulder. It enables the model to fire two battlesuit weapon systems in the same turn

Tau Codex, p28 wrote:Hard-wired systems allow Tau without a battlesuit to benefit from some support systems normally only mounted on a battlesuit. See the Battlesuit section of the Armoury for each system's rules.

Obviously you can shoot two weapons from a battlesuit using a Multi-Tracker. But what happens if:

1. A Battlesuit Shas'vre/el/o fills 2 hardpoints with a twin-linked weapon, and its last hardpoint with a single weapon. If the suit takes a HWMT, can it shoot both the twin-linked weapon along with the single weapon, even though this exceeds the "two Battlesuit Weapon System" limit?

2. A Broadside Team Leader takes a HWMT. Or, a regular Shas'ui Broadside takes a regular Multi-Tracker and buys the Twin-linked Plasma weapon. Can either Broadside fire its secondary weapon (either SMS or Twin-linked Plasma gun) in addition to its Railgun? Neither is a Battlesuit Weapon System (except for Plasma).

3. A Firewarrior Shas'ui or Stealthsuit Shas'ui Team Leader buys a HWMT and a Markerlight. Can the Multi-tracker be used to fire the Pulse Rifle/Burst Cannon in addition to the Markerlight? If they can't, why give them the option to buy it? Neither is a Battlesuit Weapon System.


Each of these situations are pretty ambiguous. Obviously RAW dictates only Battlesuit Weapon Systems, which Railguns, SMS, Pulse Rifles, Burst Cannons, and Markerlights are not (since they're not listed on p25 under the Battlesuit armory). However, why give Firewarrior and Stealthsuit Shas'ui's the chance to buy one if not to use it with Markerlights? Or Broadsides the chance to buy it if not to use it in conjunction with a Railgun? If we accept true RAW, this destroys the meaning of a Firewarrior or Stealthsuit from taking one, which they are obviously supposed to be able to do, as it lists the HWMT in the infantry armory.

Any help the INAT could lend to this issue would be appreciated!

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

InquisitorBob wrote:Stuff.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

InquisitorBob wrote:
Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

It just makes it clear that the combat is not just a free for all in which anyone can attack anyone. Models must still attack only those units with which they are engaged. Units are the engaged with more than one unit can choose. Those that are engaged with just one don't get to choose.

The 5,6 "Bzzap" result for the Shokk Attack Gun should not scatter. "Only the model under the template hole is hit..." The INAT FAQ says it should scatter but provides no guidance for what happens if two or more models are partially under the template hole if you scatter. Obviously, accepting that "Bzzap" does not scatter eliminates the need for making up rules.

olympia wrote:The 5,6 "Bzzap" result for the Shokk Attack Gun should not scatter. "Only the model under the template hole is hit..." The INAT FAQ says it should scatter but provides no guidance for what happens if two or more models are partially under the template hole if you scatter. Obviously, accepting that "Bzzap" does not scatter eliminates the need for making up rules.

Why should it not scatter? Where does it say it stops being blast?

InquisitorBob wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

InquisitorBob wrote:Stuff.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

A unit with many I4 models and a single I1 model charges multiple enemy units. The model with I1 is in base to base with one enemy unit (Enemy A) and within two inches of a friendly model in base to base with a second enemy unit (Enemy B). I4 models do a lot of damage to Enemy A, and leave it with a single model, which is not in base to base with the I1. This rule means that when the I1 model makes its attacks, it HAS to attack the unit it was formerly base to base with, and cannot spend its attacks on Enemy B.

Arschbombe wrote:

yakface wrote:
I don't think you quite understand what a big can of worms it would be opening to rule the way you suggest. Almost every codex has units in a certain section of the army list that are in grey boxes.

No, he doesn't, but he's not interested in other codices. All he cares about is the Tau codex. Even then he doesn't realize what he's asking for.

Devilfish as troops choices means:

- mech tau can only ever have 3 mounted fire warrior squads because 3 FW squads + 3 devilfish would take up all six troops slots.
READ YOUR CODEX. FIRE WARRIORS CAN STILL TAKE AS DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

- mech tau with those three 3 mounted squads could not take any pathfinders because the pathfinders are required to take a devilfish.
READ YOUR CODEX. PATHFINDERS CAN STILL TAKE A DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

- a legal Tau army can be built without any scoring units because vehicles are never scoring even if they come from a troops choice.
This would in fact be true, but would be an army that could only contest objectives, therefore pointless.

I know exactly what I am opening...*seriously* I know you are capable of reading. Do it.
2/3 of the examples you listed above are false, ironically in a statement that is meant to challenge my knowledge of the Codex.

I currently play 3 different armies full-time, am looking at a 4th full-time, and previously had another army (Eldar) that I played and eventually dropped after a long time playing them.

If you ignore any of the above facts, then read what I have written below at least:
Yes, the use of Devilfish as Troops tactically is not very useful (unless you don't want to pay for Fire Warriors and want Mech Kroot for some reason...), but I am arguing that arbitrary decision here on the part of the INAT FAW. If RAW is fine, then leave it alone.

I'd just like to add that, although I'll probably never go to adepticon, nor any similar tournaments.

That, having a general read over the FAQ rulings, generally speaking... They seem rather.... sane.

This probably seems like backhanded praise or whatever... But from a casual gaming night player really, this is the most honest response I can give it.

A tournament faq that is actually sane.

Che-Vito wrote:
READ YOUR CODEX. FIRE WARRIORS CAN STILL TAKE AS DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

Might want to read yours before you tell me to read mine. That's not what it says at all. What it does say is:

"If it numbers twelve models or less (including drones), the team may be mounted in a devilfish troop carrier."

Congratulations. You win. Devilfish are not dedicated transports. You broke the Tau codex.

Marty, tell him what he's won.

Arschbombe wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
READ YOUR CODEX. FIRE WARRIORS CAN STILL TAKE AS DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

Might want to read yours before you tell me to read mine. That's not what it says at all. What it does say is:

"If it numbers twelve models or less (including drones), the team may be mounted in a devilfish troop carrier."

Congratulations. You win. Devilfish are not dedicated transports. You broke the Tau codex.

Marty, tell him what he's won.

I beg you, please read your Codex and BGB. Can you mount a squad of Fire Warriors in a Devilfish that isn't theirs, at the beginning of a game? No.
The passage you quoted, makes it quite clear that the Fire Warriors are taking it as a Dedicated Transport, otherwise this would be illegal.

Tau codex remains unbroken.
I am ready to debate a legitimate point, should one be brought up.

If Devilfishes are not dedicated transports you can start in one.

Che-Vito wrote:
I beg you, please read your Codex and BGB. Can you mount a squad of Fire Warriors in a Devilfish that isn't theirs, at the beginning of a game? No.

What has that to do with anything? All that bit says is that the fire warriors can get in a devilfish. It doesn't say they can buy one. It doesn't say they can deploy in one.

You were all hard core on RAW means devilfish are a troops choice and now you want to say we have to read between the lines to figure out that "may be mounted in" actually means "may purchase a devilfish as a dedicated transport" ?

The passage you quoted, makes it quite clear that the Fire Warriors are taking it as a Dedicated Transport, otherwise this would be illegal.

No. You've established that the devilfish is a separate troops choice and not a dedicated transport. The firewarrior entry just tells you how big the team can be and still fit in the devilfish because the you can buy a 12-man team and two drones and not be able to fit.

Che-Vito wrote:
I am ready to debate a legitimate point, should one be brought up.

What, like the huge glaring one you just glossed over as unimportant?
If you want to stick to strict RAW at all costs on this issue and demand written confirmation that they are strictly dedicated, then you can enjoy your 100% nondedicated transports that always take troop slots.

MasterSlowPoke and Arschbombe, I wanted to let you know that I will get back to you with my full thoughts on this is a day or two, things have taken a crazy turn in my personal life, and I lack the time to compose much more than this.

I appreciate your patience!
-CV

Arschbombe for the win in the Tau Devilfish debacle. Where I come from your winning argument would be followed by the two magic words "Your momma!"

Page 36. Tau Empire Codex. Beginning of Troop Choices.

Troop Choice: 1+ Fire Warriors... Transport option, in bold.
Right below option, Transport stats.

The reason for "Transport:" is to connect it with the option given above in the Fire Warrior section. This direct proximity and clear usage of "Transport:" is a logical answer.

As it is the norm, that no other army can take a transport as a troop, then the Game writers would have clearly pointed out that this army, and this particular transport is an exception to the rules, and because there is no such text stating such, they it will fall in with the lot of other transports and benefit from the 5th ed rules of no longer being truly dedicated after the start of the battle.

thebetter1 wrote:It says that if Marneus Calgar's ability is used to auto-pass a morale check in close combat, this is no retreat. How is this any different from rolling the morale check and passing, which would not be no retreat?

It's different because the rules for No Retreat actually specify that units that automatically pass a morale test are subject to No Retreat.

Why can't Land Raiders fire a weapon when they use smoke? The case against it is pretty weak, relying on a specific interpretation of the word "normally," while the case for it uses the distinct wording in the rule which is basically impossible to argue against.

That issue spawned at least one mega-thread not so long ago. Opinions were pretty divided as to whether PotMS works through smoke, so I would guess that the INAT crew went with the more restrictive interpretation to save arguments.

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Second paragraph of the Cluster Mines entry.

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change.

I would suspect this ruling was made as some similar abilities for other armies actually specify that they can be used to move away from close combat. Since GoI doesn't, and since you normally can't voluntarily leave close combat, GoI shouldn't be used to do so.

And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

I suspect the logic here was that the rules for Falling Back specify exactly what must happen in the Movement Phase if you are falling back. Since Falling Back says that you must move a particular way, you can't choose to do something else (in this case Gate) instead.

It also opens a can of works with units that are Falling Back being able to escape dropping off the table by Falling Back and then just Gating to somewhere else on the table. A similar issue was discussed with Skyleap when the Eldar codex was released.

I'm not totally convinced that you can't use an orbital bombardment out of a Land Raider. Is the Chapter Master firing a weapon? I would say he is not.

The Orbital Bombardment rules in the Chapter Master's entry in the Codex states that it counts as firing a ranged weapon.

synchronicity wrote:Heh, I didn't even realize this thread was going on...

I have a request for the Tau Section. Can it be explained how Multi-Trackers work in situations not using Battlesuit Weapons Systems?

synchronicity: Can you repost this question into the sticky thread at the top of this forum for question submissions to the INAT?


Thanks!

Che-Vito wrote:
You keep using logic that fails! If the INAT had ruled using the way I have suggested from the start (RAW), then the EXACT same scenario you have presented would occur. Universal acceptance, with a few who disagree and move on with life.

Arguing "this is the way we've had it for awhile" doesn't put it above being changed by any means.

The INAT FAQ is not an official FAQ. Many, many people are unaware of it or choose not to use it for a variety of reasons. The fact is, whether or not we rule on something is not going to stop it being played a certain way by the majority of players.

Only certain types of players, like yourself and I are the kind of people who read every FAQ and pore over the rules finding little inconsistencies like the one we're arguing about. So it does not work if you simply reverse the ruling. The majority of people who don't keep up on every ruling in the FAQ are still going to be confused with why you're bringing a Devilfish as a Troops choice.


And beyond that, you have still to address my point about other codexes and their 'supernumerary' choices (the units in the greyed-out boxes). If we make the ruling on the Devilfish the way you propose then it completely opens up the door to allow anyone to take any of these choices as stand alone units in their codex, which is definitely going to cause all sorts of havoc.

Gorkamorka wrote:Aside from the obious rolla arguments, the only ork ruling that stood out to me was

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such
as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot’s unit before the
game and arrive with them via ‘Ambush’?
A: No, as Snikrot’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not.

I just walked through the raw on that last week or so and it seemed as though it worked to me.
When held in reserves together the IC is part of his unit, unless I'm missing something, and Ambush reads 'When Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve, they may move on from any table edge.'

Not that the ruling is unfounded, it's just the only one I could poke at.

This ruling, again is based on a rules argument that has been done many times over in this forum regarding whether or not ICs can gain special rules by joining units. Page 48 of the rule specifies that ICs do not gain special rules when joining a unit unless the special rule specifies that they do. This, of course, brings up the question of what level of specificity is needed. The example they give in the rulebook is 'stubborn' which clearly states that it affects ICs joining the unit.

Snikrot's special rules says it applies to 'his unit', so this has always raised the question of whether this is specific enough to apply to joined ICs as well. We had a long debate when making this ruling and ultimately decided that ICs already get plenty of bonuses in the game and it was probably safer to stick with the stricter interpretation of the rule and say that special rules are not conferred onto joined ICs unless the rule actually says that it applies to ICs.

So for Snikrot's Ambush special rule to apply to joined ICs it would have to say:

"When Snikrot, his unit and any joined Independent Characters become available from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge."

InquisitorBob wrote:I'd like to bring up an intriguing non-Devilfish, non-Cronius ruling I found in the INAT FAQ.

It goes like this

RB.41C.01 - Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing closed combat that is charged by another unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The "beggining of combat" is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

That seems to be incorrect (or at least, not RAW, more like a rule change).

Page 41 says this under Multiple Combats, under Attacking:

In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply.
- Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
- Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any models attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. (Declare blah).

It seems that the FAQ people missed the past tense of the first bullet point. Models that -were- engaged with just one unit must attack that unit.
So the answer to that question should be Yes.

You need to check out the GW rulebook online FAQ. They made an errata to the section of rules you quoted. But beyond that, look at page 33 of the rules. The start of a "combat" actually happens after Assaulting units are moved and Defenders react. THAT is when you check to see which models are engaged with other models. . .GW even made it part of the errata to help make it a bit more clear.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

InquisitorBob wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

InquisitorBob wrote:Stuff.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

It applies to which models you are allowed to attack based on when models are killed in the combat.


Read the diagram carefully on the bottom of page 41 of the rulebook. Notice that Space Marine #3 is ONLY allowed to attack the Gretchin because he's in base contact with them?

That's what the errata'd rules in GW's FAQ clarify: If a model is in base contact with models from one unit they HAVE to attack that unit. They aren't allowed to 'lend' their attacks over to another unit that is also locked in the combat.

yakface wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Aside from the obious rolla arguments, the only ork ruling that stood out to me was

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such
as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot’s unit before the
game and arrive with them via ‘Ambush’?
A: No, as Snikrot’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not.

I just walked through the raw on that last week or so and it seemed as though it worked to me.
When held in reserves together the IC is part of his unit, unless I'm missing something, and Ambush reads 'When Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve, they may move on from any table edge.'

Not that the ruling is unfounded, it's just the only one I could poke at.

This ruling, again is based on a rules argument that has been done many times over in this forum regarding whether or not ICs can gain special rules by joining units. Page 48 of the rule specifies that ICs do not gain special rules when joining a unit unless the special rule specifies that they do. This, of course, brings up the question of what level of specificity is needed. The example they give in the rulebook is 'stubborn' which clearly states that it affects ICs joining the unit.

Snikrot's special rules says it applies to 'his unit', so this has always raised the question of whether this is specific enough to apply to joined ICs as well. We had a long debate when making this ruling and ultimately decided that ICs already get plenty of bonuses in the game and it was probably safer to stick with the stricter interpretation of the rule and say that special rules are not conferred onto joined ICs unless the rule actually says that it applies to ICs.

So for Snikrot's Ambush special rule to apply to joined ICs it would have to say:

"When Snikrot, his unit and any joined Independent Characters become available from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge."

Fair enough, and it's a solid interpretation. Probably the fairest one too.
I'd assumed in my head that the paragraph under ICs only applied to USRs for some dumb reason.
The wording of the rule (that when performing a normal action his entire unit gets to do something extra because he is there, rather than conferring a rule or bonus to the models, which seems distinct from the example where they cannot infiltrate at deployment because the IC is simply missing that ability or the models actually gaining a rule like Stubborn personally) suggested otherwise to me, but the extrapolation from the IC rules also makes sense.

thebetter1 wrote:

Reading over the latest version, I found quite a few problems in the Space Marine section.

No offense to you, as I appreciate any and all feedback, but these kind of responses don't actually provide me with any feedback. Rather than just listing off a set of rulings you disagree with, if you'd genuinely like something to be reversed then I at least expect you to do some research as to why we may have made that ruling (do searches in this forum for similar arguments and learn why other people may disagree with your interpretation) and then provide with me with actual rules quotes backing up why you think the ruling needs to be changed.

I know that's a lot of work on your part, but we've put a lot of work into researching and debating these rulings on our part, so if you expect us to change them the least you can do is put a similar level of effort into presenting your case.

It says that if Marneus Calgar's ability is used to auto-pass a morale check in close combat, this is no retreat. How is this any different from rolling the morale check and passing, which would not be no retreat?

The interpretation is that when you choose to pass the test this is considered automatic (as no dice were rolled for the Ld test). I understand that there are different interpretations, as you clearly have, but this is most certainly a valid interpretation on our part. If you don't have to take the test (roll the dice) then you can be said to have automatically passed the test. And units that automatically pass their Ld test are subject to 'No Retreat!'

Why can't Land Raiders fire a weapon when they use smoke? The case against it is pretty weak, relying on a specific interpretation of the word "normally," while the case for it uses the distinct wording in the rule which is basically impossible to argue against.

Again, we don't just make rulings based on the pure RAW. We also take into consideration how most people play the game in order to ensure a smooth running tournament. It has been our overall experience that most people don't play that the Machine Spirit can be used by a vehicle that has fired smoke, and this was backed up by a poll I took a while ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/219946.page

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Read the whole 2nd paragraph for Cluster Mines. You place them after terrain has been placed, which by the layout of how a game is set-up in the rules happens before selecting a mission.

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

Gate of Infinity uses Deep Strike to re-deploy the unit, and the Deep Strike rules specify that this does count as movement. Units locked in combat cannot move and therefore cannot use Gate. Also note, that similar abilities, like Skyleap or Veil of Death clearly state that they can be used when locked in combat.

And when a unit is falling back the rules dictate what kind of movement you have to take. Therefore you are not allowed to make a voluntary movement of any kind, including using Gate. This ruling is also consistent with how GW ruled for both Skyleap and Veil of Death regarding units that are falling back.

I'm not totally convinced that you can't use an orbital bombardment out of a Land Raider. Is the Chapter Master firing a weapon? I would say he is not.

The rules clearly states that he counts as firing a ranged weapon. . .I don't know how much clearer it could be!

Yak on the one hand you state your interpretations are made to facilitate smooth gaming which I applaud, however in the case of the Chapter Master and his orbital bombardment I think we all know he does not have a piece of ordnance bolted onto his armor. He is calling down a strike from the battlebarge.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yak on the one hand you state your interpretations are made to facilitate smooth gaming which I applaud, however in the case of the Chapter Master and his orbital bombardment I think we all know he does not have a piece of ordnance bolted onto his armor. He is calling down a strike from the battlebarge.

G

The land Raider has 10 Mile Thick Ceramic Plating. Assume he is Maintaining Radio Silence

The rules are very clear, GBF.