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.

So this came up at my flgs. A draigo inside of a centstar activated sanctuary. Now it adds +1 to your invul as we all know.. but the guy said he is pretty sure it gives his cents a 6+ invul. The opponent, necrons, disagreed. Being nosey, I now wanna know what dakka thinks. I know if something grants a cover save where one wasn't already rules usually begin at 6+. Is it the same for this?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
So this came up at my flgs. A draigo inside of a centstar activated sanctuary. Now it adds +1 to your invul as we all know.. but the guy said he is pretty sure it gives his cents a 6+ invul. The opponent, necrons, disagreed. Being nosey, I now wanna know what dakka thinks. I know if something grants a cover save where one wasn't already rules usually begin at 6+. Is it the same for this?

Yeah - pretty sure it says in the wording of sanct that it provides a 6+ invo to units with no invo save. Don't tell me he actually passed a few of them on you? LOL. Do you not play with the rulebook on hand? Deamonology (Sanctic) psychic powers are in there.

Xeno is correct.

Why didn't you guys just read the rule? It's a very simple, quick way to solve disagreements, especially when it's so clearly stated.

THEN, if the rule is still confusing or conflict arises, roll off for the game situation in order to keep playing, and bring the conundrum to YMDC.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
So this came up at my flgs. A draigo inside of a centstar activated sanctuary. Now it adds +1 to your invul as we all know.. but the guy said he is pretty sure it gives his cents a 6+ invul. The opponent, necrons, disagreed. Being nosey, I now wanna know what dakka thinks. I know if something grants a cover save where one wasn't already rules usually begin at 6+. Is it the same for this?

Sanctuary gives units that dont have an invuln a 6+, the cents would get a 6+ which is correct

Other than the fact that Draigo can not cast Sanctuary, as its not one of his predetermined powers.

Which is the bigger issue.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
So this came up at my flgs. A draigo inside of a centstar activated sanctuary. Now it adds +1 to your invul as we all know.. but the guy said he is pretty sure it gives his cents a 6+ invul. The opponent, necrons, disagreed. Being nosey, I now wanna know what dakka thinks. I know if something grants a cover save where one wasn't already rules usually begin at 6+. Is it the same for this?

Sanctuary gives units that dont have an invuln a 6+, the cents would get a 6+ which is correct

Other than the fact that Draigo can not cast Sanctuary, as its not one of his predetermined powers.

Which is the bigger issue.

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

If it was another Psyker then thats fine, he said Draigo casted it though, so I commented on that.

Probably meant Stern.

Guys it was me playing, my story stated I overheard this all and just figured I'd ask and yes we have a rulebook. Sometimes it's quicker asking here and getting opinions and starting discussion. And I thought it was draigo but above is right could of been a librarian. He had tiggy in there as well.

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

Why would you need a HQ to legally field Draigo? Why does his battlefield role make any difference?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

Why would you need a HQ to legally field Draigo? Why does his battlefield role make any difference?

Oh Jesus, here we go again.

Despite your imaginations otherwise, the vast majority of people use battle forged armies. Most people don't even consider unbound when making army lists, unless they are specifically going to play an unbound game.

You do not need to bring your unbound crusade into every single thread.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

Why would you need a HQ to legally field Draigo? Why does his battlefield role make any difference?

Oh Jesus, here we go again.

Despite your imaginations otherwise, the vast majority of people use battle forged armies. Most people don't even consider unbound when making army lists, unless they are specifically going to play an unbound game.

You do not need to bring your unbound crusade into every single thread.

I don't think Flingit has claimed that a vast majority do not use battle forged armies. I haven't seen much of an "unbound crusade", either.
Maybe not many people do consider unbound, but that doesn't mean it's not legal.
As far as I can tell, not many people consider 15+ bodies in a squad of Plague Marines, does that mean it's not legal if I roll up to a game with squads of 20 Plague Marines and a Champion with MoN? Of course not, I'm just taking an option that's there.

I am not, by any means, trying to have a dig at you or anyone else. Nor am I trying to be a rules nazi lawyer and say "Unbound is in the rules you have to play it guys!", but Flingit is correct with the part about it not being the only legal way to field him.

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

Why would you need a HQ to legally field Draigo? Why does his battlefield role make any difference?

Oh Jesus, here we go again.

Despite your imaginations otherwise, the vast majority of people use battle forged armies. Most people don't even consider unbound when making army lists, unless they are specifically going to play an unbound game.

You do not need to bring your unbound crusade into every single thread.

I don't think Flingit has claimed that a vast majority do not use battle forged armies. I haven't seen much of an "unbound crusade", either.
Maybe not many people do consider unbound, but that doesn't mean it's not legal.
As far as I can tell, not many people consider 15+ bodies in a squad of Plague Marines, does that mean it's not legal if I roll up to a game with squads of 20 Plague Marines and a Champion with MoN? Of course not, I'm just taking an option that's there.

I am not, by any means, trying to have a dig at you or anyone else. Nor am I trying to be a rules nazi lawyer and say "Unbound is in the rules you have to play it guys!", but Flingit is correct with the part about it not being the only legal way to field him.

This actually has come up often enough in different threads for a number of us to notice it. It's not so much that he brings it up. It's more the passive aggressive "why would this be a problem" way he's bringing it up. The reality of the situation is that Unbound is a perfectly legal way of building an army. The further reality of the situation is that the overwhelming majority of questions on this forum deal with Battle-forged armies.

The answer to "Why would you need an HQ to legally field Draigo?" is "Unless otherwise specified, it's safe to assume the the original poster is using the Battle-forged method to build his army. In these instances, an HQ would be needed to legally field Draigo." OR... "HQs are only needed if you're making a Battle-forged list. If you use Unbound, there are no restrictions." Asking why taking Draigo would require an HQ doesn't help the discussion or the original poster. I assume FlingitNow already knows the answer, but is trying to make a point in a roundabout sort of way. Some people can find this frustrating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No comment on FlingitNow's debate style. Just trying to explain the "Unbound Crusade" comment.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

Why would you need a HQ to legally field Draigo? Why does his battlefield role make any difference?

Oh Jesus, here we go again.

Despite your imaginations otherwise, the vast majority of people use battle forged armies. Most people don't even consider unbound when making army lists, unless they are specifically going to play an unbound game.

You do not need to bring your unbound crusade into every single thread.

I don't think Flingit has claimed that a vast majority do not use battle forged armies. I haven't seen much of an "unbound crusade", either.
Maybe not many people do consider unbound, but that doesn't mean it's not legal.
As far as I can tell, not many people consider 15+ bodies in a squad of Plague Marines, does that mean it's not legal if I roll up to a game with squads of 20 Plague Marines and a Champion with MoN? Of course not, I'm just taking an option that's there.

I am not, by any means, trying to have a dig at you or anyone else. Nor am I trying to be a rules nazi lawyer and say "Unbound is in the rules you have to play it guys!", but Flingit is correct with the part about it not being the only legal way to field him.

This actually has come up often enough in different threads for a number of us to notice it. It's not so much that he brings it up. It's more the passive aggressive "why would this be a problem" way he's bringing it up. The reality of the situation is that Unbound is a perfectly legal way of building an army. The further reality of the situation is that the overwhelming majority of questions on this forum deal with Battle-forged armies.

The answer to "Why would you need an HQ to legally field Draigo?" is "Unless otherwise specified, it's safe to assume the the original poster is using the Battle-forged method to build his army. In these instances, an HQ would be needed to legally field Draigo." OR... "HQs are only needed if you're making a Battle-forged list. If you use Unbound, there are no restrictions." Asking why taking Draigo would require an HQ doesn't help the discussion or the original poster. I assume FlingitNow already knows the answer, but is trying to make a point in a roundabout sort of way. Some people can find this frustrating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No comment on FlingitNow's debate style. Just trying to explain the "Unbound Crusade" comment.

Cheers for the explanation, I get it now. I guess I've just missed them or not noticed a passive aggressive "tone".
Probably because I try to read things as monotone as possible so I don't end up taking it the wrong way. (This line sounds a little aggressive when I read it back to myself, it's not intended that way though. Apologies)

 Ond Angel wrote:
Cheers for the explanation, I get it now. I guess I've just missed them or not noticed a passive aggressive "tone".
Probably because I try to read things as monotone as possible so I don't end up taking it the wrong way. (This line sounds a little aggressive when I read it back to myself, it's not intended that way though. Apologies)

Yeah, it's not any specific comment of anything. FlingitNow seems to be a nice guy. We've disagreed on some rules and agreed on others. I respect his tenacity (even if he's wrong sometimes ).

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Indeed - to legally feild draigo though you must take an HQ though - he is a LOW - so prolly a GKL or a GM in there casting it.

Why would you need a HQ to legally field Draigo? Why does his battlefield role make any difference?

Oh Jesus, here we go again.

Despite your imaginations otherwise, the vast majority of people use battle forged armies. Most people don't even consider unbound when making army lists, unless they are specifically going to play an unbound game.

You do not need to bring your unbound crusade into every single thread.

I don't think Flingit has claimed that a vast majority do not use battle forged armies. I haven't seen much of an "unbound crusade", either.
Maybe not many people do consider unbound, but that doesn't mean it's not legal.
As far as I can tell, not many people consider 15+ bodies in a squad of Plague Marines, does that mean it's not legal if I roll up to a game with squads of 20 Plague Marines and a Champion with MoN? Of course not, I'm just taking an option that's there.

I am not, by any means, trying to have a dig at you or anyone else. Nor am I trying to be a rules nazi lawyer and say "Unbound is in the rules you have to play it guys!", but Flingit is correct with the part about it not being the only legal way to field him.

I don't even consider unbound when responding to threads. I wasn't trying to be a nazi ether - I was just trying to figure the situation. Since Draigo doesn't have sanct another psyker must have been casting it, which make sense because he probably has one. Unbound is fine if thats what you play. I'd actually enjoy running 20+ individual land speeder typhoons and a few dark shrouds.