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.

 

This is a preliminary list of rules questions that may be added to the Dakka FAQ for the new Eldar codex. Feel free to post your own queries as replies to this post.

In some cases, I've included questions that have rather clear RAW answers but still might cause some head-scratching because they represent a change from the last codex without the codex coming right out and saying its a change (which can lead to some "intent" doubt).

 

 

Actual grey areas in the codex:

ELD.26.01 -- Q: What happens when a Farseer in one Eldar army has the Runes of Witnessing and a Farseer in his opponent's Eldar army has the Runes of Warding?

ELD.26.02 -- Q: What happens when a Farseer has the Runes of Witnessing and the opposing Tyranid player has a Hive Tyant with The Shadow in the Warp?

ELD.28.01 -- Q: The Farseer powers follow the rules for psychic powers in the rulebook which are subject to the shooting rules unless specified otherwise. Although they ignore line of sight, are any Farseer powers exempt from other parts of the shooting rules, such as: choosing a target enemy unit, checking target priority, rolling 'to hit', and the restrictions on firing into an existing close combat?

ELD.35.01 -- Q: Can the Skyleap ability be used if the unit is joined by an Autarch without Swooping Hawk wings?

ELD.35.02 -- Q: Can the Intercept skill be used to hit (non-Shaken/Stunned/Immobilized) Walkers with grenades on a 4+?

ELD.36.01 -- Q: Can an Autarch riding a Jetbike (or with Wings) who arrives from Reserves on the same turn as a Spider unit with Surprise Assualt Deep Strike into play with them, or must he have a Jump Generator?

ELD.46.01/ELD.47.01 -- Q: Can Inactive Wraithguard/Wraithlords make a Sweeping Advance (if they are involved in a multiple combat and their side wins)?

ELD.46.02/ELD.47.02  -- Q: Do Inactive Wraithguard/Wraithlords make Pile In moves at the end of a combat? If not, and all of their opponents are slain (by other friendly units in the combat) and no enemy models are able to Pile Into them, do they no longer count as 'Locked' in combat?

ELD.43.01 -- Q: Can a Fire Prism contribute its Prism Cannon to another Fire Prism that is out of range (more than 60" away)?

ELD.43.02 -- Q: Can a Fire Prism still contribute its Prism Cannon to another Fire Prism even if it is unable to fire it's Prism Cannon for another reason (for example, its Prism Cannon has been destroyed or the Fire Prism is Stunned for the turn)?

ELD.43.03 -- Q: Can a Fire Prism contribute its Prism Cannon to another Fire Prism and still fire its Shiruken Catapluts/Cannon at a seperate enemy target?

ELD.45B.01 -- Q: The Vibro Cannon rules do not state that it ignores the usual LOS restrictions. Models out of LOS are not normally allowed to be removed as casualties. Are enemy models out of LOS from a Vibro Cannon valid casualties?

ELD.45B.02 -- Q: Does a target with an Armor Value hit by a vibro cannon battery suffer a glancing hit for each weapon that successfully rolled 'to hit' or just a maximum of one glancing hit no matter what?

ELD.60.01 -- Q: A Warlock unit and the Farseer are a "single HQ choice" but do they form a single unit, or can both the Warlock squad and the Farseer be deployed out of coherency of each other?

ELD.65A.01 -- Q: Do Shining Spears have "Eldar" Jetbikes (allowed to move 6" in the Assualt phase even if they don't assualt the enemy) or just regular Jetbikes?

ELD.66C.01 -- Q: Does a Wraithlord get the +1 Attack bonus in close combat for having "two single-handed weapons"? His Shiruken Catapults and flamers both appear to be single-handed to him.

 

Apparent Typos:

ELD.49.01 -- Veil of Tears refers to pages 20-21 for Warlock powers when the actual rules are on page 28.

ELD.53.01 -- Master Strategist refers to page 18 when the actual rules are on page 29.

ELD.57.01 -- The Maugetar refers back to the Executioner on page 23 when the actual rules are on page 31.

ELD.65B.01 -- Warp Spiders are not listed as having "Warp Jump Generator" under Wargear.

ELD.65C.01 -- Swooping Hawks are not listed as having "Swooping Hawk Wings" under Wargear.

ELD.66D.01 -- "Dark Reaper" is missing next to its statline (only "Exarch" is listed).

 

Intent Questions:

ELD.35.03 -- Q: Can Swooping Hawks Deep Strike into play (use their grenade packs) and then Skyleap out of play in the same turn?

Why is this a question? Because it allows the Swooping Hawks to make multiple grenade attacks throughout the game without ever risking being shot or assualted by the enemy. . .that certainly doesn't seem fair.

ELD.36.02 -- Q: If an Autarch with a Warp Jump Generator (on his own) rolls doubles on his second jump is he removed as a casualty or can he attempt a save of any kind?

Why is this a question? Because by the RAW it would appear to be the case. This seems, however, a rather harsh penalty for such an expensive character.

ELD.39.01 -- Q: Can Guardians with a Heavy Weapon Platform embark on a transport vehicle?

Why is this a question? Because the previous codex didn't allow it, and this codex doesn't expressly allow it. However by the RAW it appears to be fully allowed ( as the Platform rules on page 39 say that the gun model itself is "always ignored" ).

ELD.44.01 -- Q: A Skimmer with Vectored Engines moves more than 6" from where it started its move and then suffers an Immobilized result in the opponent's turn. Do further hits on that same turn still benefit from the Skimmers Moving Fast rule?

Why is this a question? Because by the RAW all that matters is if a Skimmer moved more than 6" (from where it started its move) for the Skimmers Moving Fast rule to work. But this seems a little strange for a Skimmer sitting on the ground. Before Vectored Engines it was previously impossible for a Skimmer that moved over 6" to still be alive if it suffered an immobilized result so this issue has never come up.

ELD.45B.03 -- Q: Does a Vibro Cannon hit units locked in close combat?

Why is this a question? Because by the RAW it is very, very easy for a player to hit a close combat with a Vibrocannon shot without breaking the normal restriction about firing into close combat (as it doesn't directly target units).

ELD.45B.04 -- Q: The Vibro Cannon rules don't mention that the 36" line has to be a straight line. Can it be drawn curved, zig-zagged, etc at the firing player's discretion?

Why is this a question? Because it seems very likely that the writer meant a "straight" line, as a line that snakes wherever the firing model wants it too would be very, very abusive.

ELD.45B.06 -- Q: Is the Strength of a vibro cannon battery increased by cannons that successfully rolled 'to hit', or just by the total number of cannons in the battery regardless of whether they hit or not?

Why is this a question? Although the example given in the rules seems to indicate that, for the Strength bonus, it doesn't matter whether individual cannons in the battery hit or not (as long as one does), but this doesn't intuitively make much sense. If cannons don't hit why should they contribute to the power of the battery?

ELD.51.01 -- Q: Does Eldrad get the +1A bonus for having "two single-handed weapons" in close combat while wielding his Staff of Ulthamar?

Why is this a question? Because the staff isn't defined as single or two-handed, and per the model it looks as though it should possibly be two-handed. 

ELD.51.02 -- Q: When Eldrad uses Divination to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does he count as having moved two units or just one?

Why is this a question? The GW online FAQ states that units inside a vehicle do not count as being on the table, so that would seem to indicate via the RAW that Eldrad could potentially move more units than D3+1 provided some of them are embarked on trasnports.

ELD.60.02 -- Q: The Autarch comes with a Shiruken Pistol and he is able to take another single-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon as well. Does this mean he can have one two-handed weapon and two single-handed weapons all at the same time?

Why is this a question? The vast majority of characters in 40k are limited to two weapons, only one of which is two-handed. The RAW for the Autarch's entry is clear: he can have all three weapons, but it seems perhaps like it might be a simple oversight.

ELD.60.03 -- Q: Can Farseers, Warlocks and Autarch use Fleet while mounted on a Jetbike? If yes, can they really Fleet on the same turn they Turbo-Boost (as the Fleet rule techincally allows them to)?

Why is this a question? Because the actual Jetbike based units in the codex can't Fleet so it seems strange that these characters can. Plus, moving 25-30" (via Turbo-Boost plus Fleet) just seems wrong.

ELD.60.04 -- Q: Can an Autarch use Fleet while equipped with a Warp Spider Jump Generator?

Why is this a question? Again, because normal Warp Spider can't Fleet. Plus, the possibility to move up to 30" (via the 2nd Generator jump plus Fleet) just seems wrong.

Contributors: Hellfury, Teak, Poisonrogue, Raider, Flavius Infernus, HarveyDent, Sarigar, Red_Thirst, Flagg07, Wayfarer, Zoned, Mahu

 

 

 

 

It may have been answered, but i am still unclear as to the wording about warlocks. I can see the codex reading one of two ways and can make sound arguements for both....Do you have to take a farseer to have warlocks or are they just a unit upgrade now irregardless of a farseer, and do you have to take a minimum of three?

It may have been answered, but i am still unclear as to the wording about warlocks. I can see the codex reading one of two ways and can make sound arguements for both....Do you have to take a farseer to have warlocks or are they just a unit upgrade now irregardless of a farseer, and do you have to take a minimum of three?

I'm not going to include this question (yet), because to me it looks clear. The Warlock entry is offset from the main list in a box (just like the Wave Serpent). Following the format of the Eldar army list this makes it pretty clear (to me at least) that they cannot be taken as their own HQ choice. Anyone else disagree?

 

No disagreement from me, but this six page discussion on Warseer seems to say otherwise.

Ghaz,

I read about halfway through the thread you linked. That seems to be more of a discussion of whether the Warlocks and the Farseer form a single unit, which IMO is a valid question that is already included in the list of questions above.

Its the possibilty of taking a unit of Warlocks without even taking a Farseer in the first place that I think is clearly not allowed by the denotation of the box around the unit. Or does someone want to try to argue that a Wave Serpent can be taken as a stand-alone Elites choices (because that is basically the same argument)?

Posted By yakface on 11/20/2006 8:56 PM
Its the possibilty of taking a unit of Warlocks without even taking a Farseer in the first place that I think is clearly not allowed by the denotation of the box around the unit. Or does someone want to try to argue that a Wave Serpent can be taken as a stand-alone Elites choices (because that is basically the same argument)?

This is another of those little situations created by GW's 'They'll figure out what we meant' style of rules writing.

We're presumably supposed to realise that Army List entries that are in a box are units that are supposed to be a part of other units, rather than selectable by themselves. But nowhere that I'm aware of has GW ever actually said as much.

So, while it makes sense that the box around the entry means something (otherwise, why put it there?), without an explanation in the rules, we're really left making up our own minds as to just what it actually does mean.

Looking at it in context, the assumption that it means 'This isn't actually a choice by itself' is reasonable... but NOT supported by any actual rule.

Posted By yakface on 11/20/2006 8:56 PM

Ghaz,

I read about halfway through the thread you linked. That seems to be more of a discussion of whether the Warlocks and the Farseer form a single unit, which IMO is a valid question that is already included in the list of questions above.

Its the possibilty of taking a unit of Warlocks without even taking a Farseer in the first place that I think is clearly not allowed by the denotation of the box around the unit. Or does someone want to try to argue that a Wave Serpent can be taken as a stand-alone Elites choices (because that is basically the same argument)?

Ah, gotcha.  I misunderstood when you said 'as a HQ choice on their own', you simply meant as a separate unit, not as the sole HQ choice in the army which is clearly disallowed by the codex.  I thought you were changing your mind about adding the question that poisonrogue posted.

Posted By insaniak on 11/20/2006 9:51 PM

This is another of those little situations created by GW's 'They'll figure out what we meant' style of rules writing.

We're presumably supposed to realise that Army List entries that are in a box are units that are supposed to be a part of other units, rather than selectable by themselves. But nowhere that I'm aware of has GW ever actually said as much.

So, while it makes sense that the box around the entry means something (otherwise, why put it there?), without an explanation in the rules, we're really left making up our own minds as to just what it actually does mean.

Looking at it in context, the assumption that it means 'This isn't actually a choice by itself' is reasonable... but NOT supported by any actual rule.

You are, of course, correct. However, this little convention by GW has been done since the very first 3rd edition codices (usually to denote a transport vehicles).

Actually going back to other codices (like the original 3rd edition SM codex) they didn't even put the retinue in a highlighted box, there's really no indication that you just can't take a command squad on its own. With this in mind its not really surprising that the new SM codex didn't alter the format.

Really, its more of a general question for all the codexes: Can a bodyguard unit be taken without an accompanying character if the codex doesn't spefiy otherwise? And do little boxes around some codex choices indicate they are not allowed to be taken as a stand-alone choice (like a Transport vehicle)?


So I guess that's why I don't think it should be included in an Eldar FAQ. The issue isn't with the Eldar codex per se, but rather all of the codices in general.

Actually Yak, I wasnt so much asking if the warlocks could be in a seperate unit as much as asking if you have to have a farseer to take warlocks in your army period. In the codex previous to this, a farseer was manadatory if you wanted to field any warlocks at all. This codex is unclear as to whether the intent was to continue this rule.

I think it is actually pretty clear about taking warlocks without taking a farseer.

Under the unit entry for Farseer, this is what is said about warlocks:



This is the entry that "unlocks" taking warlocks. Without it, there would be no way of telling how the hell to take these.

First, you must take a farseer. Second, if you take a farseer, youre allowed one unit of 3-10 warlocks for each farseer. Third, both the independant character 'farseer" and the UNIT of warlocks are a single HQ choice. (notice how it doesnt say  "This unit and the farseer are a single unit" which is why I feel that it is quite obvuious that the farseer and warlocks are two seperate units, if you dont choose to attach the farseer to the warlock squad.)

It doesnt say anything about warlocks in the warlock entry about fielding them without the farseer. The farseer entry stipulates that he is required to field the warlock unit.

I was wondering about the Vibro Cannon question, ELD.45.01. It occured to me that the Librarian has a power similar. I think the name is Fury of the Anceints, but I do not have my book with me to confirm. How does this power word itself? I know in my area the general consensus is that it does ignore normal LOS rules. If I had my book I would check.....

The Wraith

Wraith,

Fury of the Ancients has been FAQ'd that it doesnt' require LOS. The same thing should technically be done for Vibro Cannons if they really (by the RAW) want them to cause damage out of LOS.

On the subject of the warlocks being a seperate unit from the farseer. Here is some more grist in favor of the argument that warlocks and farseers are indeed seperate units, but share the same FOC.

Page 76 of the 40K rulebook. Second paragraph under "force organization chart".



But it also says under the entry for warlocks:



The rule for transports are not detailed under the farseer entry. Stronger evidence that the warlock unit is indeed seperate from the farseer, until the farseer joins the unit if you grant it.

IMO there is no doubt that you need a Farseer to get the Warlock unit.

Under the Farseer Entry:
" Warlocks: Fore each Farseer in the army, you may include a squad of 3-10 Warlocks (SEE ENTRY BELOW).
This unit and the Farseer are a single HQ choice."

The "see entry below" refers to the boxed Warlock entry that states "Squad: 3 to 10 Warlocks".

Again, pretty darn clear to me.

I think some people are curious if you need to take a Farseer IOT include Warlocks in other units such as Guardian and Guardian Bike sqds. I have not come across anything in the Dex to state that Warlocks as upgrades for other units require a Farseer. In other words, taking an Autarch with 2 Guardian Bike Sqds with Warlocks is good to go because they are the GB's own unit upgrade, not a part of the HQ.

There is really no argument there, Flagg.
The contention lies with the farseer and warlocks being two seperate units being part of the same FOC. many believe that they are one squad much like marine HQ's and command squads.

For your second paragraph it is quite obvious that a farseer and a warlock unit are not needed to be fielded in order to take squad upgrades for jetbikes, support platforms, etc.

Compare the new rules for jetbike warlocks with the old rules.

New rules:


Old rules:

HellFury- To be honest, I don't really see the contention. The Farseer entry says you can include a squad of Warlocks. It also directs you to the "Boxed" entry for Warlocks below the Farseer. It further says that the Farseer and the Warlocks are a single HQ Choice.

It's clear to me that the Warlock squad is an upgrade for the Farseer and they must be fielded as 1 squad. It's also clear to me that GJB squads and Guardian squads can take them as upgrades. I fully agree with you HF. I guess I don't understand the contention with the rules...

Posted By Flagg07 on 11/26/2006 8:19 AM
HellFury- To be honest, I don't really see the contention. The Farseer entry says you can include a squad of Warlocks. It also directs you to the "Boxed" entry for Warlocks below the Farseer. It further says that the Farseer and the Warlocks are a single HQ Choice.

But it doesn't say that the Warlocks form a retinue for the Farseer, nor that the Farseer and Warlocks count as a single unit.

There are a number of different cases of multiple units counting as a single HQ choice (Imperial Guard Platoons being the most obvious one), so the entry saying that the Farseer and Warlocks count as a single HQ choice proves nothing more than that they count as a single HQ choice.

As it reads to me, it's no different to the old 2nd edition rules that required you to have a Techmarine in order to take any vehicles. It didn't make them into a single unit... you were just required to have the one in order to have the other.

More questions on the Vibrocannons:

I'm fairly certain I understand how they work as far as shooting at infantry, but my question is raised in regard to vehilces;

The wording in the codex is as follows: "A target with an AV that is hit by a vibro cannon always suffers a single glancing hit; do not rolld for armor penetration."

Now I wouldn't have an issue with this were it not for the fact that you roll for each vibro cannon to hit. It says if a A vibro cannon hit, you inflict one glancing hit automatically. Does this mean that if one has a battery of three vibrocannons, and two of them successfully roll to hit, and the line passes under the vehilce, it suffers one glancing hit, or two? It technically was hit by two of the three vibrocannons by the letter of the rules, but the wording is ambiguous.

I for one have been playing it as follows: One glancing hit is inflicted regardless of how many vibrocannons acutually hit. However I wanted to get other people's thoughts on this particular thought process to make sure I am playing it correctly.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Thanks for showing me the light Insaniak. I don't like it and I still believe they should only be a retinue to the Farseer, BUT, the RAW doesn't say it.

I added the query about vibro cannons and multiple glancing hits on vehicles to the main section of questions (ELD.45B.02) as I think the rules are quite unclear on what to do.

I also added both the vibro cannon snaking line and strength boost question to the "intent" section (ELD.45B.04 & 05).

I also added the "Divination" question to the intent section (ELD.51.02).

I think I found an ommission. In the army list secton, Warp Spiders aren't listed as having Warp Jump Generators. They are merely stated as being Jump Infantry. Every other Aspect seems to list the appropiate Wargear except Warp Spiders.

Add that to the list of unlisted wargear. Anyone elses codex miss dark reapers in their army list section? I thought that was the best omission. Not entirely, just in the stat portion.

Posted By Zoned on 11/27/2006 10:37 PM
I think I found an ommission. In the army list secton, Warp Spiders aren't listed as having Warp Jump Generators. They are merely stated as being Jump Infantry. Every other Aspect seems to list the appropiate Wargear except Warp Spiders.

Hmmmm. Swooping Hawks also aren't listed as having their wings either (just the grenade pack). I suppose I'll add both.

 

Same for me. Added to the list.

 

BTW, if your question has been added to the list, then I'll be removing your original post over time to keep the thread fairly succinct.

I would like to add:

What happens to an Autarch that is using the Warp Jump Generator to perform a second jump and he rolls double numbers? Does he die? Does he take a wound? Nothing?

Ooooh, good question...

What about the Autarach +1 to reserve rolls. Does this mean that reserves auto-come on in turn 4+?

I could be wrong, but if I'm not mistaken when rolling for reserves a '1' on a dice roll is always considered a failure. So even if you get +1 to your roll, a 1 still fails.

Once again, I might very well be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that in the 4th ed BBB.

Hope that helps. Take it easy.

-RT-

Posted By yakface on 11/27/2006 11:32 PM

Wayfarer wrote: Add that to the list of unlisted wargear. Anyone elses codex miss dark reapers in their army list section? I thought that was the best omission. Not entirely, just in the stat portion.

Same for me. Added to the list. 

Posted By insaniak on 11/28/2006 12:50 PM

Posted By yakface on 11/27/2006 11:32 PM

Wayfarer wrote: Add that to the list of unlisted wargear. Anyone elses codex miss dark reapers in their army list section? I thought that was the best omission. Not entirely, just in the stat portion.

Same for me. Added to the list. 

#1 That would appear to be a problem with a print batch, then, since they're in mine.

Posted By Red_Thirst
I could be wrong, but if I'm not mistaken when rolling for reserves a '1' on a dice roll is always considered a failure. So even if you get +1 to your roll, a 1 still fails.

Once again, I might very well be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that in the 4th ed BBB.

#2 It's not in the BBB. It's in the Autarch's rules entry.