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.

Hook Harnesses......10pts

Whilst a unit is embarked on a vehicle with hook harnesses, jinking has no effect on that units shooting attacks.(
When a vehicle equiped with hook harnesses jinks, every model embarked on that vehicle must make a dangerous terrian test.
A unit disembarking from a vehicle with hook harnesses may not charge on the turn they do so.

after the jink faq a couple years back, kabal list were just never the same. I really miss running splinter rack gunboats and blaster venoms. imho nothing is fluffier than a bunch of crazed bdsm pirate space elves hanging off of their vehicles on large flesh hooks as they zig and zag across the battlefield, shooting everything they pass. With every hard turn a few guys fall off the sides, splattering against passing terrian like a bug on a windshield. I need to clean up the wording a bit but everything is there, more cannon at the cost of more glass. let me know what you guys think!

Didn't the final FAQ say that units that are in a jinking Transport don't have to snapshoot, which would make that upgrade a bit pointless?

Yeah, Jinking has no effect on units inside of the vehicle.

Wow so I found the current jink FAQ, well that's good at least. Bizarre that GW made 2 complete 180s on a single rule within the span of 2 years. Anyone have any idea why? Would love to shed some light on what was going through their heads

TheBigDeal wrote:
Wow so I found the current jink FAQ, well that's good at least. Bizarre that GW made 2 complete 180s on a single rule within the span of 2 years. Anyone have any idea why? Would love to shed some light on what was going through their heads

Everyone complained after the first ruling.
Same thing for Drop Pod doors.

TheBigDeal wrote:
Wow so I found the current jink FAQ, well that's good at least. Bizarre that GW made 2 complete 180s on a single rule within the span of 2 years. Anyone have any idea why? Would love to shed some light on what was going through their heads

Because the outcry of Dark Eldar players that the passengers snap shooting would be beating on the already weak codex.

Though (As a Dark Eldar player) I still think they should have kept the Jink=snap shots for passengers BUT given Dark Eldar an exception (probably by a decurion style detachment) to allow them to ignore it.

Jbz` wrote:

TheBigDeal wrote:
Wow so I found the current jink FAQ, well that's good at least. Bizarre that GW made 2 complete 180s on a single rule within the span of 2 years. Anyone have any idea why? Would love to shed some light on what was going through their heads

Because the outcry of Dark Eldar players that the passengers snap shooting would be beating on the already weak codex.

Though (As a Dark Eldar player) I still think they should have kept the Jink=snap shots for passengers BUT given Dark Eldar an exception (probably by a decurion style detachment) to allow them to ignore it.

Well gak, that's cool. Sounds like Im late to the party, typical.
I too thought they would find a way to circumvent the rule via wargear or detachment, not simply reinstate the previous rule.

While admittedly I'm a casual player at best, I've been making a serious effort this to play more games and get the most out of my models. The seriously disappointing part is in the clique of players I've been playing against at the local game store I just started going to. I've probably played 7-8 games and nobody said anything as I jinked and snapped, jinked and snapped, getting my ass handed to me. Serious bummer, need to find some new gaming buddies.

Don't jump to defaming players. Especially nowadays no one can know every rule, and jinkable transports are kinda rare. You missed the ruling and had a good reason to know it afterall.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Don't jump to defaming players. Especially nowadays no one can know every rule, and jinkable transports are kinda rare. You missed the ruling and had a good reason to know it afterall.

And if the other guys you play with do not use Dark Eldar, I wouldn't expect them to know enough to correct you if you miss a rule.
It has been my experience that even some veteran players who keep up with the FAQs often forget or don't even know about DE rules.
DE are a unique race in many ways.

-

What if the Venom/Raider could ignore Crew Stunned/Shaken if the crew had Hook harnesses?

 Galef wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Don't jump to defaming players. Especially nowadays no one can know every rule, and jinkable transports are kinda rare. You missed the ruling and had a good reason to know it afterall.

And if the other guys you play with do not use Dark Eldar, I wouldn't expect them to know enough to correct you if you miss a rule.
It has been my experience that even some veteran players who keep up with the FAQs often forget or don't even know about DE rules.
DE are a unique race in many ways.

-

Excellent points both, the fault was mine alone


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
What if the Venom/Raider could ignore Crew Stunned/Shaken if the crew had Hook harnesses?

This is a good idea. Makes it a viable option for Ravagers too.

"a vehicle equipped with hook harnesses ignores Crew Shaken/Stunned results on the vehicle damage chart. "