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.

Hey fellas! I'm positive this has been asked before but I cannot seem to find a recent ruling for the interactions between Ethereal Interception and Veil of Darkness. If I recall (GW took down the previous 6th ed. FAQ for Necrons) it was previously ruled that Necrons could VoD with Deathmarks and in essence utilize their special "Deep Strike" special effects. However, today at the shop, an instance came up that caused a debacle and since I am generally the resident rules guy I figured I'd come here to see if anyone could provide clarification.

Ethereal Interception states: "...when arriving from Deep Strike Reserves..."
Veil of Darkness states: "...remove x-unit from the table and place them back on the table using the rules for Deep Strike..." (something along those lines)

So, in an effort to help the guys find an answer, can you use VoD to activate Ethereal Interception?

Any page numbers would be awesome for reference and I appreciate the help!

From the BRB Draft FAQ






So no, Veil of Darkness does not explicitly state that the Deathmarks go into Deep Strike Reserves so the Hunters from Hyperspace rule will not re-trigger.

However, if you use the Veil of Darkness and mishap and go into reserves you can arrive via Deep Strike the next turn since the Deathmarks have Deep Strike. You just tell your opponent the unit will be arriving via Deep Strike when you place the unit in Ongoing Reserves. This would allow you to use Ethereal Interception a second time . . .



. . . except you can't really. In order for the Deathmarks to arrive via Ethereal Interception the attached IC also has to have the rule and you can't detach the IC while it is in Reserves.

So no, you won't be able to use Hunters from Hyperspace a second time or Ethereal Interception a second time.

It is very simple. Deep Strike Reserves involves coming in from Reserves via Deep Strike. It is stated as such in the first paragraph of Deep Strike:

When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

Veil of Darkness, and the similar Artefact of a certain Lord, do not put the units in to Reserves of any kind but put them right back on the table.

Ostensibly, if you could find a way to put the Deathmark unit back in to Reserves/Ongoing Reserves, you could use Ethereal Interception, but the ability to do that would be a challenge.

Off-hand, the only way I can think of is if the Veil/Mantle arrival Mishaps and you get a Delayed result. But that's a whole different argument right there that I do not want to get in to.

 Charistoph wrote:


Off-hand, the only way I can think of is if the Veil/Mantle arrival Mishaps and you get a Delayed result. But that's a whole different argument right there that I do not want to get in to.

Doesn't work because as stated above when you attach the IC with the Veil you prevent the Deathmark unit from using the Ethereal Interception rule and you cannot detach the IC from the mishapped unit in Reserves.

So Ethereal Interception is impossible to achieve a second time.

Thanks for the information.

For the benefit of the local Necron players here, a Lord with VoD can attach to Deathmarks and can arrive with them via Deep Strike they just cannot use Ethereal Interception because he doesn't have the rule yeah? (Sorry little bit of a recap)

Secondly, for any of you who played in older editions, was this a combo that was previously doable? The local guys have been using this for awhile and to my recollection in 6th edition it was a thing but I wanted to verify so I could at least point to a point in which the rules changed. (I vaguely remember VoD+Deathmarks being a big deal in 6th but it has been quite a long time and my memory is very fuzzy).

 Jstncloud wrote:
Thanks for the information.

For the benefit of the local Necron players here, a Lord with VoD can attach to Deathmarks and can arrive with them via Deep Strike they just cannot use Ethereal Interception because he doesn't have the rule yeah? (Sorry little bit of a recap)

The same organism that is able to Deep Strike by Ethereal Interception is the same organism that can fire. The rule does not restrict models without the rule in the unit from participating with it. In order for the unit to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Rule. Either the IC is part of the unit for ALL of this, or they are not part of the unit for any of it.

Some will have you think there is a separation that occurs, but they cannot point out where it states this. No doubt a certain ignored person will protest otherwise, but his cases on this ignore the written word of the rulebook.

There is a Draft FAQ that states they won't work, but gives no reason as to why or the cases where it WOULD work. But it is under review, and no one who knows can say what the final version will say.

 Jstncloud wrote:
Secondly, for any of you who played in older editions, was this a combo that was previously doable? The local guys have been using this for awhile and to my recollection in 6th edition it was a thing but I wanted to verify so I could at least point to a point in which the rules changed. (I vaguely remember VoD+Deathmarks being a big deal in 6th but it has been quite a long time and my memory is very fuzzy).

Nope. Ethereal Interception before the current codex (which was released in this edition) did not allow for any shots outside of the normal Shooting Phase. And that codex was the first codex Deathmarks existed in.

 Jstncloud wrote:
Thanks for the information.

For the benefit of the local Necron players here, a Lord with VoD can attach to Deathmarks and can arrive with them via Deep Strike they just cannot use Ethereal Interception because he doesn't have the rule yeah? (Sorry little bit of a recap)

You are correct in your re-cap.

The Draft FAQ has made it clear that the abilities of a unit's special rules do not automatically confer to attached ICs. This would include a rule like Hunters for Hyperspace or Ethereal Interception



In order for the ability of a special rule to confer to an attached IC you have to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.



Stubborn has clause that confers the ability of the special rule to attached models --> "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ."

Basically, since Ethereal Interception does not have a logical clause like that, any ICs attached to the Deathmark unit do not get the Ethereal Interception ability and would prevent the Deathmark unit from using the ability.

col_impact wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:
Thanks for the information.

For the benefit of the local Necron players here, a Lord with VoD can attach to Deathmarks and can arrive with them via Deep Strike they just cannot use Ethereal Interception because he doesn't have the rule yeah? (Sorry little bit of a recap)

You are correct in your re-cap.

The Draft FAQ has made it clear that the abilities of a unit's special rules do not automatically confer to attached ICs. This would include a rule like Hunters for Hyperspace or Ethereal Interception

Spoiler:

Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.

In order for the ability of a special rule to confer to an attached IC you have to satisfy the IC Special Rules rule.

Spoiler:

Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

Stubborn has clause that confers the ability of the special rule to attached models --> "when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ."

Basically, since Ethereal Interception does not have a logical clause like that, any ICs attached to the Deathmark unit do not get the Ethereal Interception ability and would prevent the Deathmark unit from using the ability.

Thanks, the local guys understand why it doesn't work anymore but it looks like some of the online (Facebook) 40kers we associate with still don't get it (yay).

 Jstncloud wrote:

Thanks, the local guys understand why it doesn't work anymore but it looks like some of the online (Facebook) 40kers we associate with still don't get it (yay).

The clause that the Ignored One stated does not state anything about conferring a rule. It is what he grabs on to try and figure it out. Checking to see how much of a group has something does not do anything on its own to grant anything. That clause is never stated to be what is needed for the rule.

In short, the Draft FAQ just tells us, no, but not how or why. The IC Special Rules section refers us to Stubborn. Stubborn (the guide we are to go by) does not tell us how or why nor mentions "independent characters" or "joined models". Stubborn only grants its effect to the unit which fulfills its conditions.

So, by denying the ability for a Deathmark unit with a joined IC to use Ethereal Interception, you are following the Draft FAQ, but we have no information as why that is.

Jstncloud,

Don't let Charistophe confuse you. He recently brought up the same stuff in a recent thread on Relentless and then at the end of the thread claimed he was just saying it in deadpan.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/704234.page#8942720

As long as people abide by the Draft FAQ there really is no debate on the matter and it is 100% clear how to resolve the interaction.

col_impact wrote:
Jstncloud,

Don't let Charistophe confuse you. He recently brought up the same stuff in a recent thread on Relentless and then at the end of the thread claimed he was just saying it in deadpan.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/704234.page#8942720

As long as people abide by the Draft FAQ there really is no debate on the matter and it is 100% clear how to resolve the interaction.

Liar. Do not misrepresent. I said twice the first post was deadpan, not all of them.

Keep in mind, Jstncloud, everything that is actually said in the rules. By this standard of the Draft FAQ, Stubborn does not work any more than Ethereal Interception. It affects the unit, and thus Stubborn doesn't confer any more than Ethereal Interception.

Read also the questions I asked of the Ignored One and that he refused to properly address the questions that I raised without adding concepts and ideas never stated in these rules.

WARNINGS HAVE NOW BEEN ISSUED - RULE #1 MUST BE FOLLOWED AT ALL TIMES.

NEXT POST THAT BREAKS A RULE OF THE SITE WILL EARN SOMEONE A SUSPENSION.

Let's dig in and fully explicate why an Independent Character attached to a unit of Deathmarks does not get the Deathmark unit's special rules.

Consider the case of a 3 man unit of Crisis Suits which I think sheds light on the issues involved. You purchase Vectored Retro-thrusters for one of the models giving that model Hit & Run and Fleet. So basically you have a model that has Hit & Run and Fleet, but you don't have a unit that has Hit & Run and Fleet.

The thing to determine is if the ability of the special rule on that model confers to the unit or not.

Hit & Run reads "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . ." meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will confer to the unit and the unit will have the Hit & Run ability.

Fleet reads "a unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" meaning that the ability of the special rule of the one model will not confer to the unit and the unit will not have the Fleet ability.

The use of the indefinite article in "a unit" means that "a unit" itself is being used in a non-specific, general way. If all one says is "a unit" then nothing is being specified at all about "a unit". "A unit" can refer to a unit as described on an Army List Entry or it can refer to a unit with an Independent Character attached to it or it can refer to a unit that is shooting, or a Deathmark unit, etc.

But, we aren't just dealing with "a unit". We are dealing in the case of Hit & Run with "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". "That contains at least one model with this special rule" is an dependent adjectival clause modifying "a unit". The adjectival clause provides information that specifies what kind of unit we are talking about. When we go to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to, if we are dealing with a unit that has at least one model with the Hit & Run special rule then the Hit & Run ability will confer to the unit. Since this dependent adjectival clause matches Stubborn's dependent adjectival clause in wording and function (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to) we can consider a Special Rule that has a clause to this effect to be "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

#############################

So now let's consider the case of an Independent Character attached to 3 man unit of Crisis Suits where one model has Hit & Run and Fleet.

Essentially it works out the same way as when only one model in a unit has a special rule.

The Independent Character Special Rules rule simply reinforces the way the ability of a special rule propagates through a unit that is heterogeneous with respect to a special rule.



The Special Rules rule requires that a special rule has something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)".

In the case of Hit & Run, we have already identified that something to be the dependent adjectival clause ("that contains at least one model with this special rule"). Not only is the clause worded the same as Stubborn but it also works to the same effect (to define what kind of unit the special rule will confer to). We are simply dealing with the same specified kind of unit that we are dealing with in the case of Stubborn while we are determining what kind of unit will get the ability of the special rule.

In the case of Fleet, not only do we lack the requisite dependent adjectival clause (i.e. something "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule") but we have a dependent adjectival clause that prohibits the conferring of the ability of the special rule to the unit unless all models in the unit have that rule, which nullifies the rule entirely.

#############################

Okay. So far so good. These are the results one would expect based on our discussion of the 3 man unit of Crisis Suits.

But what happens in the case of a rule like Objective Secured?



In the case of Objective Secured, the troop unit has the special rule but since there is no dependent adjectival clause "specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule)" the special rule does not confer the Objective Secured ability to the Independent Character. The models comprising the troop unit still have the special rule and the ability of the special rule, but the Independent Character does not get the Objective Secured ability since the Special Rules rule was not satisfied. So if only the Independent Character is in range of an objective then it cannot take control of the objective away from non Objective Secured units.

The Draft FAQ merely validates what I and several others have been arguing for quite some time now.

Jstncloud, if you have any questions for me after reading the link he provided earlier, I will be glad to answer them here or in PM.