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.

MrDrumMachine wrote:The IC is now within 2" of the wych squad in your movement phase. Can you then count the IC as joining the wych unit and grant them fnp for the assault phase?

To me this reads a little oddly, but strikes home for a number of reasons--DoM being one.

Can you? No, you must.

If an IC is within 2" of a unit at the end of the (controlling player's) turn, the player MUST declare which unit (within 2") the IC joins.

If the IC ends far enough away from the unit as to prevent it rejoining, the IC leaves after the movement phase for the exact same reason.


Or did I miss something entirely?

No, he won't, because in order to join a unit he must move to within 2" in the movement phase. If he is locked in combat, he can't move, so he can't join the Wyches.

If you want them to share the pain, make sure toy join them before assaulting.

Incidentally, I just uploaded the first draft of the DE FAQ, v0.1, at the usual place. Apologies for the xx instead of numbers and the few rough edges, but it saves me from having to renumber the lot 20 times and this only the very first early draft!

Yes, this is incomplete, I still have the vehicle armory, wargear entries and Army list to do at least!

Remember, if you have a question that you feel should be included, make sure to let me know here!

Gwar! wrote:Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Interesting, had not noticed this, I wonder if the intention was for them to have a 6+ cover save in the open like their old 5+ permanent cover save, I don't think stealth actually does so though.

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

Once again something I hadn't even considered, why can't you snipe with it? seems like only the models under the template would be eligible to die from it, actually I'm not sure it works well at all, It says the models that fail suffer instant death, but doesn't say wounds have been inflicted, which leaves confusion as to how the saves can be taken etc. I guess the simplest is to just say inflicting instant death in this case means inflicting an instant death wound, but then, if you applied that globally, it's the same wording as say a force weapon, which I doubt most people would let you "assign" the instant death of a force weapon as you would a normal wound.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Interesting, had not noticed this, I wonder if the intention was for them to have a 6+ cover save in the open like their old 5+ permanent cover save, I don't think stealth actually does so though.

Nah, Stealth wont do that. If they GTG in the open they get the 5+ though, but with a 5++ it's pointless unless someone is using RaI Psycannons.

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

Once again something I hadn't even considered, why can't you snipe with it? seems like only the models under the template would be eligible to die from it, actually I'm not sure it works well at all, It says the models that fail suffer instant death, but doesn't say wounds have been inflicted, which leaves confusion as to how the saves can be taken etc. I guess the simplest is to just say inflicting instant death in this case means inflicting an instant death wound, but then, if you applied that globally, it's the same wording as say a force weapon, which I doubt most people would let you "assign" the instant death of a force weapon as you would a normal wound.

As I said in t3h draft, it's not very clear. I highly doubt they would have a sniping weapon like that and not explicitly state it. It's not 100% clear though (that's why I make these damn things! )

Thanks for the feedback though! I just noticed I forgot about the Animus Vite thing, Added that now. -le Sigh- Now I just need to somehow get money to get a 2 hour train to look at the codex again to get the rest of the page numbers and check for more rules issues!

Here's a question for you: what do splinter cannons count as when fired from a vehicle, since they don't have a strength value?

Skittles wrote:Here's a question for you: what do splinter cannons count as when fired from a vehicle, since they don't have a strength value?

Covered in the codex. Page 25.

Oops...missed that one the first time through...

Was just perusing a Bell of Lost Souls post discussing the new rules and spotted something that might be worth putting in your FAQ.

They mentioned the concept of attaching an IC with Power from Pain to a unit without it, e.g. attach an IC to harlequins.

In theory, this works the same as the beastmaster unit situation as long as the IC is attached, what about in melee where the IC is treated as a separate unit when attacks are resolved? Seems like you would lose the benefit to the non power from pain unit for the assault phase.

Also, when the unit splits up, you are forced to divide the pain tokens as equally as possible, so the Harlies leech some pain tokens they can't even use off the IC.

The power from pain rule also doesn't specifiy when randomly distributing pain tokens that only power from pain units are eligible, so even if you aren't trying to exploit anything, a unit of wyches and harlequins both charge an enemy unit, the enemy unit is wiped out, you randomly determine the harlequins win the pain token.

(note that this affects your beastmaster RAW Gwar, where you felt they couldn't earn the tokens unless the whole unit had Power from Pain, in a combined assault they could get them, and I think by RAW you could even argue, a combined assault wherein none of the models have power from pain nets a pain token)

All sorts of problems I hadn't seen before, Definitely a rule where in a friendly setting I will advocate slight changes before the game to how it works, I will probably go with, beastmasters count as a unit with power from pain until all the beastmaster models are dead and so can earn pain tokens and use them. ICs with power from pain are treated as entirely separate for pain tokens when joined to a non power from pain unit, only the IC benefits, however, the IC also gets any earned tokens, without losing them to the squad should he leave them. In a combined assault, pain tokens are only distributed if at least one unit has power from pain, and you only randomize between units that have power from pain.

It's not RAW, but right now RAW is seeming like a mess.

Thanks for the input drunkspleen.

I would have to disagree with you on the IC with a non-PfP unit thing.

The rules on page 49 state:
If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat, the character assaults too, as it is part of the unit. When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on page 41), even though they have joined the unit.

As such, I would say they only count as a separate unit when determining who attacks what etc, but anything else will affect the whole unit, as he is part of the unit.

That being said, good call on the Spliting of the tokens, both from IC's leaving and the random determination from a multi unit assault. Looks like Harlies are gonna be having a lot of useless pain tokens!

I think the beastmaster thing is correct however, as only a unit who has PfP can generate Tokens, but don't need PfP to benefit. The reason they stop benefiting if no-one has PfP is that they no longer have any rule telling you what the benefits of Pain Tokens are, because no-one has PfP!

This would mean that a (for example), Hæmonculus with Harlies wipes out a unit, they won't get another Pain Token as not everyone has PfP, but they will have FnP from the Hæmonculuses Starting Pain Token, but should said Harlies and a unit of Wyches wipe out a unit, the harlies might get one! D:

As for two non-PFP generating a Pain Token, I strongly disagree, since neither has PfP, you can never reference the PfP rule so the "When wipe out enemy make a pain token" rule never comes into effect.

As always, thanks again. Good stuff and a lot to think about! D:

Gwar! wrote:The rules on page 49 state:
If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat, the character assaults too, as it is part of the unit. When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on page 41), even though they have joined the unit.

As such, I would say they only count as a separate unit when determining who attacks what etc, but anything else will affect the whole unit, as he is part of the unit.

At first I thought this would be an agree to disagree thing, given it relies on the interpretation of "attacks are resolved" but then I noticed that further down Page 49 it says:

"...these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards)."

The thing is, most rules where an IC grants a bonus to a unit (or atleast, the ones I can dig up easily) say for example "Astorath and all members of any squad he has joined" I guess I kind of feel an IC is still considered joined to a squad ("treated as a separate single-model unit ... even though they have joind the unit"), but they are not a single unit while attacks are happening, it's all a bit bizarre, and potentially could impact other armies I guess.

Gwar! wrote:As for two non-PFP generating a Pain Token, I strongly disagree, since neither has PfP, you can never reference the PfP rule so the "When wipe out enemy make a pain token" rule never comes into effect.

Yeah in hindsight I was probably getting a step ahead of myself and focused on the seperation of the single unit and multiple unit rules, combined with the fact that the multiple unit rules never call for a unit to have PfP, but when I step backed and thought about it, you would be right that no rules regarding Pain Tokens can even kick in.

Does nullzone work on the flickerfield?

scuddman wrote:Does nullzone work on the flickerfield?

Of course. "All enemy units" includes Vehicles.

I'll throw this in, as well as a note about Psycannons and other Invul Affecting things.

Any word on the bomber yet?
I guess to be more specific, the rules for the voidraven dictate that you can place the template anywhere that the voidraven has moved over, and that it "counts as firing a weapon."

I don't understand what that means...
Can you turboboost and do it?
What about if you're immobilized?
What if you move only 1 inch, so the template will hit part of the voidraven?
What if you deepstrike?
Does crew shaken stop the voidraven from dropping it?
What about if you moved and then got immobilized?
Can you tank shock (assuming you bought upgrade) and then drop it?
What about the timing? Nothing is said about the timing of it, so what happens if you tank shock, someone death or glories, and it dies? or gets immobilized or shaken? Does it happen before you got shaken?


More questions about the flickerfield. I move a raider into cover and get immobilized. Can I take my flickerfield save? What about something else that debuffs the raider but doesn't directly do damage like the grabbin klaw? Do I get an I save against that?

Also, if dark eldar jetbikes count as eldar jetbikes, does that mean all dark eldar units count as eldar units?

scuddman wrote:Any word on the bomber yet?
I guess to be more specific, the rules for the voidraven dictate that you can place the template anywhere that the voidraven has moved over, and that it "counts as firing a weapon."

I don't understand what that means...
Can you turboboost and do it? yes, the restrictions on how many weapons you can fire based on movement only apply to the shooting phase
What about if you're immobilized? Depends on how you define "Passed Over" but I would say no, and define only models who were passed over by the base as "Passed Over".
What if you move only 1 inch, so the template will hit part of the voidraven?1 inch is, by my definition of using the base, not enough to pass over a model, however you could end your move with part of the voidraven between 1.000001 and 1.5 inches away from an enemy and be hit, it will be affected by it's own bomb in that case
What if you deepstrike? You can't have passed over a model in deep striking
Does crew shaken stop the voidraven from dropping it? Unlike a flat out move crew shaken would affect it, as it applies in all phases.
What about if you moved and then got immobilized? I see no reason being immobilized would stop it, infact, even if the voidraven is destroyed by the immobilization I think you would get to resolve it
Can you tank shock (assuming you bought upgrade) and then drop it? Irrelevant, see page 93 of the codex
What about the timing? Nothing is said about the timing of it, so what happens if you tank shock, someone death or glories, and it dies? or gets immobilized or shaken? Does it happen before you got shaken? see previous answer

That's my take on it

Voidraven moves over some cluster mines and gets shaken. How do you resolve that? Can it drop the mine before it got shaken? Can it not drop the mine at all? Or can it drop the mine anywhere?

I remember writing to GW once, telling them that putting in rules that break the normal order of the rules were terrible for gameplay and gamebalance..using the huge headache that is lash as an example.

But I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

scuddman wrote:Voidraven moves over some cluster mines and gets shaken. How do you resolve that? Can it drop the mine before it got shaken? Can it not drop the mine at all? Or can it drop the mine anywhere?

I remember writing to GW once, telling them that putting in rules that break the normal order of the rules were terrible for gameplay and gamebalance..using the huge headache that is lash as an example.

But I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Cluster mines trigger "once the unit has finished it's move" (also, only if a model moves into the terrain piece, not over it), the bomb is used during the voidraven movement phase, so the bomb would have higher priority and happen first.

This Voidraven Bomber is hurting my brain, especially the issue of can it move Flat out and use it, as well as what the frak "This counts as using a Weapon" us supposed to mean! D:

For what it's worth I happen to agree with Drunkspleen on this though I am not 100% on the Flat Out move.

To me, the only rationale for the "this counts as using a weapon" line is to indicate that it cannot be used when a weapon would otherwise not be able to be used (with the specified exception of using it during the shooting phase).

From that perspective, the bomb couldn't be dropped if you move flat out or if the vehicle were shaken.

By that interpretation, would one also have to consider the bomb eligible for a "weapon destroyed" result?

Saldiven wrote:To me, the only rationale for the "this counts as using a weapon" line is to indicate that it cannot be used when a weapon would otherwise not be able to be used (with the specified exception of using it during the shooting phase).

From that perspective, the bomb couldn't be dropped if you move flat out or if the vehicle were shaken.

By that interpretation, would one also have to consider the bomb eligible for a "weapon destroyed" result?

It has a profile, it's a weapon. If HK missiles can be destroyed by a Weapon Destroyed result (they can), then so can the Voidraven's bomm bomb.

Agreed. It can be selected for a WD result... and in fact, like the HK, can be picked even if it has fired its one shot.

Firing doesn't destroy the weapon, all it says is that it is one shot only, so an "empty" one still needs to be WD in order to glance the Voidraven to death.

Nice catch, adding now!

Makes the Voidraven a little bit hardier. And that thing needs all the survivability it can get.

Not to derail, But Why don't you get your own section for your FAQ's that way everyone won't be bombing one thread with a million questions, so when I have a SW question (which GWAR! knows, Happens a lot) I don't have sift through DE questions because I don't care? seems like it might be more efficient for everyone if they are in a common area but not all in one thread

Johnnyboy955 wrote:Not to derail, But Why don't you get your own section for your FAQ's that way everyone won't be bombing one thread with a million questions, so when I have a SW question (which GWAR! knows, Happens a lot) I don't have sift through DE questions because I don't care? seems like it might be more efficient for everyone if they are in a common area but not all in one thread

If you have a SW question, send an e-mail (or a PM, but I prefer e-mail).

This thread is for Feedback for my FAQs and to have them all in one place (the first post) instead of scattered about like they were before.

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Mandrakes don't seem to have any issues here, though the lack of an Armour save is disturbing. ;P

Interesting, had not noticed this, I wonder if the intention was for them to have a 6+ cover save in the open like their old 5+ permanent cover save, I don't think stealth actually does so though.

Nah, Stealth wont do that. If they GTG in the open they get the 5+ though, but with a 5++ it's pointless unless someone is using RaI Psycannons.

Razorwings seem to have no problems, but the Voidraven falls into the pit of calling a Blast Marker a template. Their Implosion Missile is NOT worded to be able to snipe models however, though a reminder will be added.

Once again something I hadn't even considered, why can't you snipe with it? seems like only the models under the template would be eligible to die from it, actually I'm not sure it works well at all, It says the models that fail suffer instant death, but doesn't say wounds have been inflicted, which leaves confusion as to how the saves can be taken etc. I guess the simplest is to just say inflicting instant death in this case means inflicting an instant death wound, but then, if you applied that globally, it's the same wording as say a force weapon, which I doubt most people would let you "assign" the instant death of a force weapon as you would a normal wound.

As I said in t3h draft, it's not very clear. I highly doubt they would have a sniping weapon like that and not explicitly state it. It's not 100% clear though (that's why I make these damn things! )

Thanks for the feedback though! I just noticed I forgot about the Animus Vite thing, Added that now. -le Sigh- Now I just need to somehow get money to get a 2 hour train to look at the codex again to get the rest of the page numbers and check for more rules issues!

Implosion Missles:The models hit by a implosion missle must take a wound test... if they fail they get removed from play with no saves allowed. The Mandrakes have a 5+ inv save i think.

yeah, but Invulnerable saves are still a save, which the Implosion Missile doesn't allow!

Incidentally, version 0.2 is uploaded, at the usual place.

Bleh. I can't access that location here at work :(

Nulipuli2 wrote:Implosion Missles:The models hit by a implosion missle must take a wound test... if they fail they get removed from play with no saves allowed.

The rule is extremely iffy, the wording of models taking the test and that those models "suffer instant death" is the same as the wording on a force weapon, which I'm pretty sure most people accept is not assignable, however, the fact that the Implosion missile goes on to say cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken suggests that this "instant death" that models are suffering, must be wounds, as you cant take a cover/invulnerable save "as normal" unless you are being wounded.

Nulipuli2 wrote:The Mandrakes have a 5+ inv save i think.

Given my success in demolishing the codex and finding all sorts of RAW issues you would think I would be able to spot that Mandrakes have a 5++ save even though it's not on their stat line...

Gwar! wrote:yeah, but Invulnerable saves are still a save, which the Implosion Missile doesn't allow!

The Implosion missile actually specifically allows cover and invulnerable saves, and I believe he was saying 2 separate things.

Saldiven wrote:Bleh. I can't access that location here at work :(

Seek and Ye Shall be rewarded!

Here is a link to my Dropbox, if that doesn't work, let me know.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10125119/Unofficial%20Codex%20Dark%20Eldar%20FAQ%20v0.2.pdf

@Drunkspleen: Figures. Still, Lrn2Read!

DE.25.xx – Q: If a unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule is joined by an Independent Character with the “Power from Pain” special
rule, does the unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule benefit from the “Power from Pain” special rule and what
happens if the Independent Character leaves the unit or is killed?

Is much the same as

DE.25.xx – Q: How exactly does the “Power from Pain” special rule work for a unit without the “Power from Pain” special rule which has
been joined by an Independent Character with the “Power from Pain” special rule? Can they generate Pain Tokens? Do they
benefit from the rule at all?

DE.29.xx – Q: Does the imaginary line drawn between the start and end points of a Reaver units movement for the purposes of Bladevanes
have to be straight?
A: Yes, the line must be a straight line going directly from the start point to the end point. [Rules Change]

I would personally say that the line must follow their movement, rather than, a direct start point to end point line, I think they should be able to hit a unit then zip out at a different angle, of course, given the wording of Mark the Start and End points and then trace an imaginary line, your rules change is probably closer to RAW.

DE.29.xx – Q: Do the effects given by Cluster Caltrops and Grav-Talons replace those of the Bladevanes or are they in addition to them?
A: They replace them completely. Remember in particular to roll the dice for Grav-Talon attacks separate from the Bladevanes! [Clarification]
• It can, however, be interpreted that they do not replace the effect normally caused by Bladevanes, but are in addition to it..

Just a slight nitpick, the Cluster Caltrops specifically modify the effect of the bladevanes, so there's no way to interpret them as being in addition.

DE.31.xx – Q: Does the “Murderous Assault” special rule allow a Klaivex to benefit from “Preferred Enemy” when attacking a unit
consisting of an Independent Character and its Retinue?
A: No, as there is no way for the Klaivex to only attack the Independent Character model until the Retune is dead. [R.a.W]

I personally disagree with this RAW, and feel a Klaivex could be said to be attacking both the IC and each model in his retinue (Note: Same situation as a squadron of Piranhas with Flechette Dischargers i.e. not specifically targetting one, but could be said to be attacking all of them).

DE.35.xx – Q: When rolling to determine the characteristics of a Medudae's “Eyeburst” attack, do you roll a single die for both characteristics
or two dice, one for each characteristic?

"Medudae"

Ended up rushing through the rest a bit so might have to re-examine it.

Thanks for the feedback Drunkspleen.

Yeah, looks like a Duplicate got in there, I'll kill it off.

As for the Reavers, yeah, going for as close to RaW as possible.

Woops, mispellings ftl!

And as for the Caltrops, all the rule says is:
A model with Cluster Caltrops inflicts [CENSORED BY ORDER OF THE GW ATTACK PANDAS] hits with its Bladevanes (see above).

It doesn't say "instead of", thus the need to clarify it.