Adepticon FAQ

[boreas]

Pick one enemy model in the unit the bearer is engaged

with – if that model is directing its attacks against the

bearer’s unit it must roll ‘to hit’ and ‘to wound’ separately.

Only wounds from this enemy model may be saved by the

Storm Shield [clarification].

 

The way I read it is:

 

The ennemy model that you picked and it's unit (lets say Hive tyrant and Tyrant Guards) attacks the unit. The HT rolls his "to Hit" and "to wound" separately from the unit. The wounds from the model are attributed to the defending unit and the wounds from the attacking unit are attributed to the defending unit. Now, only the wounds from the chosen models, if any are on the model with the SS, can be saved using the SS.

 

Example: A HT and 2 TG attack 3 GKT, one of which as the SS+TH combo (not the BC). The defending player chooses the HT as the "model the SS defends against). The HT hits 3 times and wounds 3 times. The TG hit 3 times and wound 3 times with rending (lucky!). Then the 3 wounds from the HT are attributed, one to each GKT model. The model with the SS can use it to make a save. Then the 3 wounds from the TG are attributed one to each GKT model. The SS cannot be used to make a save.

 

Phil

[Marid]

I like your explanation, Boreas. But still, yuck. That's just too complicated. I know they probably won't do it, but GW should really FAQ the DH storm shield to be like the SM one.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

What, consolidate rules for the same stuff in a logical and coherent fashion? Hell no! :P the Ultramarines always get the latest and greatest, the rest of you can fade into obscurity ;) .

 

@ Boreas: Thats not going to work dude. It might even be the right interpretation, but thats too complicated. We might as well just ignore the SS rules and work it out normally (same net result really). Using your interpretation, I'm struggling to see any reason to swap out for TH+SS; they're still going to die just as horribly without any of the mucking around.

 

I prefer the 'dedicated' interpretation; that at least makes the SS worth taking, because you can absorb all the damage from one model onto just one Terminator, which makes them pretty handy for tackling Monstrous Creatures and hard-core IC's, that can kill an entire squad of Terminators handily. Not to mention the ever-annoying Biker Nobz; being able to pull the 2-3 powerklaw guys onto 2-3 of your guys (and only ever lose those 2-3 guys at worst) is fantastic.

And in terms of game balance, it's still not as broken as 2+/3+ Assault Terminators (which have recieved no point increase, exactly the same as before except for the SS upgrade). If GW thinks 3+ SS is perfectly fine, they'll hand it out to us. Notwithstanding that uncharacteristic outbreak of common sense, Adepticon has the next best interpretation.

[boreas]

@ Boreas: Thats not going to work dude. It might even be the right interpretation, but thats too complicated. We might as well just ignore the SS rules and work it out normally (same net result really). Using your interpretation, I'm struggling to see any reason to swap out for TH+SS; they're still going to die just as horribly without any of the mucking around.

 

It definitely is overcomplicated... But if I was playing with MCs against GKs, no way I'd let my critter be "tied" to a single model. Expect that reaction from all non-GK players!

 

Phil

[Gentlemanloser]

Totally.

 

Played some Xmas Apoc, and my GM (with Daemonhammer, Insence and a 9 man TH/SS Retinue) was charged by a Flank Marching Avatar with the full Phoenix Lord data sheet (Don't know the name, don't care to ever know it now).

 

The Eldar player would have screamed blue murder if the 11 (!) attacks of the Avatar had been tied to a single GKT, instead of whiping out the entire 10 man squad in a single round of CC.

[SamaNagol]

I wouldn't say that the SS lets you allocate all wounds from 1 model to the model with the SS, as that is broken for only 10 points.

 

HOWEVER, as written to me it reads like you may nominate one enemy model engaged in combat then resolve all attacks against the save of the SS, THEN allocate wounds to the unit. Basically meaning for only one model's attacks, everyone counts as having a Storm Shield. So just for that Sergeant with PF/Monstrous Creature/IC you roll all your saves as 4++, and for the rest of his unit you resolve wound allocation normally.

 

That's how it reads to me in this new FAQ. But it is a moot point as it isn't even GW official anyway.

[Marid]

The DH Storm Shield problem gets even more complicated if you have more than one SS/TH GKT. I think this is how it works:

 

Say you have six GKTs and call them A, B, C, D, E, & F. The first three have SS/THs. Say these are fighting three generic Models X, Y, & Z that have power weapon attacks.

 

Then, A chooses X. B chooses Y. And C chooses Z.

 

Say that:

X generates 3 wounds.

Y generates 0 wounds.

Z generates 2 wounds.

 

So we have 5 wounds and six models to allocate them to. To get the best use of the SSs we allocate:

 

A gets 1 of X's wounds.

B gets nothing.

C gets 1 of Z's wounds.

 

D, E, and F all get one wound from the remaining pool. Or we could give one wound to B, but it couldn't be saved at 4+ since no wounds came from Model Y.

 

I think that is how it works anyway.

 

In another scenario, what happens when the model with the SS has a WS better than than any other model (say an Inquisitor in his retinue)? Would the elected opposition model have to roll to hit against the WS 5 of the Inquisitor and not the majority WS 3 of the unit?

 

:(

[SamaNagol]

As it reads to me, you separate the combat between 1 model with the SS and 1 nominated model who is engaged. You then resolve the hits against that model separately. That means rolling against the SS model's WS and Toughness. You then take your saves using the armour and 4++ of the SS model. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated to the unit as usual using the standard allocation rules, with no further saves permitted.

[Marid]

As it reads to me, you separate the combat between 1 model with the SS and 1 nominated model who is engaged. You then resolve the hits against that model separately. That means rolling against the SS model's WS and Toughness. You then take your saves using the armour and 4++ of the SS model. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated to the unit as usual using the standard allocation rules, with no further saves permitted.

 

Except that you are supposed to allocate wounds before rolling saves. In your description a Inquisitor Lord and Retinue attacking a single model could use his 4+ SS save against all of the wounds generated by that model. Say that is 4 wounds. The Inq Lord makes two saves. Then the player allocates those wounds to a pair of sages leaving the Inq Lord unscathed? That can't be right.

[SamaNagol]

Hmm, so going through it utterly literally and only using that which is stated, rather than what is implied:

 

You have a unit of 10 assault marines with a Sergeant with Power Fist against a unit of 5 GKTs including a BC carrying a NFW and SS. The DH SS nominates 1 model. It would make sense for that to be the PF. Assuming the Sergeant is still alive, you then roll to hit and to wound separately against the WS and Toughness of the model equipped with the SS. In this instance the Sergeant would have to roll to hit against WS5 regardless, however if it were an Inquisitor in a retinue it would make a difference. As the FAQ, nor the description in the Codex state otherwise, wound allocation is then followed as normal. Then the BC make make all of his saves of only those wounds allocated at 4+ instead of 5+. Any other saves the BC must make are used taking only his Terminator Armour into consideration. It doesn't state that the combat becomes seperate and that any of the other rules for CC are ignored.

 

That is the literal translation of the DH SS as per this FAQ. Which makes them completely rubbish, still. The only benefit you would ever get from using one would be if you had a higher Weapon Skill or Toughness than the unit, seeing as you will only ever be saving one wound using that 4++ as per the rules in the BBB about stacking wounds under wound allocation.

 

And if you go through using just the Codex description:

 

A model that has a Storm Shield may take a 4+ Invulnerable save in close combat instead of its normal Armour save. The save may only be used against one opponent per turn (the defender chooses who to use it against), and it may not be combined with any other Invulnerable save.

 

You don't roll the attacks separately against the SS model's WS or Toughness, allocate wounds as normal. It says you choose who to use the 4++ against, but not when. So if you are facing a mixed weapon unit, say Veterans with a PF and a Power Weapon for example, should the PF whiff with it's attacks, you could pick the PW model to take your save against. Again, standard wound allocation rules apply and you would only likely be saving 1 wound on the model with the SS. If you are facing several models with attacks which ignore Armour saves, the DH SS isn't going to be much help against attacks from any models other than the one you nominate. This could prove to be quite problematic and complicated because you could feasibly force the opponent to roll each model's attacks separately so that you can choose which to nominate to use your 4++ against. Although this would only be relevant if there are enough hits from 1 solitary model that Wounds could stack.

 

Which again, makes them pretty useless.

[Marid]

I think we are in agreement. The DH SS is pretty useless. :)

[Refyougee]

At least the TH rocks!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

:o Yeah, I guess I was being a bit hopeful with my interpretation. Stuff it, I'm using the new SS rules from now on. I don't care about the force weapon nerf, I take Daemonhammer on the GM anyway.

 

And yes, our TH is still extra fun :o 'oh, I wound that Daemon Prince. It now can't attack until after I've resolved my entire unit in the next round. Good luck with that 5+ invulnerable save you got there'.

[GTang]

Mostly because otherwise fearless is EXTREMELY powerful.

 

Any model with fearless or a rule equivalent to it would thus have to be jacked up in price.

It's not really equivalent. Iron Will says you choose even when there's an automatic failure to morale tests. You choose at times when you are told you have no choice. Fearless doesn't have that.

[ValourousHeart]

Did anyone catch the contradiction on page 48 and 49?

 

On page 48 it says the Command Platoon counts as a single unit for DOW missions and either has to completely deploy or be kept completely in reserves.

Which makes perfect sense and is how i figured it would be.

 

Now on page 49 it talks about the Infantry Platoon.

Gives it the same stipulation that it is either all deployed or all in reserves.

All good so far.

 

But then throws out this tripe about EACH unit in the platoon counts as a SEPARATE unit when determining how many units can deploy in DOW.

Considering that an Infantry Platoon HAS to have at least 3 units...

 

That means that IG Armies or =I= with IG Allies can NEVER field an Infantry Platoon during deployment!

[Refyougee]

I've noticed a few instances where there are contradictions as well and combined with the outright rules changes I don't think I will be losing much sleep over the rulings in this FAQ as it is clear to me that the errors have not been ironed out and that the document itself was not all that well though out.

 

To open another can of worms, however, what exactly does "opponent" mean in the context of the SS'? In the BRB I always see "enemy models", "enemy units" and "enemy squads" being thrown around. The only time "opponent" is referred is when talking about the person standing opposite to you. What supports this idea even further is that the text for the SS says "the defender chooses who to use it against". To me this shows the original intent was to prevent the SS being used against multiple opponents during multiplayer games. Nothing more than that. So if I were to go at it my own way it just means the Termie has a 4+ Inv save instead of a 5+ in CC, and it is treated like a regular model in all other respects.

[SamaNagol]

No.

[Marid]

To me this shows the original intent was to prevent the SS being used against multiple opponents during multiplayer games. Nothing more than that. So if I were to go at it my own way it just means the Termie has a 4+ Inv save instead of a 5+ in CC, and it is treated like a regular model in all other respects.

 

Although the bad choice of wording by GW might from some angle suggest this, it would be a very strange rule indeed.

[revnow]

Its just a Beta. They've made it clear that they intend to iron out these issues as they come up.

[Refyougee]

Honestly I'm not trying to come at it from some strange angle or anything like that. When I originally read the Codex that is what I took it as.

 

The only other option I get from the wording is (at some point during the attack resolution...not sure when) you pick a model engaged with your SS-wielder and say "Wounds caused by *that* guy are saved on a 4++". So if that figure inflicts, say, 2 Power Weapon wounds on a 4-man squad (One has a SS) you can place one on the SS wielder who gets to save it at 4+, while the other wound goes to another model in the squad. If a second enemy model inflicts, say, 3 PW wounds and one of those would be allocated onto your SS-wielding figure, that wound would go up against your regular save (5+ Invul for a Termie).

 

At least the SS gives our GH another Force Weapon attack which is worth it, IMO.

[SamaNagol]

The only other option I get from the wording is (at some point during the attack resolution...not sure when) you pick a model engaged with your SS-wielder and say "Wounds caused by *that* guy are saved on a 4++". So if that figure inflicts, say, 2 Power Weapon wounds on a 4-man squad (One has a SS) you can place one on the SS wielder who gets to save it at 4+, while the other wound goes to another model in the squad. If a second enemy model inflicts, say, 3 PW wounds and one of those would be allocated onto your SS-wielding figure, that wound would go up against your regular save (5+ Invul for a Termie).

 

At least the SS gives our GH another Force Weapon attack which is worth it, IMO.

 

That is exactly correct

[Reclusiarch Darius]

The only other option I get from the wording is (at some point during the attack resolution...not sure when) you pick a model engaged with your SS-wielder and say "Wounds caused by *that* guy are saved on a 4++". So if that figure inflicts, say, 2 Power Weapon wounds on a 4-man squad (One has a SS) you can place one on the SS wielder who gets to save it at 4+, while the other wound goes to another model in the squad. If a second enemy model inflicts, say, 3 PW wounds and one of those would be allocated onto your SS-wielding figure, that wound would go up against your regular save (5+ Invul for a Termie).

 

No offence intended to you personally, but thats frankly retarded. It actually makes the storm shield WORSE, because we're only ever able to use it against a single model, and yet the wounds inflicted can still 'circulate' around the unit. Also, additional wounds inflicted by other models can't be allocated to the SS model, which is breaking with the normal wound allocation rules entirely.

 

I feel the best interpretation is either:

 

All the wounds inflicted by that model you 'selected' with the SS are allocated only on the SS model (which is admittedly awesome and great for ganking Biker Nobz or Monstrous Creatures)

or

We just ignore the strange wording entirely and follow normal wound allocation rules (the only change being that the SS-equipped models change their 5+ invul save to a 4+ invul save when in close-combat).

[boreas]

I agree it's retarded... I also agree it's the RAW interpretation of that FAQ... That's why I like friendly games where I get my overall 4++ save in CC. It's still worse than SM storm shield, but hey, the =I= is not know for it's eliteness or access to good weapons, no?

 

Phil

[Melissia]

the =I= is not know for it's eliteness or access to good weapons, no?

Actually... they are. The Grey Knights especially are more elite than normal Space Marines.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

:P I think boreas was being sarcastic, Melissa. Anyway...

 

That's why I like friendly games where I get my overall 4++ save in CC.

 

Yeah, I prefer this interpretation TBH, as it's the way I (and Black Templars, and Dark Angels etc) have been playing it in all my games. The Adepticon ruling just seems to create more confusion. However, because GW (aside from a complete cop-out in the DA FAQ) has largely ignored the 'is a spade a spade?' issue with Marine wargear, it's all down to you and your opponent. Most people won't be bothered trying to use Adepticon rulings outside of Adepticon (because tourneys often get it wrong), so I would say for pick-up games at your FLGS or even other tourney's, most people will just go with the 'their invul save is a 4+ in close-combat, 5+ when shot'.