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.

Hey all,

Just looking for some clarification. As destroyers function as jetbikes, are hey allowed to do the move-shoot-move thing?

Chuck

No, That is a rule for "eldar jetbikes" and not Dark Eldar Jetbikes, or any unit that moves as a jetbike.

-Legacy40k

Dark Eldar Jetbikes get it. Their rules say that they move as Eldar jetbikes, so if eldar jetbikes get it, DE jetbikes get it too. Everyone else, though, does not.

Posted By Antonin on 04/14/2006 1:45 PM
Dark Eldar Jetbikes get it. Their rules say that they move as Eldar jetbikes, so if eldar jetbikes get it, DE jetbikes get it too. Everyone else, though, does not.


While I do not have the Dark Eldar codex.. I can be quite certain that Dark Eldar jetbikes fallow the rules for Jetbikes.. not "Eldar Jetbikes", "Dark Eldar Jetbikes" are quite distinct from those of their craftworld brethern.

-Legacy40k

Um, okay. I do have that codex. It says "eldar jetbikes."

Posted By Antonin on 04/14/2006 2:47 PM
Um, okay. I do have that codex. It says "eldar jetbikes."

Very true.  However, the BGB has changed that a little bit.  On page 264, the BGB lists all the various units that existed at that time and classified them into one of the new Unit Types described in the new rules.  There, the Reaver is clearly classified as a "Jetbike" in the Dark Eldar section. Compare this to the Eldar section, where Farseers/Warlocks/Bonesingers on jetbikes, Guardian Jetbikes and Shining Spears are all classified as "Eldar Jetbikes."

The BGB being newer than the DE Codex (pretty much everything being newer than the DE codex), its rules will supercede.

I wish my Reavers got the assault move...I might actually play them.

Sal.

Very true. However, the BGB has changed that a little bit.

And the Wargear book has changed it back...

It lists Dark Eldar jetbikes as following the rules for Eldar jetbikes.

And the Wargear book has changed it back...

The Wargear book is probably the worst book GW has put out in terms of rules consistency. Not that I disagree with DE jetbikes having the same abilities as Eldar jetbikes, but the Wargear book has so many misprints and flat out rules contradictions that it's hard to believe it as a source of rules.

Posted By Relic_OMO on 04/14/2006 6:33 PM

And the Wargear book has changed it back...

The Wargear book is probably the worst book GW has put out in terms of rules consistency. Not that I disagree with DE jetbikes having the same abilities as Eldar jetbikes, but the Wargear book has so many misprints and flat out rules contradictions that it's hard to believe it as a source of rules.

It is not a source of rules, it is a quick reference tool (and a poor one at that)

-Legacy40k

You know, if I remember correctly, the Wargear book did nothing but reprint exactly what was in the original DE Codex entry for the Reaver jetbike. I do not think that it consists of really any "new" rules or clarifications; it's just a compendium of stuff from the various codices.

I have to agree with Relic. The Wargear book is so completely worthless as a source of rules that it is wiser to pretend it doesn't exist.

Sal.

The way I was taught (and have read here on Dakka) is that, regardless of how current the respective document is, codex always supercedes Rulebook.  Then again, I might just be talking out of my ass.  I have always, always allowed my DE friend to take assault moves for his Reavers, because that's what it says in his codex.

As long as we're on the subject, Dark Eldar need a freakin' update, because they're an awesome army, both in gameplay and fluff.

I agree with you Bat. I originally started 3rd edition with DE because nobody at the LGS was playing them at the time. I became quite successful with them, though it was probably six months before I won my first game with them.

Unfortunately, GW has demonstrated time and again that they don't really listen to their customer base when determining what codex to update. I mean, Orks and Eldar are two of the original races in 40K. An updated codex for either of them, regardless of how bad it was, would sell a TON of copies. Many, many people still play these races, even in tournament situations, despite the fact that they just aren't as competitive as they once were. So what does GW do? They release a Tau codex revision, even though the existing Tau codex was still performing well under 4th edition rules.

Oh well. Honestly, I don't think I will live long enough to see a new DE codex. Anyone remember Squats?

Sal.

Anyone remember Squats?

Thoughtcrime!

I have to agree with Relic. The Wargear book is so completely worthless as a source of rules that it is wiser to pretend it doesn't exist.

That's just silly and wrong. The book has two numerical typos (the Terminator save and Ork Kan/Dread Strength). I haven't seen any reports of issues with the actual wargear/rule text in the book.

Beyond that, it contains all the most current wording found in the stealth updated codexes. Unless you want to go out and re-purchase all of your old codexes, the Wargear book is the only way I know of to have these updates.

And how is it "not rules"? The whole book is rules and the preface of the Wargear book clearly states that it contains the most current versions of wargear.

It does't seem to have any more or less typos than any other GW publication.

Thoughtcrime!

You have read too much Orwell, Bigchris.

Go to room 101 at the Ministry of love. We have things waiting for you...

That's just silly and wrong. The book has two numerical typos (the Terminator save and Ork Kan/Dread Strength). I haven't seen any reports of issues with the actual wargear/rule text in the book.

There is a mis-wording in the Venom Cannon entry, but aside from that the only real problems are a couple of items that were left out.

Posted By insaniak on 04/15/2006 8:25 AM

That's just silly and wrong. The book has two numerical typos (the Terminator save and Ork Kan/Dread Strength). I haven't seen any reports of issues with the actual wargear/rule text in the book.

There is a mis-wording in the Venom Cannon entry, but aside from that the only real problems are a couple of items that were left out.

There are a couple more, but since I didnt bother getting the book, I cant look it up, just remember seeing them in somebody elses. Some are to do with what wargear goes with what race. -Legacy40k

Aren't exarch direswords chaos only, according to that book?

Was there a list somewhere of all the problems with that book?

Posted By Antonin on 04/17/2006 9:37 AM
Aren't exarch direswords chaos only, according to that book?

Was there a list somewhere of all the problems with that book?

Yep, so I figured it would be a fair trade to give my dire avenger exarch a darkblade.

-Legacy40k

Posted By yakface on 04/14/2006 10:34 PM

I have to agree with Relic. The Wargear book is so completely worthless as a source of rules that it is wiser to pretend it doesn't exist.

That's just silly and wrong. The book has two numerical typos (the Terminator save and Ork Kan/Dread Strength). I haven't seen any reports of issues with the actual wargear/rule text in the book.

Beyond that, it contains all the most current wording found in the stealth updated codexes. Unless you want to go out and re-purchase all of your old codexes, the Wargear book is the only way I know of to have these updates.

And how is it "not rules"? The whole book is rules and the preface of the Wargear book clearly states that it contains the most current versions of wargear.

It does't seem to have any more or less typos than any other GW publication.

Is there a FAQ that corrects these typos for these "current versions"? If not, then being most current version would mean that the termi armor really is 3/5+

Is there a FAQ that corrects these typos for these "current versions"? If not, then being most current version would mean that the termi armor really is 3/5+

Nope, no FAQ. That is the most current version of the rules.

Luckily many players choose to treat the typos in the book as just typos. But if someone wants to be a stickler, then yep, Imperial Termie armor is 3+/5+.

But regardless of how many typos the Wargear book has you simply cannot ignore the fact that it has many updated wordings of wargear that are only otherwise found in the newest stealth printings of codexes.

Say, a bit OT here, but to help in the DOOM SIREN thread, what does the Wargear book say about it?

Unfortunately, thats one of the items they left out of it.

Posted By yakface on 04/18/2006 6:56 AM

But regardless of how many typos the Wargear book has you simply cannot ignore the fact that it has many updated wordings of wargear that are only otherwise found in the newest stealth printings of codexes.

This is very true, and it has come in handy for keeping a centralized listing of things, even if you have to make a personal or club FAQ.