New Eldar Codex = New Eldar Questions

[Vdor103]

Figured to start a thread to consolidate the upcoming round of questions for Codex: Eldar!

Question: When building a "Warlock Council" (doesn't sound the same as Seer Council), could I list build 4 warlocks in a unit where two are equiped with Jetbikes and two without. Then after rolling for psyker powers, can I decide which two warlocks would break off to support a unit AND also decide who keeps a jetbike, and who doesn't.

Essentially, can I optimize both Psychic support for both Jetbike council and 2 other units AND optimize the mobility of the Jetbike council WITHOUT paying extra points when I know I'll have at least two warlocks on foot.

Hope that makes sense.

[Moros]

No you can't, cause you attach the warlocks to the squads before you roll for warlord trait... and by the rules on page 148 warlord traits happen before psy powers are selected. Therefore, you will break the warlocks off, choose warlord trait, then choose psy powers.

They will be random selection no matter how you slice it I'm afraid.

[Tyrendian]

next question comes from me: A Striking Scorpion Exarch can get Crushing Blow (or however it's exactly called in English...), which reads "The model gets +1 Strength". To me, that reads like it would boost his strength when using a Scorpion Claw to 8, since it speaks about his own characteristic, not hits he inflicts or something (like Furious Charge does, I believe? Which obviously would just make it S7...). Am I imagining a difference in wording here?

[Nabterayl]

You are, yes. Remember that everything modifies the model's own Strength - even Melee weapons like power fists. Although we sometimes speak of Melee weapons as having a Strength, the way Shooting attacks do, the truth is that they don't - as page 24 says, we reference "the attacker's Strength characteristic," not the weapon's (cf. page 14, "compare the weapon's Strength characteristic"). Melee weapons have no Strength at all, merely abilities that modify the user's Strength. Hence, the Scorpion's Claw doubles the exarch's Strength, and Crushing Blow (or whatever) increases the exarch's Strength +1. 3+1x2, in 40K math, is 7.

[Archon Charybdis]

Hence, the Scorpion's Claw doubles the exarch's Strength, and Crushing Blow (or whatever) increases the exarch's Strength +1. 3+1x2, in 40K math, is 7. Actually the way you've written it there would be S5. And it's not 40K math, it's normal order of operations with the "fixed values" added at the end.

[Nabterayl]

That's the result by normal order of operations, yes. What I meant to express is that when you have a characteristic of 3, a modifier of +1, and modifier of x2, the rules require you to formulate the equation as 3x2+1. You cannot choose to formulate it as 3+1x2, or (3+1)x2. But I think all three of us are clear.

[rkoloeg]

That's the result by normal order of operations, yes. What I meant to express is that when you have a characteristic of 3, a modifier of +1, and modifier of x2, the rules require you to formulate the equation as 3x2+1. You cannot choose to formulate it as 3+1x2, or (3+1)x2. But I think all three of us are clear.

I have to admit that I was ready to disagree with you at first, because people on other forums have been waxing enthusiastic about the new "S8 Scorpion Exarch". So I pulled out my rulebook and sure enough, you are right. Page 2, paragraph 4, "Multiple Modifiers". Might want to keep that handy for anyone else who wants to argue about it. For what it's worth, what I had in mind as a starting point for disagreement is the thing about bike toughness being set at 5 rather than 4(5), but it turns out not to be relevant.

[PaD]

No you can't, cause you attach the warlocks to the squads before you roll for warlord trait... and by the rules on page 148 warlord traits happen before psy powers are selected. Therefore, you will break the warlocks off, choose warlord trait, then choose psy powers.

They will be random selection no matter how you slice it I'm afraid.

Really? Sorry if I am being dumb (or if this has come up before and I missed it) but I can't find where it says that psy powers are determined after Warlord traits. All I can see is that both psy powers (pg 418) and Warlord Traits(pg 121) have to be determined before deployment.

Surely, as long as you generate psy powers, then generate Warlord Traits and then split the Warlock Council up, all before deployment you would be OK. You would know what powers each Warlock has when they go to join their other units.

You would still have to generate an individuals psy powers after their have been given a jet bike though (which you would do at the time of writing the list) which is really dumb! :(

[Nabterayl]

I also don't see where rolling for warlord traits is specified to occur prior to rolling for psychic powers. The latter happens "before either player deploys their army" (page 418), and the former "before you deploy your army" (page 111). Are we missing something that puts those two in sequence with each other?

[DarkLink]

Also, Warlocks are distributed after​ Warlord Traits, not before.

[Xenith]

Check the summary of setting up a game at the back of the BRB.

Warlord traits
<------------Split up warlocks
Roll of psychic powers

[Baron.roboto]

Here's a burning question I have since I don't have the rulebook where I am: Given the fragility of the Crimson Hunter, I wouldn't be keen on it turning up before there's an enemy flier to shoot down.

Is there any rule preventing me flying on from my Board edge and off the side board edge in a diagonal in the same turn, in effect keeping it in reserves for another turn?

[Baron.roboto]

Ignore that question - found it's answered in the BRB FAQ; and the answer is no :(

[Mr.Pickelz]

I got a question of my own, that seems straight forward, but i just want to make sure I'm reading this right.

Does an Autarch loose the Infantry (Character) and the Independent Character status when you give him the Mantle of the Laughing God?
option A. The Autarch looses the Independent Character trait, but remains a "Character"
option B. The Autarch is no longer a Character at all. (aka, he can not issue nor accept challenges)

Edit: I'm thinking towards option A, but I am curious if I'm reading that wrong.

[Learn2Eel]

I got a question of my own, that seems straight forward, but i just want to make sure I'm reading this right.

Does an Autarch loose the Infantry (Character) and the Independent Character status when you give him the Mantle of the Laughing God?
option A. The Autarch looses the Independent Character trait, but remains a "Character"
option B. The Autarch is no longer a Character at all. (aka, he can not issue nor accept challenges)

Edit: I'm thinking towards option A, but I am curious if I'm reading that wrong.

It is Option A, as he only loses the Independent Character special rule. He doesn't change his unit type, at least not with the Mantle.

[LittleMen]

Can a unit with battle focus move out of a transport, shoot, and then run back in?

[Daemonette666]

I noticed in the treasures of Vaul on page 66 that the Eldar jet bike increases the armour save of the model to 3+, but does not increase its toughness by +1. However the Shining spears (page 100) and Wind rider squadrons (page 97) have the increased toughness. I am assuming this is a typo, and will be FAQ'd fairly soon.

If not, then Warlocks on Jet bikes (unenhanced by their powers) are still very easily killed off.

You will probably get the power gamers, and those who do not have the finesse to play Eldar, and using them like a Space Marine Army having a lot of the following units in their armies.

Fliers, Wraith Knights, Wraithguard and Wraith Blades, Wind Riders, Rangers, Dire Avengers, Phoenix Lords, Eldrad, the Avatar, Vypers, Wraith lords, Dark Reapers, Support batteries, Fire Prisms and Night Spinners.

I see these units have the greatest chance at either surviving, causing great amounts of damage, out maneuvering their opponents to either score or deny objectives, and are the ones that need the least ammount of imagination when it comes to tactics to make them work well in the current 6th edition gaming style.

Other units like Guardians, and so on definitely have their uses, but their fragility makes many players steer away from them. They are the perfect not threatening inexpensive unit for hiding in cover to hold objectives, while your big nasty units draw the fire power.

My own view at this stage. I have only had 1/2 an hour to look at the codex, but I can certainly see that some units will be more common in tournaments than others.

[Tyrendian]

I noticed in the treasures of Vaul on page 66 that the Eldar jet bike increases the armour save of the model to 3+, but does not increase its toughness by +1. However the Shining spears (page 100) and Wind rider squadrons (page 97) have the increased toughness. I am assuming this is a typo, and will be FAQ'd fairly soon.

If not, then Warlocks on Jet bikes (unenhanced by their powers) are still very easily killed off.

obvious, and inconsequential, typo, since the BRB tells you what an Eldar Jetbike is and does...

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, Armoured Steed on page 45 of the BRB covers the Toughness increase. Note that the CSM codex also does not list the Toughness increase for bikes (see page 66 of the CSM codex). It appears that going forward they are letting Armoured Steed cover the Toughness increase, and simply noting in the codex any other characteristics the bike might have (e.g., weaponry, armor save, etc.).

[Vallen]

Can a unit with battle focus move out of a transport, shoot, and then run back in?

BRB pg 78 "Embarking and Disembarking" - No you can't voluntarily do both in same turn.

I know I quickly wondered that too :)

[Tynskel]

Yeah, Armoured Steed on page 45 of the BRB covers the Toughness increase. Note that the CSM codex also does not list the Toughness increase for bikes (see page 66 of the CSM codex). It appears that going forward they are letting Armoured Steed cover the Toughness increase, and simply noting in the codex any other characteristics the bike might have (e.g., weaponry, armor save, etc.).

Additionally, the Eldar Codex says to use the main rulebook rules. ie that the iPad codex has the main rulebook rules in it.

[LittleMen]

BRB pg 78 "Embarking and Disembarking" - No you can't voluntarily do both in same turn.

I know I quickly wondered that too :)

Thanks, it seemed too good to be true!

[LittleMen]

I need to get to work on some jetbikes, with a warlock with conceal (3+ jink, right?), they will be pretty darn good.

[Vallen]

I need to get to work on some jetbikes, with a warlock with conceal (3+ jink, right?), they will be pretty darn good.

At a minimum yes but don't forget that you still have a chance to get +1 armor instead....2+armor jetbikes :)

[Kyban]

You are, yes. Remember that everything modifies the model's own Strength - even Melee weapons like power fists. Although we sometimes speak of Melee weapons as having a Strength, the way Shooting attacks do, the truth is that they don't - as page 24 says, we reference "the attacker's Strength characteristic," not the weapon's (cf. page 14, "compare the weapon's Strength characteristic"). Melee weapons have no Strength at all, merely abilities that modify the user's Strength. Hence, the Scorpion's Claw doubles the exarch's Strength, and Crushing Blow (or whatever) increases the exarch's Strength +1. 3+1x2, in 40K math, is 7.
Reread the weapon profile description, it is for both melee and ranged weapons and takes precedence via page 7 so the exarch will be at s8.

[Vallen]

Reread the weapon profile description, it is for both melee and ranged weapons and takes precedence via page 7 so the exarch will be at s8.

Refer to pg 2 in the BRB "Multiple Modifiers" It explains the math and does a sample example. You multiply first then add or subtract.

The only things that I know of that go against this rule are in the GK book where it specifically says you add the +1str first then double.

[Vallen]

Reread the weapon profile description, it is for both melee and ranged weapons and takes precedence via page 7 so the exarch will be at s8.

Remember the scorpion's claw is not unwieldy anymore so you attack at initiative with the str 7 ap 2...that is nothing to sneeze at....if you want str 8 at initiative just take the Phoenix lord :)

[Nabterayl]

Reread the weapon profile description, it is for both melee and ranged weapons and takes precedence via page 7 so the exarch will be at s8.
I'm not sure what you're contending. Page 2 says, "For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both "+1 Strength" and "double Strength", its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+1 =9)." That's the same result that has had power klaw nobs charging at S9 for years (S4, x2S, Furious Charge).

I don't have a copy of the eldar codex yet, so I don't have the text of the ability that is, roughly, giving +1 Strength, but as I understand it it gives the exarch +1 Strength. A power fist gives a model double Strength. Just as S4, +1S, and x2S is S9, so S3, +1S, and x2S is S7.

Or is there something in the codex that alters that analysis, in your view?

[Kyban]

Refer to pg 2 in the BRB "Multiple Modifiers" It explains the math and does a sample example. You multiply first then add or subtract.

The only things that I know of that go against this rule are in the GK book where it specifically says you add the +1str first then double.

You're not modifying the same thing, on page 50 it says that "the strength of the weapon is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied". So the user's strength is 3+1=4 and the weapon's strength is 4(user's)x2=8. If the weapon had a +1 strength also it would be added after the x2 according to page 2 but they modify different things.

[Nabterayl]

So, to be clear, you contend (to give an example) that the "x2" in the power fist description is not a modifier to the user's Strength?

[Kyban]

So, to be clear, you contend (to give an example) that the "x2" in the power fist description is not a modifier to the user's Strength?

Essentially yes, it is a modifier to the weapon's strength according to page 50. Though frankly it is very poorly worded and I can definitely see it being interpreted either way.

[Vallen]

You're not modifying the same thing, on page 50 it says that "the strength of the weapon is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied". So the user's strength is 3+1=4 and the weapon's strength is 4(user's)x2=8. If the weapon had a +1 strength also it would be added after the x2 according to page 2 but they modify different things.

Ok I see where you are getting this from now.

Read the examples on the page. It explains that the strength of the attack is modified. IG with str 3 and a x2 weapon counts as str 6. Ig with str+1 weapon counts as str 4.

You are somehow reading this to mean that you add the +1 str first to the attack and then double it. The only way your argument works is if the +1 to str granted by crushing blow is an actual change to the models profile.

Look up the Hammerhand rule in the GK book (this power also as +1 str to the models and then it goes on to specify that this happens before other modifiers)

If you want to make the case for a Str 8 scorpion that's how you have to do it. Trying to argue the sequence of the math is going to always come back to pg 2.

Personally, given that it does strike at initiative I would tend to lean towards the str 7 version...however it is a 30 point upgrade so on balance it could be str 8 but until I see an FAQ I'll be playing it conservatively.

[Kyban]

The only way your argument works is if the +1 to str granted by crushing blow is an actual change to the models profile.


That's what I was trying to get at, the model's strength gets +1 and the weapon's strength is equal to that modified strength x2, it's not the order of operations but what is being modified. The GK example isn't very good though as it's a 5th ed ability.

[Vallen]

A further example of the profile argument can be found with the Thunderwolf Cav in the SW dex. That upgrade specifically states that it adds the +1 to the model's profile. Thus, the model is str 10 when using a PF/TH.

So if the exarch's profile is modded then yes you are correct with your str 8 ap 2 init 5 scorpion of doom :)

[Vallen]

That's what I was trying to get at, the model's strength gets +1 and the weapon's strength is equal to that modified strength x2, it's not the order of operations but what is being modified. The GK example isn't very good though as it's a 5th ed ability.

The same math was always used to my knowledge (3rd ed scorpion was str 9 not 10). They just went out of their way to clarify the order of operations in this version.

[Kyban]

A further example of the profile argument can be found with the Thunderwolf Cav in the SW dex. That upgrade specifically states that it adds the +1 to the model's profile. Thus, the model is str 10 when using a PF/TH.

So if the exarch's profile is modded then yes you are correct with your str 8 ap 2 init 5 scorpion of doom :)
It's what makes sense to me anyway, the model has +1 str at all times but when he uses a weapon that supposedly doubles his str it doesn't count that?! I read it as the model's str and the weapon's str being seperate characteristics that are separately modified.

SW is also a 5th ed codex, so not really a great example, the weapon rules were different.

[MrBo]

Does the scatter laser twin linking rule apply to the model or the unit?

[rle68]

obvious, and inconsequential, typo, since the BRB tells you what an Eldar Jetbike is and does...

you are correct but that doesnt matter what the brb says the dex doesnt say it does now in the item description... so until the faq says the brb is correct it doesnt get +1 t

[Nabterayl]

Can you unpack that argument a bit for me? It sounds like you are saying that when the BRB says X, and a codex says neither X nor !X - in other words, makes no mention of X one way or the other - we should assume that X is not true.

[Vallen]

you are correct but that doesnt matter what the brb says the dex doesnt say it does now in the item description... so until the faq says the brb is correct it doesnt get +1 t

Your argument assumes that there is no inheritance from the parent class of bike/jetbike. Are you saying that since the wargear section does not mention hammer of wraith and jink that the bikes do not inherit these abilities? Of course not! So why wouldn't it inherit the +1 T?

Bikes are not all 3+ no dor they all have the same loadout. The Codex is simply stating the addition benefits that are gained over the base class.

[DarkLink]

The GK example isn't very good though as it's a 5th ed ability.

It's a good example. These rules worked exactly the same in 5th as they did in 6th. The rulebook is perfectly clear on what order you do this in, and the Eldar codex does not contradict it like the GK codex does.


Does the scatter laser twin linking rule apply to the model or the unit?

Model.

[Kyban]

It's a good example. These rules worked exactly the same in 5th as they did in 6th. The rulebook is perfectly clear on what order you do this in, and the Eldar codex does not contradict it like the GK codex does.
Not at all, it uses a different rule set with different weapon rules, they've changed quite a bit. They are now treated like shooting weapons with their own profile. While the rulebook is clear on the order and the Eldar codex doesn't contradict it, I see them as two different profiles that are being modified so the order of operations is irrelevent. This would also make a difference for furious charge, is there a FAQ that has already covered that?

[Nabterayl]

No, though I'm curious why you don't think the +1S and x2S example on page 2 is not describing just that situation. It's true that it doesn't specify where the modifiers come from, but does it seem more likely to you that it's describing a situation that could not at the time of writing actually obtain in the game, or more likely that it was describing a situation such as a power fist and Furious Charge?

[Kyban]

No, though I'm curious why you don't think the +1S and x2S example on page 2 is not describing just that situation. It's true that it doesn't specify where the modifiers come from, but does it seem more likely to you that it's describing a situation that could not at the time of writing actually obtain in the game, or more likely that it was describing a situation such as a power fist and Furious Charge?

It could be referring to a smash attack which does "double the model's strength" which is even how they refer to it on page 2.

[LittleMen]

So, if a Warlock attached to a squad of Jetbike Guardians casts Conceal and Shrouds the unit, that would turn everyone's 5+ Jink saves into 3+ Jink saves, right?

[Kyban]

So, if a Warlock attached to a squad of Jetbike Guardians casts Conceal and Shrouds the unit, that would turn everyone's 5+ Jink saves into 3+ Jink saves, right?

Yep, pretty neat until the tau show up.

[Vallen]

No, though I'm curious why you don't think the +1S and x2S example on page 2 is not describing just that situation. It's true that it doesn't specify where the modifiers come from, but does it seem more likely to you that it's describing a situation that could not at the time of writing actually obtain in the game, or more likely that it was describing a situation such as a power fist and Furious Charge?

This is an interesting point. The Furious Charge descriptor specifically says that the model adds +1 to its strength characteristic...based on the discussion we've been having this would imply that all ork nobs with power claws should be str 10...however the accepted solution is str 9 not 10.

I just dived into a few FAQs to find the furious charge clarification but I could not find one. It could be a carry over from v4 or v5 in the way people think or it is not needed because of page 2. (or it is in a FAQ I didn't check today :)




The biggest problem with this question is the ambiguity of the wording and that there have been exceptions. As much as I would like my scorpion exarchs to be oneshoting SM characters at I5, I still have to say that the scale is ever so slightly tipped to the str 7 side...it's probably like 53 to 47% the margin is slim.

I guess when in comes down to it the real question is how will it be ruled where you play....everywhere I play I'm certain they will rule it as str 7 so until an FAQ contradicts that that's how I'm planning. Maybe you're group will be different :)

[rle68]

Your argument assumes that there is no inheritance from the parent class of bike/jetbike. Are you saying that since the wargear section does not mention hammer of wraith and jink that the bikes do not inherit these abilities? Of course not! So why wouldn't it inherit the +1 T?

Bikes are not all 3+ no dor they all have the same loadout. The Codex is simply stating the addition benefits that are gained over the base class.

no what im saying is dex trumps rulebook everytime.. however now in this case in the eldar jetbike entry it says see the brb thus the brb is the go to source.. however without that designation what you see it what youd get

and as an added notification you do not get the added toughn ess its part of the standard wargear and thus not part of the stat line page 45 brb

[Vallen]

however without that designation what you see it what youd get

Agreed.

[Chronowraith]

no what im saying is dex trumps rulebook everytime.. however now in this case in the eldar jetbike entry it says see the brb thus the brb is the go to source.. however without that designation what you see it what youd get

and as an added notification you do not get the added toughn ess its part of the standard wargear and thus not part of the stat line page 45 brb

Why is this an argument? The Eldar codex states two things regarding Eldar Jetbikes;

1) Guardian Jetbikes and Shining Spears both have the troop type of Eldar Jetbike.
2) That a model riding an Eldar Jetbike changes it's troop type to Eldar Jetbike (see Warhammer 40,000 rulebook)

Cross-referencing the BRB we see that the very first line of Eldar Jetbike is, "In addition to following all the rules for Jetbikes...". So that means all the jetbike rules apply.

Now looking up the page at Jetbikes, the very first paragraph is the Armored Steed section that says that bikes and jetbikes grant +1T.

You are correct that codex trumps BRB, but a codex doesn't typically define a troop type. Those are all defined in the BRB.

[rle68]

ok obviously you didnt read this....

ARMOURED STEED
bikes and jet bike riders benefit from the protection offered by their bike, which increases their toughness characteristic by 1. if the bike or jetbike is part of the standard wargear, this bonus is ALREADY included in its profile

eldar jetbike units already have the bike as wargear they DO NOT GET ANOTHER +1

[Dalleron]

A question regarding battle trance, or whatever it's called since I don't have a copy of the 'dex yet.

You can run then shoot, or shoot then run as I understand it. Can you assault after doing both of those things? Or would it be assault after run then shoot? Can you assault after shooting then running? Could you run twice since you give up shooting to run, then run again?

[DarkLink]

Can you normally assault after running? There's your answer.

[rle68]

A question regarding battle trance, or whatever it's called since I don't have a copy of the 'dex yet.

You can run then shoot, or shoot then run as I understand it. Can you assault after doing both of those things? Or would it be assault after run then shoot? Can you assault after shooting then running? Could you run twice since you give up shooting to run, then run again?

changed mind... im going to say no

this is a question tho that will be FAQ'd.. as battle focus is a new rule using your premise darklink you cant shoot after running either but now you can... and no mention of assault was made so the question has some validity

[DarkLink]

Really? By the basic rules, you can neither shoot nor assault after Running. Battle Focus allows you to shoot, providing an exception to that part of the rule. It says nothing about being able to assault after Running, ergo, you cannot assault after Running because the basic rule that you can't still stands.

here's nothing to FAQ, the rules are perfectly clear.

[monkiman]

This is all wishful thinking. Normally you can run and not shoot or charge. You have a rule that says "awesome you can run and shoot" why would you think it changed the assault rules? IF they ever FAQ them, you know what the answers will be.

[Dalleron]

But if the new elder rule allows you to run then shoot a pistol or assault weapon, you are not technically breaking a rule, as you are assaulting after shooting a weapon that allows you to assault. So as long as things are done in the correct order, you could be able to assault.

I am quite aware that running disallows assaulting, but this new rule muddies it up nicely. I'm not aware that it is covered in the rulebook that running takes precedence over assault because nothing has been able to both run AND shoot in the same turn.

Though it may seem that I'm trying to rules lawyer this, I'm not. I'm only pointing a possible issue.

[deaddice]

Here is my question CTM lets you fire at full BS after going flat out does that mean you can fire one gun at full bs at fliers using the CTM ?

[Sonikgav]

But if the new elder rule allows you to run then shoot a pistol or assault weapon, you are not technically breaking a rule, as you are assaulting after shooting a weapon that allows you to assault. So as long as things are done in the correct order, you could be able to assault.

I am quite aware that running disallows assaulting, but this new rule muddies it up nicely. I'm not aware that it is covered in the rulebook that running takes precedence over assault because nothing has been able to both run AND shoot in the same turn.

Though it may seem that I'm trying to rules lawyer this, I'm not. I'm only pointing a possible issue.

You are trying to rules lawyer the problem is your simply ignoring the rule that were all stating. Regardless of if you have fired an assault weapon you have still made a run move. You Cannot Assault If You Have Made A Run Move. Full stop.

By your logic, firing an assault weapon allows units to ignore the fact they have deepstruck, disembarked from a vehicle, outflanked, or any other situation that disallows assaults.

[Tynskel]

You are trying to rules lawyer the problem is your simply ignoring the rule that were all stating. Regardless of if you have fired an assault weapon you have still made a run move. You Cannot Assault If You Have Made A Run Move. Full stop.

By your logic, firing an assault weapon allows units to ignore the fact they have deepstruck, disembarked from a vehicle or anyother situation that disallows assaults.

I am glad someone has a head on their shoulder...

[Nabterayl]

Here is my question CTM lets you fire at full BS after going flat out does that mean you can fire one gun at full bs at fliers using the CTM ?
Every other question to that effect has been FAQ'd no.

[Vallen]

ok obviously you didnt read this....

ARMOURED STEED
bikes and jet bike riders benefit from the protection offered by their bike, which increases their toughness characteristic by 1. if the bike or jetbike is part of the standard wargear, this bonus is ALREADY included in its profile

eldar jetbike units already have the bike as wargear they DO NOT GET ANOTHER +1

Who was trying to say that the Windrider jetbikes were T5?

[Vallen]

You are trying to rules lawyer the problem is your simply ignoring the rule that were all stating. Regardless of if you have fired an assault weapon you have still made a run move. You Cannot Assault If You Have Made A Run Move. Full stop.

By your logic, firing an assault weapon allows units to ignore the fact they have deepstruck, disembarked from a vehicle, outflanked, or any other situation that disallows assaults.

I was just rereading the rule and actually if someone wants to be a rules lawyer it's pretty funny. The Battle focus rule says that the unit can either run then shoot or shoot then run....there is no option for just running or just shooting so clearly these units would either have to be able to assault after doing so or they would never be able to assault.

Why I don't seriously think that is even remotely true, it is funny...go reread the way the rule it written for yourself :)

[Nabterayl]

Who was trying to say that the Windrider jetbikes were T5?
I don't think anybody was, but if somebody asks why eldar jetbikes don't include +1T in the codex, that's the reason - if the codex did list them as +1T, they would be T5 (T3 native, +1T for Armoured Steed, +1T for the codex). The same reasoning (and, looking at the statlines, the same math) applies to the CSM codex, which also doesn't list +1T in the bike description and yet lists bikers as T5.

[Shas'O Alohcry]

I was just rereading the rule and actually if someone wants to be a rules lawyer it's pretty funny. The Battle focus rule says that the unit can either run then shoot or shoot then run....there is no option for just running or just shooting so clearly these units would either have to be able to assault after doing so or they would never be able to assault.

Why I don't seriously think that is even remotely true, it is funny...go reread the way the rule it written for yourself :)

Well seeing as it is an ability/special rule, you can simply opt not to use it that turn. Just like you can opt not to use counter attack, or acute senses, or infiltrate, or anything like that.

[Chronowraith]

ok obviously you didnt read this....

ARMOURED STEED
bikes and jet bike riders benefit from the protection offered by their bike, which increases their toughness characteristic by 1. if the bike or jetbike is part of the standard wargear, this bonus is ALREADY included in its profile

eldar jetbike units already have the bike as wargear they DO NOT GET ANOTHER +1

In my book Guardian Jetbikes and Shining Spears have a T4 in their profile. So yes, their armored steed is already factored in. Warlocks, Farseers, etc without a jetbike however would still get the +1T to their profile because it's not standard wargear for them.

[rle68]

Really? By the basic rules, you can neither shoot nor assault after Running. Battle Focus allows you to shoot, providing an exception to that part of the rule. It says nothing about being able to assault after Running, ergo, you cannot assault after Running because the basic rule that you can't still stands.

here's nothing to FAQ, the rules are perfectly clear.

no no no dont even try that one.. you are the one who said can you normally assault after running and then you said theres your answer.. to which i replied using your same logic you cant shoot after running can you.. you can now.. thus the paradigm has changed

i will agree that anything not specifically designated as you can do this.. is an allowance you can do it.. as i stated i agree with your no premise however the wayou did it is wrong..

and i will still stand by and say they will faq this one cus it will get asked alot by those who cant get if it doesnt say you can do it then you can crowd

[Sonikgav]

no no no dont even try that one.. you are the one who said can you normally assault after running and then you said theres your answer.. to which i replied using your same logic you cant shoot after running can you.. you can now.. thus the paradigm has changed

i will agree that anything not specifically designated as you can do this.. is an allowance you can do it.. as i stated i agree with your no premise however the wayou did it is wrong..

and i will still stand by and say they will faq this one cus it will get asked alot by those who cant get if it doesnt say you can do it then you can crowd

This does not need an FAQ. You have run during the shooting phase? Yes, then you CANNOT assault unless you have a specific rule saying you can.

As ive said previously, do Terminators get to charge after Deep Striking if they fire their Stormbolters? Its the same situation.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

If eldar were allowed to assault after running, the rule would say "eldar can assault after running". Battle focus lets you shoot as well as running, which is why it says "eldar can shoot as well as running in the shooting phase". The rule allows you to do what it says you can do: if your question is whether it lets you do something other than it says, the answer is no.

[Mattnhuge1]

Battle Trance takes place in the Shooting Phase. right? That means you can Move in the Movement Phase, then use Battle Trance to shoot/run or run/shoot. Am I understanding that correctly? Ie. you can Move, Shoot and then Run if you wish. Silly question, I guess, but have not seen this asked yet.

[Tyrendian]

Battle Trance takes place in the Shooting Phase. right? That means you can Move in the Movement Phase, then use Battle Trance to shoot/run or run/shoot. Am I understanding that correctly? Ie. you can Move, Shoot and then Run if you wish. Silly question, I guess, but have not seen this asked yet.

short answer: yes - how else would you understand it :confused:

[cebalrai]

Battle Trance takes place in the Shooting Phase. right? That means you can Move in the Movement Phase, then use Battle Trance to shoot/run or run/shoot. Am I understanding that correctly? Ie. you can Move, Shoot and then Run if you wish. Silly question, I guess, but have not seen this asked yet.


That's right.

Also remember fleet isn't just for assaults, you can reroll your run die as well.

[DarkLink]

no no no dont even try that one..

Try what, actually reading the rules?



you are the one who said can you normally assault after running and then you said theres your answer..

Um, no. You can't assault after running. If I said that you could, which I didn't, it was a typo. In fact, I asked a rhetorical question with the purpose of directing people to the rulebook, in which it says you cannot assault after Running.



to which i replied using your same logic you cant shoot after running can you.. you can now.. thus the paradigm has changed

You can now, because there is a rule that explicitly allows you to do so. So, yes, the paradigm has changed, to allow Eldar to shoot and run in the same phase. However, there is no such rule to shift the assault/run paradigm, thus the fact that you cannot run and assault still stands.



i will agree that anything not specifically designated as you can do this.. is an allowance you can do it.. as i stated i agree with your no premise however the wayou did it is wrong..

I literally don't understand what you're trying to say here.



and i will still stand by and say they will faq this one cus it will get asked alot by those who cant get if it doesnt say you can do it then you can crowd

Yes, I suppose if there are enough people with such a widespread lack of reading comprehension out there that they have to ask this question frequently, it might get FAQ'd. The answer will be no, though. The actual rules are perfectly clear, the problem isn't there. The problem is with people deluding themselves with wishful thinking and lacking the rationality to figure out the answer, obvious though it is, themselves.

[Anakzar]

There is a similar situation in the tyranid codex that was FAQed. A power that lets one brood of tyranid termagants run and shoot (they were allowed to assault after in 5th but with 6th that was FAQed and they are no longer allowed to assault if they run and shoot even if they spend a power to do this).

I don't know why it would be allowed codex wide for one race and not allowed for one unit after using a Power for another race... But then GW don't always use logic when writing the rules.

[Vallen]

There is a similar situation in the tyranid codex that was FAQed. A power that lets one brood of tyranid termagants run and shoot (they were allowed to assault after in 5th but with 6th that was FAQed and they are no longer allowed to assault if they run and shoot even if they spend a power to do this).

I don't know why it would be allowed codex wide for one race and not allowed for one unit after using a Power for another race... But then GW don't always use logic when writing the rules.

In 5th Fleet was different so they could assault after running....in 6th fleet changed so the FAQ had to reflect that.

[DarkLink]

I don't know why it would be allowed codex wide for one race and not allowed for one unit after using a Power for another race... But then GW don't always use logic when writing the rules.

It's all about wording. Because the nid rule was written in 5th, where Fleet let you assault after Running, it was worded in a way that implied you could still assault after running. When 6th ed changed, they had to FAQ it because of the conflict in the wording.

There is no such conflict in the Eldar rule. It is perfectly clear, you may shoot, but not assault, after running.

To be perfectly, completely clear, this is what the BRB says:


At times, warriors may have to quickly redeploy, literally runningfrom cover to cover or simply concentrating on movement and
giving up their chance to shoot. In their Shooting phase, units
may choose to Run instead of firing. Roll a D6 to determine the
maximum Run distance for the entire unit. Models in the unit
may then immediately move up to that distance in inches. They
may choose to not move after the roll is made, but still count as
having Run.
Running movement is not slowed by difficult terrain but models
running through dangerous terrain must test as normal (see page
90). Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the
following Assault phase.

Bolded are the two relevant parts. If you Run, there are two things that you cannot do in the same turn:

1. Shoot

2. Assault

These restrictions are completely unrelated, and come from different parts of the Run rules.


Now, here's the Eldar rules for Battle Focus (from the reference section of the Eldar codex):


Battle Focus: Can either Shoot and then Run, or Run and then Shoot, in the same Shooting phase. Must complete both actions before you move onto the next unit. Cannot Fire Heavy weapons then Run, or Run then fire Heavy weapons, unless Relentless.

This modifies the main rules, removing the restriction on shooting. It says absolutely nothing in any way, shape, or form that can possibly be construed to have any effect whatsoever on the restriction on assaulting. Neither the words Assault nor Charging are in there anywhere. Nowhere does it say anything even remotely similar to "the unit may act as normal" or something like that which could imply you could charge after Running. The restriction on assaulting in the BRB, being separate from the restriction on shooting, and not being referenced in any way in the Battle Focus rule, still exists. You cannot run and Assault. I honestly don't know why anyone who's actually read both rules would think that you could Run, Shoot, and Assault.

[rle68]

This does not need an FAQ. You have run during the shooting phase? Yes, then you CANNOT assault unless you have a specific rule saying you can.

As ive said previously, do Terminators get to charge after Deep Striking if they fire their Stormbolters? Its the same situation.

no it isnt.. the new rule allows model to now run then shoot since they are now allowed to shoot after running which wasnt allowed before the question is now valid.. while i think the answer is no and i will hold that thought since they can shoot after running and no mention of the fact was brought up can they now assault.. the question will be asked so they will 75% or more faq that answer

[rle68]

This modifies the main rules, removing the restriction on shooting. It says absolutely nothing in any way, shape, or form that can possibly be construed to have any effect whatsoever on the restriction on assaulting. Neither the words Assault nor Charging are in there anywhere. Nowhere does it say anything even remotely similar to "the unit may act as normal" or something like that which could imply you could charge after Running. The restriction on assaulting in the BRB, being separate from the restriction on shooting, and not being referenced in any way in the Battle Focus rule, still exists. You cannot run and Assault. I honestly don't know why anyone who's actually read both rules would think that you could Run, Shoot, and Assault.

while i agree with you in principle you are no forgetting that your claim is invalid

as before this dex you could not run and shoot now you can since they have lifted that restriction from shooting and running the question will be asked alot.. im not saying i agree im saying its a question that will have to be answered

and your opinion they modifed the rules on shooting is your opinion some have said they modified the rules for running, since running rules were modified .. blah blah blah...

[DarkLink]

http://www.viewfromtheblueridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/facepalm.jpg

[Kyban]

http://www.viewfromtheblueridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/facepalm.jpg

haha :p

[Toothpick]

Hi,
I have some questions about the new vectored engines, and I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me.

A wave serpent with the new vectored engines moves up and stops with its rear hatch facing the "enemy" unit.
My questions are:
1 Does the wave serpent then have to make any shooting attacks before any embarked troops get out?

2 Or can my troops get out, move up to 6" away from the hatch, the wave serpent then shoots at something, then uses it's vectored engines to pivot on the spot and present it's front to the enemy.

3 Or am I just wishing for too much?

Thanks!

[Kyban]

The unit would disembark in the movement phase and the wave serpent would fire in the shooting phase, so yes #2 is correct.

[Toothpick]

Thank you. :-)

[chicop76]

http://www.viewfromtheblueridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/facepalm.jpg

Let me get this strait. With Battle Focus you can do this.

1. Move
2. Run
3. Shoot
4. Run
5. Move
6. Assault
7. Strike at I 11
8. Confers hit and run which is auto matic and you can break away at the end of I 11
9. Move
10. Run
11. Fire during the assault phase at full bs
12. Run
13. Assault at I 10
14. Repeat steps 8-13 where I is lowed by one everytime you disengage. You can repeat until you hit I 1 are not loger desire to stay in combat
15. Do a backflip which allows 24" move
16. Grants a re rollable 2+ invulnerable save until the game ends, yes you can have a +2 Invul for the rest of the game re rollabe and you can re roll up to 6x.

[Demonus]

and it lets you ignore wankers on BOLS I believe!

[Tynskel]

Let me get this strait. With Battle Focus you can do this.

1. Move
2. Run
3. Shoot
4. Run
5. Move
6. Assault
7. Strike at I 11
8. Confers hit and run which is auto matic and you can break away at the end of I 11
9. Move
10. Run
11. Fire during the assault phase at full bs
12. Run
13. Assault at I 10
14. Repeat steps 8-13 where I is lowed by one everytime you disengage. You can repeat until you hit I 1 are not loger desire to stay in combat
15. Do a backflip which allows 24" move
16. Grants a re rollable 2+ invulnerable save until the game ends, yes you can have a +2 Invul for the rest of the game re rollabe and you can re roll up to 6x.

Sounds about right. There's a step wrong, but you got the gist of it!

[Mkvenner]

I have a quick rules query on how powers are generated for Farseers.

I feel like this is playing for advantage, but at Mastery Level 3 you get 3 powers.

1. Can you generate from more than one Discipline?
2. If so can you do Runes of Fate and Divination?
3. If yes to both of the previous questions, how does the sequencing work?

Scenario A.
I roll on Runes of Fate. I get a 2. So I have Doom. Can I roll again? To which I roll a 4 for Death Mission and opt for the Primaris? Finally, going to Divination and trying my luck with a roll there?

Scenario B.
I roll Runes of Fate. I get a 3. I default to the Primaris. Can I then attempt Divination with my remaining two rolls?

I am a bit rusty after having been off for a year and a half.

[DarkLink]

You can pick and choose from any table as you please. Read the rules for selecting psychic powers in the Eldar codex. They say 'Farseer may have 3 powers from Divination, Telepathy, Runes of Fate', paraphrased. That's exactly what it sounds like. You can select 3 powers from any combination of those tables.

You also roll one power at a time, which means you can roll a crappy power, default to the primaris, and roll that power again with your next roll. Which sucks, because then you're stuck with that power. I don't know why they though random psychic powers were a good idea.

[Hal]

If a Swooping Hawk Exarch hits 3 times with his Sunrifle, does he force the target unit to take 3 blind tests or just one?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I think it's just one. It's taken immediately as a hit is scored.

[Mkvenner]

You can pick and choose from any table as you please. Read the rules for selecting psychic powers in the Eldar codex. They say 'Farseer may have 3 powers from Divination, Telepathy, Runes of Fate', paraphrased. That's exactly what it sounds like. You can select 3 powers from any combination of those tables.

You also roll one power at a time, which means you can roll a crappy power, default to the primaris, and roll that power again with your next roll. Which sucks, because then you're stuck with that power. I don't know why they though random psychic powers were a good idea.

Thanks for the reply. I just needed clarification.

[rle68]

This does not need an FAQ. You have run during the shooting phase? Yes, then you CANNOT assault unless you have a specific rule saying you can.

As ive said previously, do Terminators get to charge after Deep Striking if they fire their Stormbolters? Its the same situation.

no it isnt as the GK dont have a new rule that says they can.. the eldar have a new rule that says they can now run and shoot or shoot then run.. no where else does it say in that dex that after they use the new rule they can not assault.. i happen to think they cant but im only going by gut instinct not by rules

[rle68]

It's all about wording. Because the nid rule was written in 5th, where Fleet let you assault after Running, it was worded in a way that implied you could still assault after running. When 6th ed changed, they had to FAQ it because of the conflict in the wording.

There is no such conflict in the Eldar rule. It is perfectly clear, you may shoot, but not assault, after running.

To be perfectly, completely clear, this is what the BRB says:



Bolded are the two relevant parts. If you Run, there are two things that you cannot do in the same turn:

1. Shoot

2. Assault

These restrictions are completely unrelated, and come from different parts of the Run rules.


Now, here's the Eldar rules for Battle Focus (from the reference section of the Eldar codex):



This modifies the main rules, removing the restriction on shooting. It says absolutely nothing in any way, shape, or form that can possibly be construed to have any effect whatsoever on the restriction on assaulting. Neither the words Assault nor Charging are in there anywhere. Nowhere does it say anything even remotely similar to "the unit may act as normal" or something like that which could imply you could charge after Running. The restriction on assaulting in the BRB, being separate from the restriction on shooting, and not being referenced in any way in the Battle Focus rule, still exists. You cannot run and Assault. I honestly don't know why anyone who's actually read both rules would think that you could Run, Shoot, and Assault.

and just for your fyi that brb description is for running or shooting and what you can or cant do if you do that action.. according to you by that rule if you fire you cannot run or if you run you can not fire

the new eldar rule erases that with those units that have that rule

and furthermore while i dont subscribe to it.. since the eldar may now run and shoot which violates the brb the question can be asked does a unit that have the ability to run and shoot which none have before, now have the ability to assault after the run and shoot

its a different set of conditions so drop your face palm crap ok?

[DarkLink]

and just for your fyi that brb description is for running or shooting and what you can or cant do if you do that action.. according to you by that rule if you fire you cannot run or if you run you can not fire

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/3404530+_f9c6bef445e3b6f3fb6483a2eb58cb2c.png



the new eldar rule erases that with those units that have that rule

It modifies the restriction on shooting, yes. It does not erase anything. The codex does not come alive via dark magics and tear a page out of your copy of the BRB.



and furthermore while i dont subscribe to it.. since the eldar may now run and shoot which violates the brb the question can be asked does a unit that have the ability to run and shoot which none have before, now have the ability to assault after the run and shoot

Oh, well, if Eldar get to ignore all the rules because they ignore one rule, then I guess Banshees are ok then, cause you can assault out of a transport thanks to Battle Focus. And I don't see why they have to follow the restriction on disembarking after only a 6" move, so that gives them, what, a 12+6+4.5+3+~10" charge range? Move the vehicle 12, disembark 6, Run with rerolls for 4.5+3, and Charge with rerolls for ~10? And, heck, if they're allowed to move however they want thanks to Battle Focus, I guess they ignore terrain now, too. Does that include Impassable terrain? Because normally you can't move over Impassable terrain, but if you've got Battle Focus then, well, heck, why not. So Banshees really have about a 36" charge range on average dice. Mayhaps I should pick up a few more.



its a different set of conditions so drop your face palm crap ok?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vI6LGR352yE/TH_CKLfHuLI/AAAAAAAAAAk/JwyNf3v1k1s/S748/Coolface_troll_seal.png

But seriously, you're wrong about this, and it seems like you're the only one who hasn't realized that. You can keep thinking it if you want, but further argument isn't really productive if there are other actual ambiguities in the new codex that need discussing.

[Sonikgav]

1. Congrats, you fixed Banshees!

2. Youre the ONLY person arguing that this is an issue, and even you say you dont agree with it! Why are you trying to make this an issue when noone else is?

Are you just wanting to see 'your question' on the FAQ? Like youre contributing??

[chicop76]

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/3404530+_f9c6bef445e3b6f3fb6483a2eb58cb2c.png



It modifies the restriction on shooting, yes. It does not erase anything. The codex does not come alive via dark magics and tear a page out of your copy of the BRB.



Oh, well, if Eldar get to ignore all the rules because they ignore one rule, then I guess Banshees are ok then, cause you can assault out of a transport thanks to Battle Focus. And I don't see why they have to follow the restriction on disembarking after only a 6" move, so that gives them, what, a 12+6+4.5+3+~10" charge range? Move the vehicle 12, disembark 6, Run with rerolls for 4.5+3, and Charge with rerolls for ~10? And, heck, if they're allowed to move however they want thanks to Battle Focus, I guess they ignore terrain now, too. Does that include Impassable terrain? Because normally you can't move over Impassable terrain, but if you've got Battle Focus then, well, heck, why not. So Banshees really have about a 36" charge range on average dice. Mayhaps I should pick up a few more.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vI6LGR352yE/TH_CKLfHuLI/AAAAAAAAAAk/JwyNf3v1k1s/S748/Coolface_troll_seal.png

But seriously, you're wrong about this, and it seems like you're the only one who hasn't realized that. You can keep thinking it if you want, but further argument isn't really productive if there are other actual ambiguities in the new codex that need discussing.

So I can run, shoot, jump, dance, laugh, cry, hug, maim, backflip, skip, kiss, smack, and than assault. Heck I could move a serpent 12" turbo 18" disembark 12" run 12" ignore over watch and than assault.

Is that how battle focus works?

[rle68]

So I can run, shoot, jump, dance, laugh, cry, hug, maim, backflip, skip, kiss, smack, and than assault. Heck I could move a serpent 12" turbo 18" disembark 12" run 12" ignore over watch and than assault.

Is that how battle focus works?

well we all know you only comment to cause more trouble so your post is in deed worthless

[rle68]

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/3404530+_f9c6bef445e3b6f3fb6483a2eb58cb2c.png



It modifies the restriction on shooting, yes. It does not erase anything. The codex does not come alive via dark magics and tear a page out of your copy of the BRB.



Oh, well, if Eldar get to ignore all the rules because they ignore one rule, then I guess Banshees are ok then, cause you can assault out of a transport thanks to Battle Focus. And I don't see why they have to follow the restriction on disembarking after only a 6" move, so that gives them, what, a 12+6+4.5+3+~10" charge range? Move the vehicle 12, disembark 6, Run with rerolls for 4.5+3, and Charge with rerolls for ~10? And, heck, if they're allowed to move however they want thanks to Battle Focus, I guess they ignore terrain now, too. Does that include Impassable terrain? Because normally you can't move over Impassable terrain, but if you've got Battle Focus then, well, heck, why not. So Banshees really have about a 36" charge range on average dice. Mayhaps I should pick up a few more.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vI6LGR352yE/TH_CKLfHuLI/AAAAAAAAAAk/JwyNf3v1k1s/S748/Coolface_troll_seal.png

But seriously, you're wrong about this, and it seems like you're the only one who hasn't realized that. You can keep thinking it if you want, but further argument isn't really productive if there are other actual ambiguities in the new codex that need discussing.

your response is so full of fail

1.battle focus is different than the brb rules on running then shooting the fact you wont accept that is your own fault

2. show me a rule that says that the eldar after using battel focus and they may now shoot and then run or run then shoot can now not assault.. show me the rule please.. you cant find one cus they didnt write it..i fell that they cant but as i have stated without it being clear people will argue it hell id argue it if i didnt think it was wrong

"""Oh, well, if Eldar get to ignore all the rules because they ignore one rule, then I guess Banshees are ok then, cause you can assault out of a transport thanks to Battle Focus. And I don't see why they have to follow the restriction on disembarking after only a 6" move, so that gives them, what, a 12+6+4.5+3+~10" charge range? Move the vehicle 12, disembark 6, Run with rerolls for 4.5+3, and Charge with rerolls for ~10? And, heck, if they're allowed to move however they want thanks to Battle Focus, I guess they ignore terrain now, too. Does that include Impassable terrain? Because normally you can't move over Impassable terrain, but if you've got Battle Focus then, well, heck, why not. So Banshees really have about a 36" charge range on average dice. Mayhaps I should pick up a few more.""'

now you just showed your *** for being stupid..and you just showed everyone when you cant defend your stance you go for making up crap to make others feel bad.. not working here.. you have nothing to back you up while i have at least posed an honest attempt at a conversation.. playing across from you if i felt different i could make that argument they can and you could not find a rule that says otherwise

if an FAQ comes out and they fix it then wonderful if they say no great if they say they can thats great too either way its a valid question whether you like ti or not your opinion not withstanding

[Tynskel]

This is your problem: you are equating running and shooting with the ability to assault.

This involves multiple rules.


1). Shooting and Assault. If you have shot you need to have shot with a weapon that allows you to assault afterward to be able to assault. This is a permissive rule. It is allowing you to assault afterward. Additionally, this rule is independent of the Run. There is no mention of an assault weapon allowing you to do anything else.

2) The run rule actually does two separate evens. First is disallows shooting. Second, it disallows assault.

3) The Eldar Battle Focus rule allows you to run and shoot. Well, this rule has a direct conflict with shooting. Therefore the codex overrules the rulebook. However, there is nothing in this rule that conflicts with the current assault mechanisms. There is nothing in the rule that says you may assault. The shooting rule 'allows' you to assault, but the shooting rule says nothing about the run rules. The Eldar Battle Focus rule says nothing about assault, either.

Additionally, assaulting after shooting is a rulebook rule. This is not a codex rule, so there is no possible way to contrive that because you were able to shoot with an assault weapon, this overrides the run rules. Considering they are not even in conflict with each other, it isn't a problem. How are they not in conflict? Assault after shooting is purely permissive only. You must fulfill all criteria to be able to assault. If you look at the assault rules, it will state you have been denied assault if you satisfy ANY of the criteria. Running is one of those criterions.

[Nabterayl]

Being a valid question is not the same as having no answer. Yes, it's a valid question. I agree that the people who won't even grant it that much dignity are both wrong and being rude.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, their analysis is still correct. The answer to the perfectly valid question of whether Battle Focus allows a unit to assault after running is no.

Battle Focus does not allow you to move d6" and shoot in the Shooting phase. It allows you to Run and shoot in the Shooting phase. This plainly conflicts with page 14 when it says, "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing" (call this Rule A). It does not conflict with page 14 when it says, "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase" (call this Rule B). As there is no conflict with Rule B, Battle Focus does not overturn Rule B; indeed, nothing in Battle Focus suggests that it purports to overturn Rule B.

[chicop76]

well we all know you only comment to cause more trouble so your post is in deed worthless

You saying I can't do tha :(. It's assumed by me when I smoking and drinking this is the proper order of things. I don't see any rule stoping you from assaulting through a vehicle. Just don't disembark. You cut a hole in the side and assault. That way you are not disembarking at all.

[Shas'O Alohcry]

You saying I can't do tha :(. It's assumed by me when I smoking and drinking this is the proper order of things. I don't see any rule stoping you from assaulting through a vehicle. Just don't disembark. You cut a hole in the side and assault. That way you are not disembarking at all.

Orks can do that

[cebalrai]

We need an FAQ almost as badly as Banshees need grenades.

[rle68]

Being a valid question is not the same as having no answer. Yes, it's a valid question. I agree that the people who won't even grant it that much dignity are both wrong and being rude.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, their analysis is still correct. The answer to the perfectly valid question of whether Battle Focus allows a unit to assault after running is no.

Battle Focus does not allow you to move d6" and shoot in the Shooting phase. It allows you to Run and shoot in the Shooting phase. This plainly conflicts with page 14 when it says, "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing" (call this Rule A). It does not conflict with page 14 when it says, "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase" (call this Rule B). As there is no conflict with Rule B, Battle Focus does not overturn Rule B; indeed, nothing in Battle Focus suggests that it purports to overturn Rule B.

while i agree with your assessment it really doesnt have to.. here is why

units that run in the shooting phase cannot charge as you say and your correct however.. now BF eldar can run and shoot same phase.. if the new rule eliminates the old rule or countermands it for a better term then the "discrepency"can be made that since they can do as a universal rule of BF.. they could then assault in the assault phase

Battle Focus does not allow you to move d6" ..

no you move as normal in the movement phase.. in the shooting phase you declare im going to run and shoot which you have to do or shoot then run both must be declared at the same in in the shooting phase

This plainly conflicts with page 14 when it says, "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing" (call this Rule A).

its not a conflict its a new codex rule.. the two are not combined.. dex trumps rules book.. we all agree on that.. only FAQ trumps dex or when dex says see BRB

It does not conflict with page 14 when it says, "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase"

this part doesnt apply as now they can both run and shoot in the same phase.. the precluding rule was set for units that could do one or the other and not both

again ill state openly i dont think the intent was to allow it, however being that BF now allows you to do things not allowed before in the same phase.. and doesnt make any mention of assault not being allowed.. case can made that since it doesnt say they cannot.. they still can...

there is no rule in any source anywhere that lets a unit run and shoot in the same phase or vice versa except the edlar dex..the brb rules you quote deal with one or the other not both

and the absence of denial can lead one to believe in the positive...i dont think it should but without a confirmed FAQ saying so you cant disprove it either

im not trying to be difficult for difficulties sake im simply opening up a line of discussion that could cause some tension in games should it come up thats all

as you stated some people arent willing to entertain the possibility and thats to their own opinion while i dont agree with it i can see both sides to this case

[Nabterayl]

if the new rule eliminates the old rule or countermands it for a better term then the "discrepency"can be made that since they can do as a universal rule of BF.. they could then assault in the assault phase
Here's the point where we seem to be running into confusion. When you say "the old rule," which rule do you mean? Can you quote the exact rule you are thinking of - no more, no less?

Here's the entire text of the rule I'm thinking of. Let me know if it's the same as the one you're thinking of:


In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing.

That's it. That is the only rule that Battle Focus countermands.


its not a conflict its a new codex rule.. the two are not combined.. dex trumps rules book.. we all agree on that.. only FAQ trumps dex or when dex says see BRB
Dex trumps rulebook when, and only when, there is a conflict. That's what page 7 says. The conflict is critical. The BRB says that you cannot run and shoot. The codex says that you can run and shoot. One or the other statements, as a matter of logic, must be false. That is a conflict, plain as day. Because there is a conflict, the BRB rule goes away and the codex rule takes its place.

But there is no conflict between Battle Focus and the other rule. The BRB says that you cannot run and assault. The codex says that you can run and shoot. As a matter of logic, both statements can be true. There is no conflict there. Because both statements can be true, the rules do not tell us to delete either of them.


this part doesnt apply as now they can both run and shoot in the same phase.. the precluding rule was set for units that could do one or the other and not both
I think this assertion rests on an important assumption, so I want to try to draw it out. Why do you think that "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase" is dependent upon "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing?" Your approach seems to assume that those are not two independent rules. Why do you think that? Is it something in the formatting? Do you have a logical proof to present that one must be dependent upon the other? They look like two completely independent rules to me.

If they are two independent rules, then overriding one (i.e., In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing") does not call into question the other (i.e., Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase). If they are independent, that would be like saying, "Look, the BRB clearly doesn't contemplate units being able to shoot and run in the same phase. So clearly, the rule that blast weapons cannot fire Snap Shots is now called into question." Your approach only works - in fact, implicitly assumes - that they are not two independent rules.

Why do you think that?

[DarkLink]

We need an FAQ almost as badly as Banshees need grenades.

On Running and Charging? I'm pretty sure that rle68's the only person who doesn't understand that one.

[chicop76]

On Running and Charging? I'm pretty sure that rle68's the only person who doesn't understand that one.

He's on to something. If I model a wave sepent open topped than I sould be able to assault out of it like an open top vehicle.

[monkiman]

If I model a wave sepent open topped than I sould be able to assault out of it like an open top vehicle.

Say what!? The wave serpent has a set of rules. Open topped is not one of them. No matter how you model it, it don't change the rules. You can certainly play however you want if you and your opponents agree to it, but it's not the rules of the game.

[chicop76]

Say what!? The wave serpent has a set of rules. Open topped is not one of them. No matter how you model it, it don't change the rules. You can certainly play however you want if you and your opponents agree to it, but it's not the rules of the game.

I figured if you can move shoot run assault legally I thought you could do that too.

[rle68]

Here's the point where we seem to be running into confusion. When you say "the old rule," which rule do you mean? Can you quote the exact rule you are thinking of - no more, no less?

Here's the entire text of the rule I'm thinking of. Let me know if it's the same as the one you're thinking of:


In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing.

That's it. That is the only rule that Battle Focus countermands.


Dex trumps rulebook when, and only when, there is a conflict. That's what page 7 says. The conflict is critical. The BRB says that you cannot run and shoot. The codex says that you can run and shoot. One or the other statements, as a matter of logic, must be false. That is a conflict, plain as day. Because there is a conflict, the BRB rule goes away and the codex rule takes its place.

But there is no conflict between Battle Focus and the other rule. The BRB says that you cannot run and assault. The codex says that you can run and shoot. As a matter of logic, both statements can be true. There is no conflict there. Because both statements can be true, the rules do not tell us to delete either of them.


I think this assertion rests on an important assumption, so I want to try to draw it out. Why do you think that "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase" is dependent upon "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing?" Your approach seems to assume that those are not two independent rules. Why do you think that? Is it something in the formatting? Do you have a logical proof to present that one must be dependent upon the other? They look like two completely independent rules to me.

If they are two independent rules, then overriding one (i.e., In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing") does not call into question the other (i.e., Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase). If they are independent, that would be like saying, "Look, the BRB clearly doesn't contemplate units being able to shoot and run in the same phase. So clearly, the rule that blast weapons cannot fire Snap Shots is now called into question." Your approach only works - in fact, implicitly assumes - that they are not two independent rules.

Why do you think that?

im going to revise my previous comments and say after re reading numerous pages that i was looking at it in the wrong order
got some mixed up 5th and 6th stuff going my bad

no they cant assault after using battle focus...the may part of the rule got me screwed up i was assuming they had to do it thus youd never be allowed to assault..

never mind im wrong and i thank you for helping me make myself go back and look for an answer to go along with my feeling of no it wouldnt be allowed

[chicop76]

im going to revise my previous comments and say after re reading numerous pages that i was looking at it in the wrong order
got some mixed up 5th and 6th stuff going my bad

no they cant assault after using battle focus...the may part of the rule got me screwed up i was assuming they had to do it thus youd never be allowed to assault..

never mind im wrong and i thank you for helping me make myself go back and look for an answer to go along with my feeling of no it wouldnt be allowed

Good job. So we all agree no move, shoot, run,assault. I respect a man who admits they wrong. It shows character. Now linky can leave you be.

Here is a question. Can you use the Eldar shooting serpent shield in conjection with the gear that allows you to turbo than shoot. My reasoning is that I can fire 7 times and use my matrix to shoot my field. Part two of this question is if I used a scatter laser before the turbo move would I still be able to use twin linked shooting with the trageting matrix effect. If so it might not be a bad ideal so you can rear shot or side shot vehicles.

Also can you shoot at anoter target other than what you shot before with the matix. Also is the matrix arc a 360 arc of fire which I can have it fire out the wave serpents butt.

[DarkLink]

Heh, I try not to flame people. Mostly.

[Hal]

Can you use the Spirit Stone of Anath'lan more than once per turn?
Let's say you rolled for powers and got doom, fortune and mind war which are all 2 warp charge powers.. Can you use them all in one turn?

[rle68]

Good job. So we all agree no move, shoot, run,assault. I respect a man who admits they wrong. It shows character. Now linky can leave you be.

Here is a question. Can you use the Eldar shooting serpent shield in conjection with the gear that allows you to turbo than shoot. My reasoning is that I can fire 7 times and use my matrix to shoot my field. Part two of this question is if I used a scatter laser before the turbo move would I still be able to use twin linked shooting with the trageting matrix effect. If so it might not be a bad ideal so you can rear shot or side shot vehicles.

Also can you shoot at anoter target other than what you shot before with the matix. Also is the matrix arc a 360 arc of fire which I can have it fire out the wave serpents butt.

just guessing here... nothing to confirm my thinking.. if you use the thing that lets you fire 1 weapon yes you could use it if you moved flat out.. as far as firing arc since it only covers front and sides id say you have 180 degree arc or slightly larger back to where the sides and rear armor meet

again thats not based on any rule i have seen just my opinion

[Nabterayl]

Can you use the Eldar shooting serpent shield in conjection with the gear that allows you to turbo than shoot.
Yes. The Serpent Shield is, among other things, a gun.

Part two of this question is if I used a scatter laser before the turbo move would I still be able to use twin linked shooting with the trageting matrix effect.
Maybe I'm just being blind here, but how would you fire a scatter laser, another weapon, and move Flat Out?

Also can you shoot at anoter target other than what you shot before with the matix.
I don't see how you would use the crystal targeting matrix to fire more than one weapon in the shooting phase. If there's a way to do that I'm not seeing though, the answer is no - the crystal targeting matrix does not remove targeting restrictions. It only (partially) removes the restriction on shooting after moving Flat Out.

Also is the matrix arc a 360 arc of fire which I can have it fire out the wave serpents butt.
The crystal targeting matrix doesn't have a firing arc. It enables one weapon to fire after moving Flat Out. The arc of fire of that weapon is whatever that weapon's arc of fire normally is.

[40kGamer]

Can you use the Spirit Stone of Anath'lan more than once per turn?
Let's say you rolled for powers and got doom, fortune and mind war which are all 2 warp charge powers.. Can you use them all in one turn?

It doesn't say it is restricted to one power per turn just that you loose your invul for a turn after you use it. Could make a regular farseer a better caster than Eldrad.

[Nabterayl]

Agreed. Every time you attempt to manifest a psychic power means every time, even if that's multiple times per turn.

[chicop76]

Yes. The Serpent Shield is, among other things, a gun.

Maybe I'm just being blind here, but how would you fire a scatter laser, another weapon, and move Flat Out?

I don't see how you would use the crystal targeting matrix to fire more than one weapon in the shooting phase. If there's a way to do that I'm not seeing though, the answer is no - the crystal targeting matrix does not remove targeting restrictions. It only (partially) removes the restriction on shooting after moving Flat Out.

The crystal targeting matrix doesn't have a firing arc. It enables one weapon to fire after moving Flat Out. The arc of fire of that weapon is whatever that weapon's arc of fire normally is.

Sorry. Thinking battle focus. Can't shoot and move flat out.

However I still can fire all 3 at full bs if I move under 6".

[Nabterayl]

Sorry. Thinking battle focus. Can't shoot and move flat out.

However I still can fire all 3 at full bs if I move under 6".
I'm ... still not sure what you're saying. A Fast vehicle can fire all of its weapons at full BS if it moves 6" or less and two of its weapons at full BS if it moves more than 6" but less than or equal to 12" - unless it's a flyer, in which case it can fire four weapons at full BS period.

Crystal Targeting Matrix has nothing to do with any of that, though. CTM does not allow you to fire one more weapon than normally allowed. The CTM allows you to fire one weapon (at full BS) after moving Flat Out. Ordinarily, if you move Flat Out, you can't fire any weapons, period, no matter what kind of vehicle you are.

[chicop76]

I'm ... still not sure what you're saying. A Fast vehicle can fire all of its weapons at full BS if it moves 6" or less and two of its weapons at full BS if it moves more than 6" but less than or equal to 12" - unless it's a flyer, in which case it can fire four weapons at full BS period.

Crystal Targeting Matrix has nothing to do with any of that, though. CTM does not allow you to fire one more weapon than normally allowed. The CTM allows you to fire one weapon (at full BS) after moving Flat Out. Ordinarily, if you move Flat Out, you can't fire any weapons, period, no matter what kind of vehicle you are.

I was thinking move 12", fire 2 weapons, turbo 18" and fire 3rd weapon. I than realized I can't do that.

[rle68]

also just read in the dex that serpent shield is treated as hull mounted weapon pointing forward.. if anyone wondered

im thinking my load out for the serpents are scatter laser... canon upgrade and hollofields on 4
2 with bright lances and hollofield and spirit stones for these.. for a 6 serpent list

2 guardian squads
2 firedragons
2 wraithguard
spirit seer

not sure what else right now

[zenBen]

Check the summary of setting up a game at the back of the BRB.

Warlord traits
<------------Split up warlocks
Roll of psychic powers

Not to be deliberately obtuse, but I don't see how the rules force one to roll for powers after splitting up Warlocks. Yes, under the Warlock entry it says split them up immediately after rolling for Warlord traits. P-48 of the rulebook says roll for psychic powers after rolling for Warlord traits. Both things occur in the same 'phase' of the game, but which takes order precedence?
People seem to be insisting that powers must be generated after splitting up, but I cannot see why they are so certain of this.
Enlighten me please?

[Nabterayl]

Page 424 clearly says that you roll for psyker powers after rolling for warlord traits.

[40kGamer]

Sorry if this has already been touched on... but it looks like the restriction that Eldar Psychic powers can only be used on codex Eldar units is gone. This has some nasty potential when combined with their battle brothers...

[zenBen]

Page 484 clearly says that you roll for psyker powers after rolling for warlord traits.

Yes, and you also split up Warlocks after rolling for warlord traits. Why should Warlock powers be generated second? To ask the question more generally, why should one of these things happen before the other? Where does the order precedence come from?

[Nabterayl]

I think the intuition is that page 424 makes it clear that rolling for warlord traits and rolling for psychic powers are actually two distinct steps. When a rule tells us to do something "after" a step in a sequence, we generally interpret that to mean "before moving on to the next step in the sequence." For instance, we would not split up warlocks after deployment, even though that would be "after rolling for warlord traits." Since rolling for psychic powers is its own step in the pre-game sequence, it comes after things that occur "after rolling for warlord traits."

[zenBen]

I think the intuition is that page 424 makes it clear that rolling for warlord traits and rolling for psychic powers are actually two distinct steps. When a rule tells us to do something "after" a step in a sequence, we generally interpret that to mean "before moving on to the next step in the sequence." For instance, we would not split up warlocks after deployment, even though that would be "after rolling for warlord traits." Since rolling for psychic powers is its own step in the pre-game sequence, it comes after things that occur "after rolling for warlord traits."

Ok thanks! I'm going to take that as being as fuzzy as it sounds until told otherwise. Granted it sounds like the more plausible of the two interpretations, if only because it reinforces the general randomness of psychic.

I'll just have to get another 1000 W40k playing monkeys, to play 500 games with one interpretation and 500 with the other, and statistically analyse which one seems broken :)

[Power Klawz]

When exactly to roll for warlock powers probably needs an FAQ. There's no clearly delineated "roll for warlord powers" phase. It stands to reason that breaking up warlocks and rolling for psychic powers could take place simultaneously, which would be indistinguishable from rolling before placing them in squads due to the limitations of human sentience.

Would have been so much clearer if the rules just said "distribute warlocks after rolling for warlord powers but before rolling for psychic powers."

Although I suppose the modifier "immediately" would suggest that it happens before psychic powers, its still not crystal clear.

[Dave Mcturk]

hi guys. question on named character warlord traits.
each 'named character' has a preset warlord trait !! eg eldrad has "an eye on distant events"

so ... is that character 'stuck' with that trait ?
or even more importantly since they may not be the warlord ! do they keep it regardless

or even more importantly does a named character keep his trait and ALSO generate another one as per BRB.. since his first trait is part of his stat line ????

any ideas ??

[Sonikgav]

If the charachter is your Warlord, he is stuck with his specific trait. If he is in your army, but not your Warlord he does not generate any Warlord abilities.

So if you have 2 in your army with their own Warlord traits (Eldrad and Yriel together etc) u pick which one to claim as your Warlord and use his trait only.

[chicop76]

Pg. 148 game summary

1. Choose your army
2. Eternal war mission
3. Deployment map, players roll for table half
4. Place fortifications
5. Place terrain
6. Place objectives
7. Determine Warlord traits pg. 111 or codex
8. If you have psychic powers, they generate them now
9. Roll for deployment and who goes first
10. Seize Initiative

That's all the steps before the game starts. Amazing how many people get that wrong.

Daemons have the same issue with rewards which I rolled at the same time as warlord traits pg. 66 daemon codex.

I don't see an issue since the Game Summary breaks it down with Warlord Traits before Psychic Powers .

[Xigorth]

Just to be clear I see both sides; however, based on chicop's post of the game summary I'll make the following observation:

So step 7. Determine Warlord traits is immediately followed by step 8. If you have psychic powers, they generate them now. The Codex states that also at this time you choose where your Warlocks will sit (immediately after determining Warlord traits). The codex did NOT say "before determining psychic powers" and the codex did NOT say "step 7.5." Therefore it appears to be simultaneous. When two things happen simultaneously then the owning players gets to choose the order.

[Force21]

Hey I was reading my Codex...& I have one question....

Please tell me I am just missing the entry but....


Where is E.W. on the Avatar??? I was sure it would have it...but I did not see it...

Thanks in advance.

[40kGamer]

Hey I was reading my Codex...& I have one question....

Please tell me I am just missing the entry but....


Where is E.W. on the Avatar??? I was sure it would have it...but I did not see it...

Thanks in advance.

No EW for the avatar. He has to get by with his looks alone... :)

[Nabterayl]

It doesn't. After proliferating in 5th, Eternal Warrior is once again becoming very rare. Very few daemons in any codex have EW.

[mathhammer]

The actual wording states the Eldar Warlock deployment is to happen immediately after Determining Warlord traits. While step 8 says before rolling for deployment. Since step 8 ties itself to to step 9 and the Eldar action ties itself to step 7 there can only be one order.


Just to be clear I see both sides; however, based on chicop's post of the game summary I'll make the following observation:

So step 7. Determine Warlord traits is immediately followed by step 8. If you have psychic powers, they generate them now. The Codex states that also at this time you choose where your Warlocks will sit (immediately after determining Warlord traits). The codex did NOT say "before determining psychic powers" and the codex did NOT say "step 7.5." Therefore it appears to be simultaneous. When two things happen simultaneously then the owning players gets to choose the order.

[Meigeall]

Situation: Independent Character given a jetbike joins a unit of infantry. Everyone has battle focus. Obviously a model on a jetbike cannot run.

1) Can the unit still run, with the model on the jetbike simply not able to move? (e.g. does every model in a unit have to be able to run for the unit to take that action?)
2) Can the jetbike model still make the eldar jetbike assault phase move, assuming he maintains unit coherency?

[Nabterayl]

Annoyingly, the text doesn't really talk about these sorts of situations. The text of the rules doesn't even really realize that units aren't jetbikes, infantry, etc. - really, those attributes seem to be held by models. So the strict answer is that there is no answer. Personally I would say yes to both questions.

[rle68]

Annoyingly, the text doesn't really talk about these sorts of situations. The text of the rules doesn't even really realize that units aren't jetbikes, infantry, etc. - really, those attributes seem to be held by models. So the strict answer is that there is no answer. Personally I would say yes to both questions.

actually i think the answer is no the unit can not run since the jetbike can not perform that move..

as to whether the ic can use the jetbike assault move to leave .. idk off the top of my head.. id like to think so but not sure

[Meigeall]

He can't use the assault move to leave, that's clear in the rules (pg 39, he can only join/leave a unit in the movement phase), but I'm asking if he can use the assault move to re-position himself within the same unit.

Each model moves at his own speed (12" for the jetbike, 6" for the infantry) in the movement phase as long as they maintain coherency. I'm just unable to find rules about optional movement in other phases for mixed unit types in the same unit.

[SeattleDV8]

IC's can only leave units in the Movement phase.

[rle68]

He can't use the assault move to leave, that's clear in the rules (pg 39, he can only join/leave a unit in the movement phase), but I'm asking if he can use the assault move to re-position himself within the same unit.

Each model moves at his own speed (12" for the jetbike, 6" for the infantry) in the movement phase as long as they maintain coherency. I'm just unable to find rules about optional movement in other phases for mixed unit types in the same unit.

id have to say the answer is the same.. the unit doesnt get the optional move so neither would the ic

[Sonikgav]

Dunno id probably allow it tbh.

The Rulebook allows models in units to move while others remain stationary such as heavy weapons etc. Unless theres a specific mention of of this outside the movement phase, say "if one model runs, all must run" then id allow a model to use assault moves etc as long ss they stayed in coherency etc.

[Ferngully]

I don't have the 4th edition codex with me right now so I can't remember correctly, but I think there was something about eldar psychers.
That they didn't need LoS or something like that to cast psychics, like eldar transports doesn't have fire points, but still eldar psychers could use powers to other units from tanks.
Now if above is true and was in codex, I can't find anything like that in the new codex. So does it mean that psychers cannot anymore use powers to other units from the tank?

Also, jetbikes have the Battle Focus special ability, but since they don't run they don't get benefit from it right?

[Pssyche]

"That they didn't need LoS or something like that to cast psychics, like eldar transports doesn't have fire points, but still eldar psychers could use powers to other units from tanks."


From Eldar Official Update for 6th Edition, Version 1.3 (for the 2006 Codex)
"Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No."

[SeekingOne]

Now if above is true and was in codex, I can't find anything like that in the new codex. So does it mean that psychers cannot anymore use powers to other units from the tank?
Unfortunately, no, they can't.
It's really feels almost like a return of 4th edition rules: if you want to make a decent use of your Farseer, you're pretty much forced to field him on foot or on a jetbike.


Also, jetbikes have the Battle Focus special ability, but since they don't run they don't get benefit from it right?
Yes, that's right.

[SeekingOne]

A few questions on a 'Remnant of Glory vs a psychic power'... Not a game changer perhaps, but still a curious one.

Suppose a Farseer has a Phoenix Gem. Now, said Farseer casts Death Mission on himself, and at some point it 'ceases' due to all tokens being exhausted. Question: can the Farseer use Phoenix gem to come back to life is such case (provided, of course, there are models nearby to be affected per standard Gem's rules)?

As far as I can see, the Death Mission descriptions just says "Remove Farseer as a casualty", and the Phoenix Gem entry says "Immediately before the bearer is removed as a casualty...". So I don't see any contradiction here, and thus I think the gem can be used. But maybe I'm missing something?

The other two, a bit trickier questions would be:
1) if the Gem can be used in such way, and indeed was used to revive a Farseer, would the Death Mission no longer be in effect (since it has 'ceased' per the power's wording)?
2) if the Gem can be used in such way, can it also prevent the Farseer's removal in the end of the game? If no, why?

And finally, a generalist question on the related matter:
Do the enemy models get cover saves against the effects of Phoenix Gem (if used in melee) and Yriel's Eye of Wrath?

[cebalrai]

Looks like Swooping Hawk Exarchs can get a power weapon in addition to their gun now. Am I reading that right?

[Asuryan]

A few questions on a 'Remnant of Glory vs a psychic power'... Not a game changer perhaps, but still a curious one.

Suppose a Farseer has a Phoenix Gem. Now, said Farseer casts Death Mission on himself, and at some point it 'ceases' due to all tokens being exhausted. Question: can the Farseer use Phoenix gem to come back to life is such case (provided, of course, there are models nearby to be affected per standard Gem's rules)?

As far as I can see, the Death Mission descriptions just says "Remove Farseer as a casualty", and the Phoenix Gem entry says "Immediately before the bearer is removed as a casualty...". So I don't see any contradiction here, and thus I think the gem can be used. But maybe I'm missing something?

The other two, a bit trickier questions would be:
1) if the Gem can be used in such way, and indeed was used to revive a Farseer, would the Death Mission no longer be in effect (since it has 'ceased' per the power's wording)?
2) if the Gem can be used in such way, can it also prevent the Farseer's removal in the end of the game? If no, why?

And finally, a generalist question on the related matter:
Do the enemy models get cover saves against the effects of Phoenix Gem (if used in melee) and Yriel's Eye of Wrath?

i would say yes to the three questions of Death mission vs Phoenix Gem and yes to cover saves from the gem if they are in area terrain because its not an attack or shooting but as Yriel's eye is strictly in place of his attacks no to cover saves

[Demonus]

"That they didn't need LoS or something like that to cast psychics, like eldar transports doesn't have fire points, but still eldar psychers could use powers to other units from tanks."


From Eldar Official Update for 6th Edition, Version 1.3 (for the 2006 Codex)
"Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No."

I believe that FAQ is gone isn't it? The new FAQ simply states rules for Shadoweaver so we go by the basic rule book ruling that you can only target your unit or transport you are in.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, if anyone bothered to forget about rules from multiple editions ago and actually read LOS rules for psychic powers in the 6th edition rulebook, there wouldn't be any need for an FAQ.

[Daemonette666]

I noticed in the 3rd game example on the "I brought a Bucket" article on the main page, that the Eldar player said he could doom two enemy units (use doom twice), or guide 2 friendly units (use guide twice) a turn.

Now I know the rules specifically say that you can only manifest a psychic power once per turn even if the manifestaton attempt was not successful - page 67 rule book Second paragraph of manifesting psychic powers. If the Eldar player is correct and the farseer can manifest guide or doom twice in his turn depending upon the warp charge he has available, what rule or piece of equipment allows him/her to do this? I could not find anything that allows a Farseer to use a power twice in a turn.

[40kGamer]

I noticed in the 3rd game example on the "I brought a Bucket" article on the main page, that the Eldar player said he could doom two enemy units (use doom twice), or guide 2 friendly units (use guide twice) a turn.

Now I know the rules specifically say that you can only manifest a psychic power once per turn even if the manifestaton attempt was not successful - page 67 rule book Second paragraph of manifesting psychic powers. If the Eldar player is correct and the farseer can manifest guide or doom twice in his turn depending upon the warp charge he has available, what rule or piece of equipment allows him/her to do this? I could not find anything that allows a Farseer to use a power twice in a turn.

For 'guide' a farseer can get both guide and prescience as primaris powers. No idea why the double doom came up as you need 2 farseers both lucky enough to roll it up. There's no exception I know of allowing any psyker to double cast the same power.

[DarkLink]

Reecius plays with two Farseers a lot. Alternatively, I guess Doom and Misfortune fill a similar roll. That's a nasty combo. Reroll to hit, reroll to wound, and reroll successful saves.

[Demonus]

I used that combo quite effectively against Mephiston :)

[IlKaitheCorsairs]

More of a fluff vs rules question than a straight rules question...

Not sure if this has been covered numerous times, but if warp jump generators are traveling through the warp to achieve their deep strike, why can Intercept fire affect them?

Seems like a simple enough codex special rule to include. I'm guessing they'd need to be about an additional 10 pts/model more expensive to account for the ability?

[Nabterayl]

"Interceptor" is not really specific about how it works. Like a lot of things in 40K, it's sort of assumed that the actual tech being represented (or biology, or whatever) adjusts to your opponent as needed. So Interceptor might be tech that helps you track objects falling from the sky at high speed, or tech that gives you a heads up that somebody is about to enter your immediate battlespace from the ground, or tech that lets you know that there's a warp disturbance over there and somebody is likely to exit the Empyrean round about that spot. Sort of similar to the way that the Poison special rule doesn't actually necessarily describe toxins - Poison represents different chemical compounds depending on whether you're fighting eldar, humans, orks, necrons, daemons, etc. - and many of those compounds may not technically be poison at all.

[-Tom-]

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether an Autarch with Hawk Wings, joined with a squad of swooping Hawks would scatter when deep striking?

The Hawks have the rule to not scatter when deep striking, the Autarch doesn't.

My argument would be that he ought to also not scatter. If the rule represents the training of the hawks to control their wargear, then the Autarch (according to fluff) has also learned the ways of their aspect in order to have been presented with the wings in the first place - he ought to be able to stick with the squad. If it just represents the nature of the wings themselves as being a more reliable method to deep strike than something aimed from orbit, like say a drop pod, then just by nature of having the wings he also ought to not scatter...

Anyone have opinions on this? Or is there just a rule I'm missing anyway?

[DarkLink]

Fluff is not rules. It explicitly says that they only avoid scattering if the entire unit has the special rule. The Autarch doesn't have that special rule, so if he joins the squad then the entire unit doesn't have the rule and they will scatter. There's no ambiguity there.

[Nabterayl]

DarkLink's right, though if you're about to say that it's stupid that the rules unambiguously come out the way ... yes, it is. And it's one of the many things people were hoping would get changed about autarchs that for some reason just ... didn't happen.

[DarkLink]

About the only thing that changed for Autarchs was Mantle of the Laughing God, really.

[-Tom-]

Fluff is not rules. It explicitly says that they only avoid scattering if the entire unit has the special rule. The Autarch doesn't have that special rule, so if he joins the squad then the entire unit doesn't have the rule and they will scatter. There's no ambiguity there.

Fair point that fluff is not rules, however in the case of ambiguity one might refer to fluff to try and resolve the ambiguity.

I was attempting to follow the format of the other FAQ sticky thread, rather than suggest any sort of educated guess (or attempting to bluff through some cheating) as I've taken a long break from playing since 2nd Ed, and only played 2 games with the 5th Ed. codex/6th Ed. BRB, none yet with the new codex... for me, there was genuine ambiguity.

[40kGamer]

DarkLink's right, though if you're about to say that it's stupid that the rules unambiguously come out the way ... yes, it is. And it's one of the many things people were hoping would get changed about autarchs that for some reason just ... didn't happen.

Apparently Autarchs get to keep some gear from the paths they walk but completely forget any of the skills... :)

[Nabterayl]

It's a dirty secret among the aspect shrines.

"Oh Khaine, here comes Carl again ... man, have you ever seen anybody so bad at - oh, hi, Carl!"

"Hi guys! So, what part of the Phoenix Lord's teachings are we studying today?"

"Yeah, uh ... about that. See, I've been exarch of this shrine for a long time, and ... today, Carl, I have nothing more to teach you. Take your ritual wargear. Go and pursue another path in peace, Carl."

"Wow, really? That's just what the exarch of my last shrine said! Well, thanks!"

<years pass>

"Hey guys! Seeing as I've successfully walked all of the warrior paths to completion ... guess who's your new autarch???"

[DarkLink]

Fair point that fluff is not rules, however in the case of ambiguity one might refer to fluff to try and resolve the ambiguity.

I was attempting to follow the format of the other FAQ sticky thread, rather than suggest any sort of educated guess (or attempting to bluff through some cheating) as I've taken a long break from playing since 2nd Ed, and only played 2 games with the 5th Ed. codex/6th Ed. BRB, none yet with the new codex... for me, there was genuine ambiguity.

There's a difference between ambiguity and misunderstanding. The Autarch doesn't get any special aspect rules.

[KINGS]

Can warlocks be taken in allied detachments? The wording refers to "primary detachments" so it would seem that you can not take them as allies... Annoying.

[DarkLink]

Yep. No allied Warlocks.

[daboarder]

I do like how GW is giving serious incentives to play lists as primary detachments.

[Hal]

Is it possible for an HQ equipped with the mantle of the laughing god to issue or accept challenges? Since the mantle says you lose the independent character I'm not sure if he should still be treated as a character?

[Finnegan]

Yes, it's possible, he is still a character.

[GrandmasterRay]

Fluff is not rules. It explicitly says that they only avoid scattering if the entire unit has the special rule. The Autarch doesn't have that special rule, so if he joins the squad then the entire unit doesn't have the rule and they will scatter. There's no ambiguity there.

e.g. vanguard vets and heroic intervention + an IC = expensive assault marines - heroic intervention.

[GrandmasterRay]

DarkLink's right, though if you're about to say that it's stupid that the rules unambiguously come out the way ... yes, it is. And it's one of the many things people were hoping would get changed about autarchs that for some reason just ... didn't happen.

There's a lot of disappointing things about the autarch. For example, his lack of any of the awesome wargear options/rules from the aspects. The only good things about him are his price, if you were playing a 1000 point game for instance and couldn't afford 100 points for the vastly superior farseer, and the reserves rule, which is only good if you are using reserves. The only reason to run was is when using him/her in a fluff list or a cheap way to man a quad cannon. But I digress, this is a rules thread, not a lack of rules thread.

[GrandmasterRay]

I have a question. Why bothering making monofiliment ap1 on a wound roll of 6 and bladestorm ap2? Why the difference?

[Nabterayl]

The only difference is the effect on vehicles. AP2 gets a bonus on the vehicle penetration chart, but AP1 gets a bigger one.

[Tynskel]

but you don't wound vehicles...

[Nabterayl]

... yeah, missed that.

[Dave Mcturk]

not sure the gwedi masters really understand their own rules !

[Hal]

Another question :)
When do you determine how many shots you get for forfeiting the serpent shield..?
Let's say I have 4 serpents.. Am I allowed to roll for each serpents number of "shield shots" and then decide which serpent is shooting at what or do I first have to declare my target and roll for the "shield shots" afterwards?
The serpent shield says just "in the shooting phase the WS can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy bla bla bla...".
I would say you are allowed to roll for the number of hits for every serpent at the beginning of the shooting phase and then determine targets for each serpent later..
What do you think?

This could be very important in my next game so I would like to see if anyone has any good arguments for it not working that way :)

[DrLove42]

No you go to each one. Say this one gets *roll* 4. Shoot those 4 shots.

Then the next one. roll a ....2. Bugger. Shoot those 2.

Repeat for each thing....

[Hal]

Ok, but why exactly..?
It just says "in the shooting phase" and not "when you shoot, roll a d6...."
RAW i should be able to roll for all the serpents at the beginning of the shooting phase and see how many shots they get before shooting.
Is there any rule that counters this?

[Pssyche]

Ok, but why exactly..?
It just says "in the shooting phase" and not "when you shoot, roll a d6...."
RAW i should be able to roll for all the serpents at the beginning of the shooting phase and see how many shots they get before shooting.
Is there any rule that counters this?


It does not say
"In THE Shooting Phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its Shields to shoot..."

It says
"In ITS Shooting Phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its Shields to shoot..."


Also, I don't know what you would hope to achieve by rolling for everything at once.
Let's follow your example even though the point is now moot...
Four Wave Serpents.
All deactivate their shields and roll for number of shots.
The first three Serpents shoot and destroy their imperative targets.
The fourth Serpent's shots now become somewhat redundant.
You take them anyhow, but it may have been more prudent to switch them off one at a time until targets are destroyed and then leave on the unused one.

[DarkLink]

Ok, but why exactly..?
It just says "in the shooting phase" and not "when you shoot, roll a d6...."
RAW i should be able to roll for all the serpents at the beginning of the shooting phase and see how many shots they get before shooting.
Is there any rule that counters this?

Plus, "when you shoot" actually means "when you shoot", not "all at once before you shoot, and you can chance your mind if you don't like the roll".

You shoot one unit at a time, always. So when you're playing, you have to declare "this serpent is shooting, I'll roll for its Serpent Shield. I got a 3+1, so 4 shots, I roll to hit, wound, etc". Then, you move on to the second Serpent, and do the same thing there. Then the third, then the fourth, and so on. That is how the shooting phase works.

[Hal]

It says
"In ITS Shooting Phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its Shields to shoot..."


There is only one shooting phase per rulebook.. It says "its shooting phase" to make sure you don't shoot it in the opponents shooting phase (I guess).



Also, I don't know what you would hope to achieve by rolling for everything at once.
Let's follow your example even though the point is now moot...


The point is simple actually.. I want to designate adequate targets for the "shootier" and "less shooty" serpents for maximum effect.



Plus, "when you shoot" actually means "when you shoot", not "all at once before you shoot, and you can chance your mind if you don't like the roll".


But it doesn't say "when you shoot...", it says "In its Shooting Phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its Shields to shoot..."
If i decide to deactivate all the shields in the serpents' shooting phase but before any shooting happens, all the serpents should be treated as equipped with a weapon whose profile includes Assault D6+1. At that point I would roll all the D6's to see the exact profile of each serpents "shield weapon".. After that, I shoot with one unit at a time as DarkLink suggested.

I know this sounds a bit far fetched but I haven't found anything that prohibits rolling for the number of shots of a weapon before actually shooting the weapon?

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be an a**hole, and I would never demand playing it this way if my opponent doesn't agree with it.. I just want to see what others think of this since the rules are not strictly ruling this option out.

[DarkLink]

If it says 'in its shooting phase', then, yes, you can roll earlier. But that roll is still tied to a particular Serpent, and once you deactivate your shield to shoot then you don't get your shield anymore, so you shouldn't normally go back on that decision. But that does lead to a question: Can you deactivate the shield to shoot, but decide to Flat Out if you roll poorly? Or does deactivating the shield require you to shoot and thus prevent you from sacrificing your shooting in order to move Flat Out?

[Hal]

If it says 'in its shooting phase', then, yes, you can roll earlier. But that roll is still tied to a particular Serpent, and once you deactivate your shield to shoot then you don't get your shield anymore, so you shouldn't normally go back on that decision.

I completely agree, that was never my intention though. If you deactivate it once, you can not benefit from the shield until the start of your next turn per the rules.


But that does lead to a question: Can you deactivate the shield to shoot, but decide to Flat Out if you roll poorly? Or does deactivating the shield require you to shoot and thus prevent you from sacrificing your shooting in order to move Flat Out?

I think you should be able to move flat out even if you deactivated your shields. It's just like being equipped with an extra gun you're not willing to shoot but want to flat out instead (but of course as mentioned above, in that case you can not benefit from the shields protective effect since you deactivated it.)
But that wasn't my intention either..

I just want to use the serpents with more shots to target heavier AV vechicles and the less shooty ones to target lower AV vechicles. That's all :)

[Asuryan]

I feel that you need to pick a unit to fire at before rolling for the number of shots, you can deactivate your shield in the shooting phase but when you decide to fire it you need to first pick a unit as said in the BRB. this is mostly based off the lootas, but i don't know their exact wording so you should compare the rules between those 2 and see how they work.