The Doom of Malan'Tai

[ntgcleaner]

If you all read that post called "Doom of Malan'tai rules breakdown." you will see that Mortifis has some good points, but here is where I start to argue:

 

(for example) When you add 10 infantry models to a rhino, that becomes ONE UNIT. Correct? The rule specifically states "every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'Tai" [gets hit with this.] This unit that may be 10 infantry-men in a transport is considered a UNIT in and of itself. The unit consists of a vehicle and a number of infantry. All 'models', and all in a single 'unit'. If they were not in a single 'unit' they would not be able to all move at the same speed. Somewhat like an Independent Character HQ put in with a group. He has to be able to move as fast (or slow) as the group to be considered 'with' them. The Rhino is giving this unit the ability to move up to 12".

 

He did not address this fact or select others. Basically just giving his "Case" from a biased point of view of the Tyranids. I am obviously biased for everyone else (unfortunately).

 

It does not matter if it is a shooting or psyker attack. the fact that it states "every non-vehicle enemy unit" should easily imply that "my unit consists of a vehicle. therefor it is a vehicled unit"

 

Does this not make sense to anyone else? - Yes, I know they will tell us all in the future what it means.

[Eltnot]

If you all read that post called "Doom of Malan'tai rules breakdown." you will see that Mortifis has some good points, but here is where I start to argue:

 

(for example) When you add 10 infantry models to a rhino, that becomes ONE UNIT. Correct? The rule specifically states "every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'Tai" [gets hit with this.] This unit that may be 10 infantry-men in a transport is considered a UNIT in and of itself. The unit consists of a vehicle and a number of infantry.

Where in the rules does it say that embarked units inside a transport count as one unit?

 

Even then, I don't see how they now count as a vehicle unit. How does a vehicle shoot out of another vehicle's fire points?

 

Seems more like wishful thinking to me, especially without any reference to page numbers...

[DinoDoc]

Where in the rules does it say that embarked units inside a transport count as one unit?

If the power was intended to effect embarked units, why wouldn't it have been specified in the power as it was in the Parasite's description?

[ntgcleaner]

If you all read that post called "Doom of Malan'tai rules breakdown." you will see that Mortifis has some good points, but here is where I start to argue:

 

(for example) When you add 10 infantry models to a rhino, that becomes ONE UNIT. Correct? The rule specifically states "every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6" of the Doom of Malan'Tai" [gets hit with this.] This unit that may be 10 infantry-men in a transport is considered a UNIT in and of itself. The unit consists of a vehicle and a number of infantry.

Where in the rules does it say that embarked units inside a transport count as one unit?

 

Even then, I don't see how they now count as a vehicle unit. How does a vehicle shoot out of another vehicle's fire points?

 

Seems more like wishful thinking to me, especially without any reference to page numbers...

 

 

If you add a vehicle to a unit such as a dedicated transport, it is still one unit. am I wrong on this?

 

Also, Dinodoc makes a good point. If it doesn't specifically state it, then it doesn't actually exist as a rule. We're supposed to read all rules as what it says, goes. guess we have to wait for the FAQ

[Eltnot]

If you add a vehicle to a unit such as a dedicated transport, it is still one unit. am I wrong on this?

 

Yes you are wrong on this. The two are the same choice on the force organisation chart but separate units on the table. The Rhino doesn't have to remain within coherency of the unit it was bought for.

 

Also, Dinodoc makes a good point. If it doesn't specifically state it, then it doesn't actually exist as a rule. We're supposed to read all rules as what it says, goes. guess we have to wait for the FAQ

 

But it does state explicitly what it effects. I suggest you actually read the post from the link on the previous page. He details all the rules used and how they work.

[Mortifis]

Okay, so to expand upon what I wrote over on the BoLS Lounge thread, I'll directly answer your questions here. First off, to the implications that I'm obviously biased towards the Tyranids: I'm just presenting the facts here, Ladies and Gentlemen.

 

(for example) When you add 10 infantry models to a rhino, that becomes ONE UNIT. Correct?

The case against is equally simple, that by being embarked the unit is now a "Vehicle unit"

False. An Infantry unit, whether it is on the table, in reserve, or indeed inside a transport vehicle, is always an Infantry unit. They don't merge with the transport to become "one single unit", they are simply inside of it. As Eltnot has mentioned, they may be purchased from your Codex as a single Force Organisation Chart slot, but during the game they act independantly.

 

If the power was intended to effect embarked units, why wouldn't it have been specified in the power as it was in the Parasite's description?

Well, if you actually read the rules for the Parasite of Mortrex, you'll find the following conundrum:

It never states that it can affect units inside vehicles, specifically. What it does state, specifically, is what does happen, if the unit happens to be inside a vehicle. That's a very big difference.

 

Generally speaking, the game does not consider embarked units to be "on the table". And units not on the table aren't actually in play. Explicit exceptions are made for allowing units to shoot through firing points and/or use a psyker power while embarked.

Not quite. Please refer to page 66, Embarking:

 

If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicles hull.

 

Underline is my emphasis. So, the unit is still in play. It is being transported by the vehicle. The rules tell us to measure all ranges to that unit by measuring to the hull of the transport vehicle. Simple enough, yes? Just because the models are off the table, doesn't mean the unit is not still in play.

 

After all, what happens if your embarked unit takes 25% wounds and fails its morale check. Does it then fall back? How can it? It's embarked, right? So ... does that mean they are automatically destroyed for being unable to fall back? Or are they forced to disembark? Well, the only rules that force disembarking are when vehicles are destroyed. Spirit Leech (or similar) has no effect on vehicles?

 

See. ;) The implications are just too hairy and the game system literally breaks down if you pursue the alternative. Don't mess with it.

How is this any different to a squad losing 25% from Plasma overheats, or Perils of the Warp? The possibility already exists that an embarked unit may be forced to take Morale tests, but the chance is so low nobody ever thought about it before. Following this line of thought, would you let your opponent not take casualties from Plasma overheats if it would reduce them to below 25%?

 

Wanting clarification on the issue of "What happens to units taking Morale Tests inside vehicles?" doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion. It is a possible consequence from units being affected.

 

 

In closing, the main point I have relating to this issue is the following. No one has ever disputed that "Shadows in the Warp", Dark Angels' "Rites of Battle", Marneus Calgar's "God of War", Pedro Kantor's "Inspiring Presence", Wraithguard/Wraithlord's Wraithsight (Page 3, top), and other such "aura"-like effects all work from inside and outside vehicles, affecting all valid unit types within range.

 

Why should the Doom suffer descrimination in this respect, when so many precedents have been set that support it?

 

 

[Edit]Adding underlines for emphasis[/Edit]

[Grand Master Caloth]

Actually, you dont take Morale tests when a Plasma Weapon overheats, kills it's carrier, and it causes 25% casualties (I.E. only 4 models left, the Plasma Gunner's weapon melts him to a tiny puddle of bubbling plastic, and thus is 25% of the unit str.) That morale test is taken when the 25% casualties is caused by Enemy Shooting. In my mind, if the unit is embarked and the vehicle remains intact, even if suffering enough casualties (if this power IS meant to effect embarked units), the unit wouldnt need a morale test as they would not jump out of the (relative) safety of their armoured transport to go running in the wide open, suseptible to even more, potentially more horrific enemy fire

[Mortifis]

Okay, Grand Master Caloth, I'll elaborate a bit further on the Morale tests part.

 

The Doom of Malan'Tai doesn't cause a Morale Test. Its ability "Spirit Leech" causes the unit to make a Leadership Test (different to a Morale check) on 3d6. Each point that the test is failed by, the unit suffers a wound with no Armour Saves allowed (Invulnerable Saves are allowed).

 

As an example, a squad of 10 Space Marines rolls 4, 5, 3, making 12. They will lose three Marines with no Armour Saves. 30% casualties.

As another example, a squad of 4 Space Marines fire a Plasma Gun. It overheats, the Marine fails his save. 25% casualties.

 

The rulebook (p44) states:

 

A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they are covered later in C) Losing an Assault.

 

Underline is my emphasis. In both of my listed examples, the unit will then have to take a Morale check. If it passes, nothing else bad happens.

 

 

What people are justifiably concerned about, is that there is no rules regarding what happens to embarked units who fail Morale tests, however those Morale tests came about. The rules don't specify. The only scrap of information we have is page 45, "Trapped!" which states:

 

If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed.

 

So the question relevant here is: What happens to the unit?

Option 1) = The unit is destroyed, as it cannot make a fall back move. (The Transport section details only voluntary and emergency disembark - this is neither.)

Option 2a) = The unit falls back, measuring range from any part of the vehicle hull to show where to place the models.

Option 2b) = The unit disembarks, then falls back.

 

Of the three of them, Option 1 seems to be what the rules tell us to do. Option 2 tries to take a more measured approach, and gives us "house rules" for what we offer people when their embarked troops would fail a Morale check.

 

 

Now, lots of people are confusing the question of "should the Doom affect embarked units" (which the rules clearly state it does, see my last post) with "I don't want the Doom to affect embarked units, because what could happen afterwards is not covered by the rules". Plasma overheats and Perils of the Warp are two examples that can already force this, with no clear resolution.

 

 

[Edit]Pesky formatting from browser error[/Edit]

[ntgcleaner]

Mortifis and eltnot

 

Thank you for answering my question of the vehicle being in that unit. That was the reason I was arguing the point. I figured if you buy a dedicated transport from the armory ("The Inquisitorial Stormtroopers may be mounted in a Rhino at an additional cost of +50 points...") this would still count as one unit UNTIL they disembarked and were now labeled as two.

 

After reading the rulebook again:

 

(pg. 66 - Transport Vehicles, Paragraph 4)

"A transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of independent characters ... The entire unit must be embarked on a transport if any part of it is ..."

 

It now seems to me that a transport is just another unit as you describe.

 

But on the next page (pg. 67) it has a box for "Dedicated Transports" on the bottom right which states:

 

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected together with the unit. These 'dedicated transports' do not use up a slot on the force organisation chart."

 

Now, I am going back to my point. When the unit of soldiers is Embarked, the vehicle is "together with the unit" I take this as being a Vehicled Unit, how does it read otherwise? Once they disembark, yes, it turns into two units.

 

oh, and yes Eltnot, I read every word of all of the posts in question.

 

Mortifis, I am sorry if my calling you biased was hurtful, it was not meant to be. I am biased the other direction and note that as well. It just seems like an AT&T commercial, where they give you real facts but not all of the facts that could counter the cause. "Verizon likes to talk about maps, well this is AT&Ts Map, we cover [a large portion] of the united states" Well what AT&T doesn't tell you is that Verizon is talking about 3G maps and Verizon covers more of the US than AT&T does with a simple coverage map and AT&T is just talking about simple coverage maps.

[Mortifis]

ntgcleaner, thank you for finding the correct passage in the rulebook. You'll note that, as you say, you can select them in your army without using extra Force Organisation slots. What this rule doesn't say, is that they now count as a single unit. The rulebook is very clear on any instances where this would be the case, and this is not one of them. Together with the unit means just that - two units, which can operate together.

 

Infantry always counts as infantry. Vehicles always count as vehicles. Even when you select a dedicated transport, this doesn't change fundamentally what they are. When the Infantry are inside the Vehicle, the Infantry still count as Infantry. Any effects which measure range to or from a "unit", and can affect Infantry (by being a non-vehicle unit, for example), will still affect any Infantry that happen to be inside a vehicle.

 

In my posts so far, I've quoted every relevant passage from the rulebook. The only selectivity that I've used is that the rules actually have any bearing on the discussion. By all means, if I've missed something that actually changes what we've been talking about, bring it forward.

[ntgcleaner]

Nope, That's all I had! I just feel like there has to be more rules detailed in the book. That last passage I posted was an example of something else that could be another fact that could have had a significant bearing on this discussion. I just feel like GW has been doing this for such a long time that there HAS to be something in the rulebook SOMEWHERE about this (and other effects) and it just was not covered in the OP not because it could have been detrimental to the argument, but because it was just overlooked or not been noticed.

 

Now as you say:

What this rule doesn't say, is that they now count as a single unit.

I believe this to also mean that the rule doesn't say it does not count as a single unit with a vehicle included. I still have yet to find where it says specifically

Infantry always counts as infantry. Vehicles always count as vehicles. Even when you select a dedicated transport

. This seems like another "Rulebook doesn't say it but it should be implied thing".

 

Another passage that you went over was (pg. 3 Rulebook Paragraph 6)

A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group

When the models are embarked onto a transport, they are technically fighting as a group. I know it goes back to "infantry are units and tanks are units" but again, I just need to see exactly where it says that.

 

I Just noticed (pg. 5 rulebook VEHICLES Section)

Vehicle units are represented by single models in the case of tanks and other large vehicles

 

I know this keeps going all over the place, but another thing to think about is the passage right above dedicated transports (pg. 67 Rulebook Effects of damage results on passengers, 5th paragraph)

Note: remember that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, so a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters.

 

Again, I am sorry about the bird brained scattering here, but I feel this last passage just proved your point solidly. If I read this in the beginning, I would not have tried to contradict the argument. This last passage is telling me that a unit can fire on one unit. If the passengers were the same unit as the tank, they should be able to be shot at by the same unit.

 

I don't want to keep challenging this because I will be saying (when I play Tyranids) that the Tyranids rule does affect units inside until I see otherwise by GW. I just don't like how there are so man of the "It means this because it does not say it" rules and how they can be easily misinterpreted by people like me!

 

You make very good points!

 

P.S. I edited this over a period of about 25 minutes. going back and forth between reading through the rulebook and doing actual work! As I read through, your points just made more sense. I added those points throughout this message and I feel there is no organization as to what I said here. But, I mainly added them to now solidify your point and also try to show my first point.... I hope that makes sense... I just want the best for my soldiers!

[Brother Dylan]

I came upon this very problem against my friends in a game recently and found that this rule shares the same wording with necron monolith, in that it targets all units in a certain distance from the monolith. The case I made, and I may be in the wrong here, was that monolith always targeted the transport not the units inside so why would the spirit leech operate any differently.

[Mortifis]

ntgcleaner, you're on the right track now! If you need another example, Click Here and check the second page, second paragraph on the right. Embarked units don't have to shoot the same target as their transport, because they are separate units.

 

The rulebook, and particularly the Codex when you pick your army list, tell you what type of unit it is. Space Marines are infantry, Rhinos are vehicles, for example. These rules are constant, and applied to the unit the whole game. Unless a rule specified that they could change their unit type, then they won't.

 

 

I came upon this very problem against my friends in a game recently and found that this rule shares the same wording with necron monolith, in that it targets all units in a certain distance from the monolith. The case I made, and I may be in the wrong here, was that monolith always targeted the transport not the units inside so why would the spirit leech operate any differently.

From page 21 of the Necron Codex:

Gauss Flux Arc Projectors: The Flux Arc projectors will fire D6 shots at every enemy unit with a model within 12" of the Monolith.

Underline is my emphasis. If there are no models on the table, it can't affect that unit.

 

There are two other effects, both owned by the Pariahs, which you might like to know about (page17):

Soulless: Any enemy unit with a model within 12" of the Pariah...[snip]

Psychic Abomination: Any psyker within 6" of the Pariah...[snip]

 

So again, Soulless can not affect embarked units, because they don't have models on the table. Psychic Abomination, on the other hand, can affect embarked Psykers, because it states "any within 6 inches" and not "psyker models within 6 inches".

 

 

Again, to reiterate the actual rules from the Doom of Malan'Tai (which I quoted in full in my main post on BoLS, link in Eltnot's post on first page):

Every non-vehicle enemy unit within 6".

 

The rules make very clear distinctions between effects that affect "models" and "units". If it affects "models", then it can't touch embarked units, because their models are not on the table. If it affects "units", and not models, then it can. The rules for embarked units tell you it can.

[number6]

It is unusual for a rules question -- mostly unrelated to either the OI or any power-armoured army that the B&C supports -- to exist for long. If at all. Especially in a forum not the Rules forum....

 

So I doubly appreciate the calm manner in which this debate has proceeded. So long as it remains this way, I think it's fine for it to continue. Knowing how the Doom works is at least of ancillary benefit to we Tyranid opponents. :)

 

The following clip was pointed out to me and made me laugh.

 

[ntgcleaner]

Wow, I Literally had to stifle my laughter in my office. That was pure genius right there!

[Mortifis]

number6 - very well spotted, thank you!

[Doomaflatchi]

Mortifis, your argument is logically sound in its progression according to RAW. However, I wish to take issue with a key assumption you're making.

 

No one will argue, I think, that this entire debate is predicated on ambiguous wording. However, this scenario is different than such debates have been in the past - previously, the ambiguity of the wording forced us to move back and forth between two clearly established rules, and apply one. The key difference here, as I see it, is that this argument is attempting to read ambiguous wording in favor of a new rule that does not exist anywhere else; namely, that units inside a transport can be targeted. This is different from, say, the Grey Knight Force Weapon debate, where the new rule was explicitly stated in the weapon's wording ("slain outright" instead of "instant death"). Here, no alternate rule is stated or created - there is merely a lack of any listed ruling at all.

 

Your argument according to RAW is solid, but as the rules are generally written as permissive rather than restrictive, I can find no reason to accept an argument which creates an entirely new rule that changes fundamental gameplay mechanics out of a rule that is clearly not complete. Now, if GW clears this up in a FAQ, I might have to change my viewpoint.

 

Will tournaments allow such rules-lawyering? Perhaps. But I will feel no shame in refusing to play against opponents who invoke it.

 

(And as an aside, as I understand it the Doom is 90 points, and can regenerate health over its total. I have issues with the balance of that alone, let alone reading ambiguous rules to make it stronger. :()

[- 7eAL -]

Unfortunately for most everyone here I would also agree with Mortifis. At first I balked, but as been stated before, the Doom of Malan'tai is still relatively easily destroyed. If it did not have Spirit Leech, it would be 90 points of already-dead. Most of the time, it's already dead before Spirit Leech comes into play, unless the player uses a Mycetic Spore to ensure it only dies a little bit later. Even if Spirit Leech causes an embarked unit to break inside a vehicle, their fate is fairly obvious - they kill themselves and each other in attempting to escape or to assist one another.

 

I suppose the real underlying issue is that Robin Cruddace has somehow managed to produce a codex which although understandable, is rife with internal inconsistencies, and furthermore, is inconsistent with the attitude of previous Tyranid codices. As a Tyranid fan on the side, I am rather disappointed, because the mutable genus entries were some of the most fun I've ever had reading a codex.

[Mortifis]

The key difference here, as I see it, is that this argument is attempting to read ambiguous wording in favor of a new rule that does not exist anywhere else; namely, that units inside a transport can be targeted.

Okay, if you could show me where the Spirit Leech ability uses the word target, and I might agree with you on this point.

 

 

Also, to use your "permissive rules" arguement, allow me to do the following:

- The rules for transports on p66 allow you to measure the range to an embarked unit by measuring to and from the hull.

- The rules for Spirit Leech allow it to affect all non-vehicle enemy units within 6". Models are not required, only units.

 

So the rules, as they are written, specifically allow the Spirit Leech ability to affect embarked units.

 

 

My biggest point is this: Space Marine Librarian Pychic Hoods allow you to attempt to nullify enemy psychic powers that are cast within 24" of the Librarian. Lets say that Librarian is inside a Land Raider. How do you determine if the enemy psyker is within range to be nullified?

 

If Psychic Hoods work out of a transport, then Spirit Leech works into a transport. After all, they both use the printed rule on p66 to prove the exact same point.

 

 

 

[Edit]

In this particular instance, there is no "ambiguous wording". The rules are stated quite clearly, if people put their preconceived notions and holdovers from 3rd and 4th Edition out of their minds.

 

Also, reading the actual rules to see how it works is not "rules-lawyering". That would be as you described in finding a situation where two conflicting rules contradict each other, and trying to argue it a specific direction, which is not what I'm doing here.

 

And hey, I don't know about anyone else, but its a lot more fun for me to actually play by the rules, knowing how they actually work. Some units, by being very powerful, can spoil people's fun. That's why its down to the individuals to make the game fun for their opponent, as well as themselves. If you don't think a game will be fun, don't play it. If you go to tournaments, on the other hand, you have to expect people to be taking the "powerful units". After all, that's what tournaments are for.

[Doomaflatchi]

The key difference here, as I see it, is that this argument is attempting to read ambiguous wording in favor of a new rule that does not exist anywhere else; namely, that units inside a transport can be targeted.

Okay, if you could show me where the Spirit Leech ability uses the word target, and I might agree with you on this point.

 

Sorry about the confusion - I was using 'targeting' as a non-rules specific term to simply mean 'affect'. So, read that no rule exists anywhere else that allows units inside a transport to be affected by anything without destroying the transport.

 

 

My biggest point is this: Space Marine Librarian Pychic Hoods allow you to attempt to nullify enemy psychic powers that are cast within 24" of the Librarian. Lets say that Librarian is inside a Land Raider. How do you determine if the enemy psyker is within range to be nullified?

 

If Psychic Hoods work out of a transport, then Spirit Leech works into a transport. After all, they both use the printed rule on p66 to prove the exact same point.

 

Forgive me, but I don't buy this line of reasoning. Using a Psychic Hood out of a transport is more akin to firing out of a fire point than using Spirit Leech, but firing out of a fire point does not allow your enemy to shoot back in. The only thing even remotely resembling that is Daemonhunter Rhinos being counted as 'Open-Topped' if a model with an armor save of less than 3+ fires out, but even that requires the transport to be destroyed before the unit inside can be affected in any way.

[GodwynDi]

I dislike the Doom, but find it quite probable that it is intended to affect units in transports. It fits the trend in the rules as they have been evolving. Previous editions, models inside transports did not exist as they were not on the table, with exceptions such as shooting. Now, however, all sorts of things, like psychic hoods, or psychic powers that are not shooting attacks, do work from vehicles. While I dislike Doom of Malan'Tai, I see it simply as a forerunner of where the rules are heading.

 

If that trend continues it will also help move the game away from the all mech lists that have become extremely popular with the new addition, which could be another consideration when the rule was written.

[Machine God]

One of my Red Hunter terminator squads fought a couple of Doom of Malan'Tais in the GW Tyranid mega-battle last Saturday (Jan. 30). Both Dooms emerged from the same Tyranid hole on successive turns. The first attacked but had bad dice rolls and did no damage, allowing my 5-man terminator squad plus Terminator Chaplain to return fire and insta-kill it with Cyclone krak missiles. In the next (last) turn another Doom of Malan'Tai emerged and had more success, frying four Terminators. That was the last move of the game, leaving the Chaplain and Sgt. about to fire and assault.

 

The Doom of Malan'Tai isn't hard to kill but if it gets the first shot and has already boosted its strength it can do a lot of damage.

 

:P! 2 Doom of Malan'Tais'. Isn't it supposed to be a Special Character?

 

Yet you still played Vs and won. Kudos!

[Mortifis]

Sorry about the confusion - I was using 'targeting' as a non-rules specific term to simply mean 'affect'. So, read that no rule exists anywhere else that allows units inside a transport to be affected by anything without destroying the transport.

Okay, if you're getting hung up on the "psychic" nature of a Psychic Hood, how about an alternate example? I'd like to point to this (again). Third page, first paragraph.

Embarked units CAN be affected by effects and abilities from outside the vehicle.

Embarked units can't be affected by psychic powers, by the same token. Spirit Leech is not a psychic power, so it can.

 

Forgive me, but I don't buy this line of reasoning. Using a Psychic Hood out of a transport is more akin to firing out of a fire point than using Spirit Leech, but firing out of a fire point does not allow your enemy to shoot back in.

You need to use a Fire Point to cast psychic powers from inside a vehicle. Psychic Hoods, while vaguely related, don't.

 

Psychic Hoods, Sacred Standards, Wraithsight, and now Spirit Leech all work by proximity measured to the unit. None of them need line of sight, none of them are "targetted", none of them even require models on the table, and all of them are what you might call an "aura" or area of effect. If the unit is within range, it is affected. If the unit is embarked in a transport, and the transport is in range, then the unit is affected.

[Souchan]

Here's some good advice for dealing with the Doom. Most Nid players have yet to figure out how to attach an IC to the Doom in order to protect it.

 

A bit late(as the topic went somewhere entirely different^^) to reply to just this bit, but I didn't see anyone else making note of it. Nid players don't attach IC's to the Doom because they can't, if there are those that do then they break the rule at the top left of p.48. Units that always consist of a single model can not be joined by an IC unless they are also an IC.

 

I shall now prceed to giggle at one of Hitler's many frustrations, that is all ;)

[Brother Hadafix]

Those rules for Doom are still unclear, as if one were to argue in favour, one could also state that if a template weapon were to fall on a hole dug by a mawloc it would effect what was in reserve or the possibly re-burrowed mawloc (technically, it is still in play).

 

As there is nothing in the game that can effect units in this way (meaning killing a unit in side a transport without the rules to back it up in the codex saying so), then I find the use of the Doom in this way suspect.

RAW on a technicality is just that, and needs something stronger, imo, to back it up.

 

(Some of us remember and still do get quizzed on the Emperors Champion being a HQ thing, and have to produce the FAQ. Technicalities, such awkward things)

 

Intill this is FAQ'ed dice for it, refuse it or except it.

 

B) God of War was heavily debated, see the rules forum.