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.

Not sure about this one but according to the 40k in 40 minutes rules Hydra Flak Tanks and Medusa's with Bastion breacher shells are perfectly fine for combat patrol games.

So are all of the DE vehicles, even the void raven and the other fighter.

Yes, that's correct. 40K in 40mins allows low armour vehicles.

ETA, it's supposed to be mini-40K - not Kill Team.

I just think its funny that you can get a medusa in one of those games.

All of those arguments about eyes are well and good, and I agree. But this is a list of fun RAW absurdities.

If someone ever actually says my wraithlords and wraithguard can't shoot because they lack eyes to draw from, i'm going to ask him to point to the eyes on his SM models. They don't have eyes, and behind those eye slits or visors is plastic.

Well Gwidion if you're going to use that argument, then no models have eyes. As plastic doesn't act as a suitable material to make ocular sensory organs out of.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Well Gwidion if you're going to use that argument, then no models have eyes. As plastic doesn't act as a suitable material to make ocular sensory organs out of.

Oshova

most if not all "electric Eyes" and many Web Cameras/ some Digital cameras would beg to differ with you there(the lenses are often poly-acrylic, a type of plastic, instead of Glass)

Contact lenses would also apply here.

But is that grey polystyrene, or white metal, with layers of paint over the top?

Also most contact lenses now are a high percentage water =p

. . . Maybe this is all a little off-topic

Oshova

it is off topic, and the argument isn't that the models don't have actual eyes, its that most marine models (the ones with helmets) aren't modeled with the required "eyes" they are modeled with "visors" or some equivalent thereof. The characters and non-helmeted marines are modeled with eyes, so they can shoot. However any model in the game with a helmet that covers the face (such as eldar dire avengers) and provides eye-slits of some kind, but precludes the model from exhibiting eyes, cannot shoot.

Its a rule that, when applied in the common "rules as written" framework, basically breaks the game.

Either way, it's a silly point which does cause issues with some models. Moving on.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
"Pg. 50: "...if a psyker targets a unit with a psychic shooting attack, then he can only Assault that unit in the ensuing assault phase"
[Emphasis mine]

The "ensuing" assault phase is the one that happens in the same turn as the shooting phase.

The "ensuing" assault phase is the one that happens in the same turn as the shooting phase.

Exactly so he could not assault that unit if a subsequent turn. Say a Hive Tyrant with wings deepstrikes in and Paroxysms a Devastator squad so they won't kill him with shooting. He can't assault that turn as he's deep struck and due to the quoted rule he can't ever assault them again, they are now immune to the Hive Tyrant ...

In the ensuing assault phase, he can only assault that unit [at which he shot].

Same sentence structure.

I understand what FlingItNow is saying.

Because it says ONLY and doesn't define the fact that it should be "This is the only unit the psyker can assault this turn" it says "This is the only turn in which the psyker may assualt this unit"

Pure genius on GW's part as always =p

Oshova

DakkaDakka wrote:

Except that isn't what it says.

From the new Dark Eldar codex:

Drazhar's Master of Blades special rule (page 52) states that "Drazhar also has the Klavex powers 'Onslaught' and 'Murderous Assault' (see page 31)". However, as Drazhar is not a Klavex himself, he cannot take advantage of these rules. His Incubi would still gain the benefit of Onslaught - but he wouldn't, himself.

DakkaDakka wrote:

And you're not reading it correctly still.

It is either only [assault that unit in the ensuing phase] OR [only assault that unit] in the ensuing phase.

It can be read either way around, as there is not sufficient sentence structure to tell you otherwise.

And therefore is RAW fail as it doesn't explicitly say one way or the other. So for all we know GW intended for you to only be able to assault a unit the turn you use a psychic power on it (in that circumstance) . . . and we have been playing with a House Rule for it all this time

DakkaDakka wrote:

It is either only [assault that unit in the ensuing phase] OR [only assault that unit] in the ensuing phase.

It can be read either way around, as there is not sufficient sentence structure to tell you otherwise.

A comma would separate for the 2nd reading the first read is the most accurate to the written text.

I would read it the first way round, but see how it can be read the other way - the ownership of "only" is not 100% explicit.

I would read it the first way round, but see how it can be read the other way - the ownership of "only" is not 100% explicit.

Agreed.

...and "may assault only that unit in the ensuing Assault phase." would resolve the entire issue.

"Only" is a logical limiter, and "in the ensuing Assault phase." is a grammatical modifier (and a vaguely dangling one at that). The sentence structure used in the Codex fails to make it clear whether the limitation and the modification apply to the same or different parts of the sentence structure, or possibly even to each other.

It made me laugh when I read the codex, even if it is a silly claim.

"Vect seizes the initiative on the roll of a 4+ ..."

So Vect gets the first turn. What about the two people playing the game, who gets the other turn?

Going over and over a different issue, this thought came up.
If a model is 'considered to occupy the area of it's base' (page 3), does this mean models don't occpy the space that the model is made of? As in, if one needs to draw LOS to a model, one has to do it to the base as this is the only place we are actually told where a model is... Bit of a stretch maybe, but it seems to be valid

But then surely by the technical meaning of the word area, it is a 2D shape, and therefore one base 'looking' at another on the same level, it won't be able to see it, as a 2D shape has no height.

Is there such a thing as taking something too far?

Oshova

Aww, you can still draw a LineOS to another plane and intersect it, it's not that bad