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.

Hello all,

Purely selfish topic as my mate always brings in his Doom via spore and wipes out a lot of models (I'm exceptionally good at rolling high on the 3 d6 leadership thing).

I understand from the new FAQ (or maybe even before) he can't cast a maeldiction or blessing on the turn he arrives from reserves, does this count for the template shooting thing or can he do that.

The real thing I'm stuck on is whether or not the shooting phase leadership test thing happens, as it seems like a psychic power but it doesn't say so (that I can find). This really hurts as I tend to take off half the unit in his shooting phase and the other half in mine before they get to shoot! (Generally it means I'm a large Loota squad down after one round of shooting)

Still if they do indeed happen I shall have to man up and think of ways around it

Cheers,

David.

The leech ability is not a psychic power it is an innate ability that occurs in the shooting phase, the blast attack is just an assault shooting attack so no reason that cant be cast either.

Your only option is man up and spread your units (or zap him with something with interceptor/coteaz if you play GK's)

okey dokey Cheers man

It isn't that cut and dry - there is huge debate on this, from what I remember.

There is a debate on whether or not psykers can cast blessings/maledictions when they arrive from deepstrike,doom has neither.

No, there's a specific debate about the Doom in particular. Basically, the 6th edition BRB is a permissive ruleset, and it only gives permission to allocate wounds and remove casualties under very specific circumstances. In very general terms, the Doom's ability(s) doesn't fall in line with these permissions, which means, RAW, the Doom's ability(s) literally does nothing because you're never allowed to remove casualties.

The easiest solution is to equate the obviously outdated Doom text with something similar from 6th edition rules, but there is debate about what it best equates to and how, and different interpretations change what happens on the tabletop.

From what I remember. There's a decently long thread about it.

But that debate has nothing to do with the model arriving in a spore pod.

The only debate i can find is that somehow people cannot get their heads around how models are removed as casualties from the dooms ability.

Basically some people seem to think the doom doesn't work anymore because of a bit of ridiculous rules laywering about wound allocation. If you are gonna start arguing points like that in a friendly game there is no point in playing.

But as Solkan says it has no bearing on this question.

I'm 9 time zones away from my codex but if I remember correctly, Doom can do everything expect move and assault and is now deployed fulling within 6" of the pod it came in.

 Tangent wrote:
No, there's a specific debate about the Doom in particular. Basically, the 6th edition BRB is a permissive ruleset, and it only gives permission to allocate wounds and remove casualties under very specific circumstances. In very general terms, the Doom's ability(s) doesn't fall in line with these permissions, which means, RAW, the Doom's ability(s) literally does nothing because you're never allowed to remove casualties.

The easiest solution is to equate the obviously outdated Doom text with something similar from 6th edition rules, but there is debate about what it best equates to and how, and different interpretations change what happens on the tabletop.

From what I remember. There's a decently long thread about it.

There is no debate. There are just pig headed people who want to win at any cost and are not above cheating and temper-tantrums (both in the store and online) to win and then there are people who play the game how GW intended it (friendly and for fun, even in official tournaments and the like).

I had a guy pull something like this to a new player at a mt FLGS and I told his opponent, right in front of the guy, that that the game he was about to play was going to not be fun at all and put a bad taste in his mouth for the rest of the day. Then I asked him if he wanted to play me instead and he said yes one he realized his opponent wasn't joking. Moral of the story, this is a hobby and if you want to be a jerk then you can expect people to react accordingly. No one HAS to game with you and no one will want to if you act like a smug man-child.

 Kwosge wrote:
I'm 9 time zones away from my codex but if I remember correctly, Doom can do everything expect move and assault and is now deployed fulling within 6" of the pod it came in.

 Tangent wrote:
No, there's a specific debate about the Doom in particular. Basically, the 6th edition BRB is a permissive ruleset, and it only gives permission to allocate wounds and remove casualties under very specific circumstances. In very general terms, the Doom's ability(s) doesn't fall in line with these permissions, which means, RAW, the Doom's ability(s) literally does nothing because you're never allowed to remove casualties.

The easiest solution is to equate the obviously outdated Doom text with something similar from 6th edition rules, but there is debate about what it best equates to and how, and different interpretations change what happens on the tabletop.

From what I remember. There's a decently long thread about it.

There is no debate. There are just pig headed people who want to win at any cost and are not above cheating and temper-tantrums (both in the store and online) to win and then there are people who play the game how GW intended it (friendly and for fun, even in official tournaments and the like).

I had a guy pull something like this to a new player at a mt FLGS and I told his opponent, right in front of the guy, that that the game he was about to play was going to not be fun at all and put a bad taste in his mouth for the rest of the day. Then I asked him if he wanted to play me instead and he said yes one he realized his opponent wasn't joking. Moral of the story, this is a hobby and if you want to be a jerk then you can expect people to react accordingly. No one HAS to game with you and no one will want to if you act like a smug man-child.

So if I argue (in a forum dedicated to figuring out what the rules actually say) that Wraithguard cannot shoot or assault because they have no eyes from which to draw LOS, then I'm pig-headed and a WAAC player, even though I don't actually play that way?

spongemonkee wrote:There is a debate on whether or not psykers can cast blessings/maledictions when they arrive from deepstrike,doom has neither.

But he could easily roll one were he to choose to trade his power in for something for Biomancy. Say. . .Iron Arm?

Happyjew wrote:

So if I argue (in a forum dedicated to figuring out what the rules actually say) that Wraithguard cannot shoot or assault because they have no eyes from which to draw LOS, then I'm pig-headed and a WAAC player, even though I don't actually play that way?

No, but it is a little ridiculous to argue vehemently that your model cannot shoot or assault because of poor wording when both sides know that is not the intent. Even in a forum where you're discussing what the rules actually say, there are some points where everyone understands what the rules say, but don't apply them as such because it would break the game/units. So, it behooves everyone to add a bit of HYWPI into the conversation, because it moves it forward in an intelligent and constructive manner.

 puma713 wrote:

spongemonkee wrote:There is a debate on whether or not psykers can cast blessings/maledictions when they arrive from deepstrike,doom has neither.

But he could easily roll one were he to choose to trade his power in for something for Biomancy. Say. . .Iron Arm?

Agreed but that's not what the op was asking

spongemonkee wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

spongemonkee wrote:There is a debate on whether or not psykers can cast blessings/maledictions when they arrive from deepstrike,doom has neither.

But he could easily roll one were he to choose to trade his power in for something for Biomancy. Say. . .Iron Arm?

Agreed but that's not what the op was asking

That isn't up for debate isn't. pg. 67 is very clear that the psyker arriving from reserves cannot cast a power. the question is can a blessing be used on a unit the turn it arrives from reserves.

 puma713 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

So if I argue (in a forum dedicated to figuring out what the rules actually say) that Wraithguard cannot shoot or assault because they have no eyes from which to draw LOS, then I'm pig-headed and a WAAC player, even though I don't actually play that way?

No, but it is a little ridiculous to argue vehemently that your model cannot shoot or assault because of poor wording when both sides know that is not the intent. Even in a forum where you're discussing what the rules actually say, there are some points where everyone understands what the rules say, but don't apply them as such because it would break the game/units. So, it behooves everyone to add a bit of HYWPI into the conversation, because it moves it forward in an intelligent and constructive manner.

Ridiculous? Of course it is. But I'll be if someone comes in and tells me that Wraithguard (or any other model that does not have eyes) is allowed to shoot because the rules allow it. I'm a very casual gamer. Do I play that models without eyes cannot shoot? No. Do I deny vehicles invulnerable saves? Of course not. I'd even allow Abaddon to join a marked unit pre-FAQ. However, all of these are against the RAW, and in this forum I will argue from that stance. If I'm arguing from a HIWPI stance, I make sure that it is clear.

Please don't make a cut-and-dry rules question into another place to talk about a rule that "broke" in 6th in a way that no one plays it. It's all fine and dandy to argue that models don't work according to the rules and blah blah in another thread, but this one is really cut and dry and the OP simply wants a question answered.

Which the answer is: Both the ability and the power can happen on the same turn that doom arrives.

Actually we know it is broke, but the arugment is how best to fix it. In the SPIRIT of 6th edition and no- killing models outside of LOS unless you have permission to do so, I play that you apply ALL the shooting rules to the Spirit Leech ability, including p16 out of sight.

Others feel differently, hence the debate is about that. RAW his ability does not work, so working out an acceptable compromise (and being consistent is usually a good compromise position) is a good use of the forum.

Yeah - it's not a "cut-and-dry" rules question, it's a question of what the best 6th edition translation is for an ability written and designed for an older edition of the game. As Nos says, different people have different views about how the Doom's ability should work in this edition.

At the same time, I didn't realize that the question was a different one (something about what can happen when he comes in from reserves via a deep-striking) and didn't mean to open this can of worms in an inappropriate place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually we know it is broke, but the arugment is how best to fix it. In the SPIRIT of 6th edition and no- killing models outside of LOS unless you have permission to do so, I play that you apply ALL the shooting rules to the Spirit Leech ability, including p16 out of sight.

Others feel differently, hence the debate is about that. RAW his ability does not work, so working out an acceptable compromise (and being consistent is usually a good compromise position) is a good use of the forum.

I never said that the LoS issue was cut and dry, but the question the user asked, which has nothing to due with LoS issues, is.