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.

Hi,
Regarding question RB.63F.01:
Q: If a unit is fighting a multiple combat against a (non-walker) vehicle and another non-vehicle enemy unit and the combat is drawn, can the unit pile-in towards the vehicle?
A: No, in this case the unit would have to pile-in towards the enemy non-vehicle unit and (if possible) move at least 1” away from the vehicle [RAW].

I checked the rule and it never states that you have to move away from the vehicle. It does say that models not in contact with an enemy have to pile in, but it does not state that the enemy has to be locked in combat.
RAW does forbid you from piling in towards an enemy non walker vehicle because it is not involved in the assault (grey area here) but you do not have to keep an inch from it (you pile in as in assault, not as in movement). And certainly you do NOT get to move the models touching the vehicle, not even if you want to as you can only move the models not in contact with an enemy.
So i guess that if you want to keep the ruling you have to change it's status to Rules Change or change the answer in the part regarding the 1" gap.

And btw, even although i do not share some of the rullings, thanks for the work done I hope to be able to give useful feedback

Agalavis -

You may have missed the sentence "In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result of the fight is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles." - page 63, 2nd column, 1st paragraph, last sentence.

Pile-in moves are made per the standard rules for a pile-in since the vehicles are ignored. It is complete RAW.

No, I see what Agalavis is saying,

Although the rules are clear that you may not consolidate into contact with enemy models that you are not fighting with (which is the case with the vehicle) but doesn't actually specify that you have to move an inch away. Technically as long as the models aren't contacting the vehicle (even a fraction of an inch away) they would be following this rule.

So we should probably change this to a 'clarification' in the next update.

+TYR.48E.01 – Q: Can a Spore Mine Cluster attempt
to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit?
A: Yes it may [clarification].

Erm, the Spore Mine Cluster Deep Strikes into play before deployment, how could an enemy unit be around for it to Deep Strike on top of?

Please review IG.96A.01 : Can individual units from a Platoon be held in Reserves while others deploy normally?

Yes is correct, however the rest of your answer is not correct. The BRB clearly states that UNITS are rolled individually for reserves. The only ways to get one roll for more than one unit are when you combine them, i.e an IC and squad or a squad in a non-dedicated transport.

Your answer to this question forces you to make a very complicated answer to IG.96A.02 in the FAQ. The answer to .02 is - roll 1 dice for the Valkyre/Vendetta squadron as it is ONE UNIT.

@ryan3740 -- The IG codex specifically states you roll for the entire platoon collectively if they are in reserve (see top of page 96 of the IG codex), which overides the BRB.

lindsay40k wrote:+TYR.48E.01 – Q: Can a Spore Mine Cluster attempt
to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit?
A: Yes it may [clarification].

Erm, the Spore Mine Cluster Deep Strikes into play before deployment, how could an enemy unit be around for it to Deep Strike on top of?

Go back a page on this thread. Yak already identified that this issue was acidentally left over from the old nid FAQ and will be taken out when the new revision is made.

Here are some suggestions to tighten up some Imperial Armor Daemon units:

Aetaos’rau’keres (IAA2) has a form of Master of Sorcery, but doesn’t need it because of his status as a gargantuan creature. The wording in IAA2 should be ignored and not interpreted as a limit on the number of shooting attacks he can make.

Jibberjaw (IA7) should have the daemonic rule in his description. Without it, we’re left wondering just how he manages to get to the battle.

Scabbiethrax (IA7), Mamon (IA7), Jibberjaw (IA7), Blight Drones (IA7), and Plague Hulks (IAA2) are all followers of Nurgle for purposes of Tally of Pestilence.

yakface wrote:Howdy everyone,

Attached below is the latest version (v3.2) of the Independent National Warhammer 40,000 Tournament FAQ (INAT FAQ), produced primarily for Adepticon 2010...and barring any additional GW FAQs will be the last update until after Adepticon.

Well, we have the deffrolla amendment now, I'll be interested to see how this attack is to be ruled on by INAT FAQ's council.

I posted this in the Deff Rolla thread, but I figure it can't hurt to cross post it:

yakface wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Will the 'response' to Deffrollas being legal to crush LRs being a total backlash on the width of custom BWs and people getting up in arms and requesting the disqualification of any BW that is slightly larger than the stock model? Will people figure "if you are going to deffroll me, I am going to cause you pain by refusing to allow anything but the stock BW and stock deffroller 100% unmodified." While we all know they could claim RAW as the rulebooks ays official citadel minis, we all now RAP that most people don't mind custom ork vehicles and have never had a reason to really complain... until now.

I am curious to see how Adepticon handles this and how they rule on converted and custom Ork transports.

As with all cases of modeling for in-game advantage, at Adepticon they will be handled on a case-by-base basis.

If you're playing with non-standard Battlwagons and/or Deff Rollas and a tournament judge feels you've done so to gain an advantage you could suffer a number of penalties, such as being forced to play the game 'as if' they were the stock size of the GW battlewagon all the way up to being ejected from the tourney.

Ultimately if you think it even might be an issue you should be contacting Adepticon ahead of time using their 'model policy' email address and especially bringing it up before each game with your opponent to make sure you smooth it over with them.


And yes, this ruling will obviously apply at Adepticon and we will be ruling on ancillary issues (like if the Deff Rolla hits can destroy the rammed vehicle and allow the Battlewagon to continue ramming), but we probably won't put out the update until GW releases their Tyranid FAQ, as we're trying to only do one more update.

Of course, if GW doesn't release a Tyranid FAQ soon...then we'll see.

I have a stupid question as others have told me on other forums. Why can't Spore Mines assault? I don't understand how this is a rules clarification but an actual rules change.

Yes I know I am new, but no where do I see in the 5th edtion Tyranid codex or 5th edtion rules where it says Spore Mines can't assault. I know in the 4th edtion codex it says they can't assault, but no where in 5th I can find this.

Can someone explain to me how this is a rules clarification instead of a rules change?

Spore minds drift. They don't assault per say. I don't where you are getting that from.

G

They do drift in the movement phase, and they are not allowed to run as described in their rules, but no part of their rules disallows them from assaulting. Technically, if you drift less than 6 inches, no part of the rules disallows you from moving the remainder in any direction you like.

The spore mine rules are very poorly written and do little to actually restrict the player.


Thematically, it's not unlikely to accept assaulting spore mines-- they are heat/pressure/vibration/sound-seeking, after all. It makes very little sense for them to randomly wander the field while ignoring models they could have reached.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spore minds drift. They don't assault per say. I don't where you are getting that from.

G

In the 4th edtion, it told you what spore mines can't do. It specifially says it can't assault. Now we are in 5th edtion. The Living bomb rule states, that spore mines can't run, can't go to ground, and can't fall back. No where does it say it can't assault. So since it dosn't say it can't assault, it should be able to assault like any other infantry unit since it's listed as infantry. Since I am a newbie, I am only going by what the rules tell me. So where does it say Spore Mines can't assault?

*edit* I ment to say they can't Run, not assault.

In the 4th edtion, it told you what spore mines can't do. It specifially says it can't assault. Now we are in 5th edtion. The Living bomb rule states, that spore mines can't assault, can't go to ground, and can't fall back. No where does it say it can't assault.

rofl

He mistyped. It says they can't run, fall back, or go to ground. That's it.

L0rdF1end wrote:

In the 4th edtion, it told you what spore mines can't do. It specifially says it can't assault. Now we are in 5th edtion. The Living bomb rule states, that spore mines can't assault, can't go to ground, and can't fall back. No where does it say it can't assault.

rofl

Yeah I mistyped. oops, slaps face.