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.

In terms of rules intent and realism, im somewhat disappointed in Jinking units allowing passengers to fire unaffected, especially when smoke launchers, despite being one predeclared use for a worse save, preventing all passenger shooting entirely. Not that DE need a nerf, but all the same, it feels like a poor rules stance allowing passnegers to avoid all downsides like that for some transporta but not others.

Well there is no way to get around that fact the GeeDubs only changed their stance due to DE players whining. Like I understand why they were whining, if I had an inherently broken dex and one of my only cool unit combo's was nerfed I would be mad. Imagine if Wyverns had a point boost and my flyrants were no longer allowed two twin-linked brain-leech devourers.... I would be equally mad. However it would be fixing some OP units in a book where they are among some of the only rational options available to their players.

However the main issue is it's not fixing the core issue with the army or the rules. All it is doing is making a stupid rule decision to help soften the fact the DE codex sucks. And as you highlighted.... how does it make smoke launcher users feel? when mixed with the 6"+ rule for fast skimmers, it's completely hypocritical. 12" straight movement vs 6" erratic movement.... which one snap fires? The issue here should not to buff one single unit combination, but to make the rules consistent. If a vehicle has to snap fire.... the passengers bloody well better have to! It makes it easy and simply to remember. If you want to add things fine, but don't fill it full of exceptions and contradictions.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Well there is no way to get around that fact the GeeDubs only changed their stance due to DE players whining. Like I understand why they were whining, if I had an inherently broken dex and one of my only cool unit combo's was nerfed I would be mad. Imagine if Wyverns had a point boost and my flyrants were no longer allowed two twin-linked brain-leech devourers.... I would be equally mad. However it would be fixing some OP units in a book where they are among some of the only rational options available to their players.

However the main issue is it's not fixing the core issue with the army or the rules. All it is doing is making a stupid rule decision to help soften the fact the DE codex sucks. And as you highlighted.... how does it make smoke launcher users feel? when mixed with the 6"+ rule for fast skimmers, it's completely hypocritical. 12" straight movement vs 6" erratic movement.... which one snap fires? The issue here should not to buff one single unit combination, but to make the rules consistent. If a vehicle has to snap fire.... the passengers bloody well better have to! It makes it easy and simply to remember. If you want to add things fine, but don't fill it full of exceptions and contradictions.

I'm happy with the ruling, but only from a long-game perspective.

As 8th rolls around with fears abound of armies being squatted/merged with other codices, I can see poor neglected Dark Eldar being on that list (which is a travesty really, both their models and fluff are kickass).

If you've got a sudden exodus of players from an army that's already been kicked in the groin with a crap codex, it increases the likelihood of them getting rough treatment through any potential End Times debacle.

Plus, there's a potential for all this jinking/snap shooting nonsense to be canned with rules-simplification in 8th anyway...