News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ  (Read 1030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline -bill-

  • Haemonculus: 2007 London 40K Online RTT Champion
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • Country: gb
    • Pine Lodge IFAs
Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« on: August 20, 2006, 11:10:40 AM »
Locarno 24 posted this in the Rule & Qusestions thread - the FAQ for the 2006 GT.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/events/diary/default.aspx?event=26

Some interesting clarfications for us:

AP1 and glancing skimmers is resolved in favour of skimmers moving fast

Moving fast rule applies in combat

ICs can split attacks if base to base with diferent units

Destroyed vehicles (raiders) block LOS+ up to Level 3 (which of course is the highest)

When assaulting multiple units you only need contact one model of the first unit before going on to the second

Can an IC join a unit before deployment - yes example is a drop pod but could equally be raider squad, grots, or Wytch raider  squad


Does Lilith get the benefit of the drugs chosen for her retinue - yes

Beasts cannot deploy in escalation - so no warp beasts - in fact if its got 12" assault it's safe to assumre it probably can't deploy in escalation




Offline CODEXsc

  • Sybarite
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2006, 12:03:02 PM »
Wow i read it and finaly it actually cleared up some questions. That is a first except there is nothing on the dam WWP. How hard would it be to ask the question, o well. I am glad the Lilith now counts as choosing combat drugs. Not i can pick the 12 in assault for her and tigh up units easier and aslo have 2 agonizers in the squad. Ill be toying with that now.

The warp beasts is bad for us though. But everyhitng else is good since they were almost all CC clarifictations. Now we will be more deadlier in CC. And also the talos can split its attacks.

Offline -bill-

  • Haemonculus: 2007 London 40K Online RTT Champion
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • Country: gb
    • Pine Lodge IFAs
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2006, 02:20:08 PM »
I can't seem to find anything to say that the Talos is an Independent Character, although some nids that are also not Ic's are explicitly given permission to split
« Last Edit: August 20, 2006, 05:43:11 PM by -bill- »



Offline EightyEight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
  • Country: 00
  • The Santa hat is here to stay.
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2006, 02:48:23 PM »
Something interesting - it says that DSing Land Speeders count as moving over 12" when they arrive, but the Screaming Jets description says a vehicle counts as moving over 6". Which takes presidence?
Are we as offensive as we might be?

Offline Khira'lyth

  • Archon
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2102
  • I *LOVE* EO and 40K.ca
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2006, 03:30:05 PM »
Neither... they're for two totally different entries, and each have their own rules.

Imagine it as if the DE Raiders are able to cloak better or some such so that they can actually come nearer to the field before "landing"... or maybe they have more advanced stablizers (or whatever gear would be used) and have a smoother landing dropping from such heights, and so count as moving less... etc etc.

Khira'lyth

Offline Archonbjorn

  • Archon
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4753
  • Where's your emperor now?
    • Vengeance of the Fallen [Dutch]
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2006, 04:57:21 PM »
Well I am glad to see that Lelith gets the benefit of her retinue her drugs.

I am also glad that mindwars need to target the same unit. [as a DE player] but quite sad as a CWE player. [You also get cover saves? not realistic but anyway]

Glad to see some faqs showing up. I hope more will follow.

Offline Shade, Bankai King

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2006, 05:50:47 PM »
Pretty. Some more twists and less to try and convince people on the rulings about.
[CENTER

Offline Tynstar

  • Wych
  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Suffer not the witch to live!
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2006, 06:04:17 PM »
Very cool info Bill! Thanks for pointing this link out. As luck would have it, the AP1 skimmer situation happened during a game on Friday of which I allowed my skimmer to take a pen. Conversely, there will be a lot of monolith players happy to hear this. The Lelith drug question is welcome news as I will be in the future be changing the ret's drugs from reroll misses to 12" charge.

Some of the other things that I found interesting is that gun range is from the weapon's mount vice the base or barrel end. The fact that IC's can join a unit before deployment is also a big one. This means having a non-retinue lord coming out of the WWP on a raider.

The big question I am wondering is... what is the over-all relevance of this FAQ? As its on a GW site, does it apply as a general FAQ? Or is it only applicable to that one tourney? I would think that as GW is a UK company and this is there big tourney, that this document would carry weight.

Offline Lomendil

  • Mad Prophet of Commorragh
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10734
  • Country: 00
  • If it's comprehensible, it's obselete
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2006, 09:33:03 PM »
Agree with all the comments on the ICs and joining units - this is welcome news.


Hah - Lelith Hespoth. Who?  ::) But that's a worthy ruling too.


What do they mean exactly by saying that "asking picky rules questions" is inappropriate and unsporting behaviour? There are so many situations in the game where rules are ambiguous or hard to apply, and these obviously can't be easily resolved without asking a judge. Perhaps the FAQ means something else by 'picky'.

Offline Archonbjorn

  • Archon
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4753
  • Where's your emperor now?
    • Vengeance of the Fallen [Dutch]
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2006, 09:05:26 AM »
@ Lomendi, Doesn't this also mean that a squad of lets say banshees can infiltrate with the scorpion phoenix lord? As far as I read it it is allowed with the faq.

Thats a flaw I just noticed [I think it is] when thinking about it.

Offline Ollieb

  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4414
  • Country: 00
  • I'm only here for the beer!
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2006, 09:16:48 AM »
I didn't realize that enough Wych Cults were entered in GTs to need a FAQ for Lelith.  And the kicker is that I never gave her the benefit of drugs.  That has just changed. 

Agree they could have made a reference to the WWP.

Quote
I can't seem to find anything to say that the Talos is an Independent Character, although some nids that are also not Ic's are explicitly given permission to split
The Talos isn't an IC it is considered an MC.
Looking for a compliment here is like looking for a girlfriend in a cemetary.  You know you will probably not like what you dig up, but you'll take it anyway.
 

Offline CODEXsc

  • Sybarite
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2006, 09:25:39 AM »
Yeah i was ticked when i saw that there was no FAQ about the WWP. I believe that there are a whole lot more WWP armys then wych cults, exspecially in tourny play.

Offline Ollieb

  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4414
  • Country: 00
  • I'm only here for the beer!
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2006, 01:18:13 PM »
The guys here looked them over and while some seem a bit odd, since they did come from GW we will probably use these as rules. 


Quote
What do they mean exactly by saying that "asking picky rules questions" is inappropriate and unsporting behaviour?

You've never been asked to prove a that a Splinter Rifle can rapid fire if the shooter is within 12" of the target?  I have on several occasions. 
Looking for a compliment here is like looking for a girlfriend in a cemetary.  You know you will probably not like what you dig up, but you'll take it anyway.
 

Offline Lomendil

  • Mad Prophet of Commorragh
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10734
  • Country: 00
  • If it's comprehensible, it's obselete
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2006, 08:41:03 PM »
That's the problem with the word 'picky' - it can mean different things, and different things to different people. I wouldn't have considered the Splinter Rifle thing to be picky, certainly not unsporting. If people don't know a weapon's statline then they don't know it, can't really fault them for that. I don't have a problem filling them in if they ask. Mind you, if they asked such questions constantly throughout the game then I'd get pissed off, it would be like they thought I was playing in bad faith. I also wouldn't consider something like 'Can Skimmers emerge from a surrounded WWP?' to be a picky question either, but some people probably would. A picky rules question to me would be a chancer trying to weasel advantages without any real basis, but some people would probably disagree with me here.

Just seems like far too loose a term to be using. Different judges and players are going to interpret the term in different ways. Some players might end up afraid to ask judges for rulings on the grounds that they might be seen to be being 'picky'. Some might ask perfectly reasonable questions and end up getting flak from the opponent for being 'picky', while another opponent would have answered without batting an eyelid.

Some people might even think that asking what 'picky' means is a picky question in and of itself... But honestly, I really don't know what GW mean by the term. Would have helped if they'd been a bit more verbose. They should have gotten Cryx to write the fugging things!

Offline Jole

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2006, 05:29:13 AM »
"Some people might even think that asking what 'picky' means is a picky question in and of itself... But honestly, I really don't know what GW mean by the term. Would have helped if they'd been a bit more verbose. They should have gotten Cryx to write the fugging things!"

that would be great, our rulebook would be 1500 pages, but everything would be crystal clear. However that is not the case with GW. They are too busy to bother getting someone who knows the game, but doesn't know their intentions to read over the preposed rules. If only they did that things would be so much easier

Offline Locarno

  • Ork Boy
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6488
  • Country: 00
  • Could I interest you in a small bribe?
Re: Dark Eldar clarifications in 2006 GT FAQ
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2006, 06:30:08 AM »
Quote
what is the over-all relevance of this FAQ? As its on a GW site, does it apply as a general FAQ? Or is it only applicable to that one tourney? I would think that as GW is a UK company and this is there big tourney, that this document would carry weight.

You could only use it as a cast-iron bit of evidence to beat thy opponent about the head and neck with in a GT tournament. However, if you're not in a tournament, then any rules are by agreement anyway....

Given that "Tournament Legal" is usually held up as the highest end of rules legality, I'd certainly accept it as covering other games.

The big thing with the independant characters (for dark eldar) is of course grotesques/haemonculus/raider is now allowed for grand tournaments. As is character on raider in webway portal. Both are shiny.

Hesperax needed that bonus, now you think about it - otherwise the 12" charge option was wasted. It also neatly distinguishes her from the "generic" archites added in the second edition dark eldar codex.


Stories to read....
Songs of Earth
The Will to Survive Series

Tervigon Army List:
Games Played: 35
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2685

 


Powered by EzPortal