LoL I choose curries after the last tournament

But a point well made, hence why I suggested, and reiterate, that we should add a limit of 1 aircraft per 600 points.

Hmm, well in that thread Neal basically clarified the difference between dedicated and independent transports with respect to transporting troops;

• the distinction between which troops can be carried
• how embarking and disembarking are carried out.

It does not refer to BMs or Suppression.

The proposed rule change causes some confusion and in-game inconsistencies. Consider the following two possible game examples

1. A formation with a dedicated WE transport is broken, and withdraws with the troops inside the transport. It rallies at the end of the turn.
   In the following turn the dedicated WE is shot sustaining sufficient BMs to match the DC of the WE, but not the formation, which is thus free to activate.
2. A formation is broken, and withdraws into an independent WE. It rallies at the end of the turn.
   In the following turn the independent WE is shot sustaining sufficient BMs to match its DC, thus breaking it according to this new ruling.

So the Executioner breaks, takes a double move (50cm) ignoring ZoC and terrain, then deposits the formations it was carrying which are then free to activate later in the turn? I'd hate myself for doing it but this does open up some quite gamey options for the Executioner! It's firepower isn't great, particularly after a crit, it may have more utility when broken since it gets a "free" double move before initiative is rolled for where it can drop transported unbroken formations off at the end.

I think this might re-open the old opportunity for a "Fearless charge".... Executioner breaks and deposits a unit in b2b with the enemy...I'll have to think about this.

Can a transported unit stay mounted during an engage action, electing not to partake, and then not break should the WE loose? Personally I would say no, but why should it be any different for breaking from shooting?

Does this mean the Executioner can offer refuge to broken units and not suffer from the BMs? If the Executioner engages with broken formations on board can I dismount them in b2b?

I was under the impression that while a fearless unit didn't have to move after breaking, if it did move then it was required to move out of zones of control.

In terms of the unit inside, i can't see exactly why they would be allowed to break this particular rule as well given they have dismounted as part of a move.

In the case of broken units inside something like an executioner, i'd assume they would be effectively immune to further BM's (making it a great fallback position if broken), however if the executioner was engaged i would assume it would effectively 'pull in' the units inside into the combat, so if you lose, the units are destroyed if not fearless. This is similar to say what happens when any kind of landing craft is sitting on the ground as far as i'm aware.

In terms of the discrepancy between assault and shooting, i'd almost consider it as if the war engine was blocking LOS to the unit inside, stopping it being shot. However, as with engaging with a war engine with a unit inside, it counts as combined for the combat.

This is effectively just how it works for something like a Thunderhawk or Ork Landa, and i would assume would work the same in this case.

Quite a few assumptions then!

I'm also interested in how you'd use an Executioner or Manta

already covered in the rules, 3.1.3


Depends if the opponent initiates the assault and intermingles them (you have no choice then) but if you initiate the assault its your choice but seeing as they could not do anything else that turn its a waste.
Again from 3.1.3 my reading of that means anything that stays aboard is not part of the formation, though if the Transport was destroyed they would have to make dismount saves.


As the broken formation could not be shot at then it would not take hackdowns for BMs that way.
For the assault part of the question already covered by Official Master FAQ

THIS IS NOT A RULES CHANGE IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE RULE SO EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME WAY. PLAYERS COUNTING TROOPS MOUNTED ON BOARD AN INDEPENDENT WAR ENGINE TRANSPORT ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE.
They only count as 1 formation during the WE activation and they have to have dismounted to do that, according to the rule 3.1.3

Show me where in 3.1.3 it says you can count other formations being transported as part of the formation for BMs . That only happens with rule 1.7.5 and

I'm regretting asking, almost as much as trying an Executioner out!

Even with the cheating implied it wasn't competitive, I suspect I'll be the first and last person using that blasted confusing Dark Eldar war engine! Even after this clarification, or indeed if I'd got it right in the first place, opponents aren't ever going to be experienced enough facing off against such an oddity for it to be a smooth game and clean win.

The question remains, how do you make Executioners work at the current price point?

Paraphrasing 3.1.3, it says that the transported troops and the (independent) WE are considered to be a single formation until the end the turn in which the troops disembark (to assault / shoot with the WE).
If so, it will take the combined DC + current formation size in BMs to break the ‘single formation’, no?

Oh, and another ‘inconsistency’ with the proposed amendment; consider the independent WE that is assaulted with ‘locked’ in troops.
Is the opponent forced to declare them intermingled? It seems a bit absurd not to, but technically . . .

And since that would almost certainly result in the destruction of the WE transport, far from helping the resolution, the onboard troops now suffer the consequences ?!

here is the actual rule from 3.1.3

so it does not say until the end of the turn



As it is not so then No, it will not take combined DC + the formation in BMs to break as it is clearly not a "single formation" when playing using the rule as it is actually written.

Again it is not an amendment, or a rules change, by constantly claiming it is does not make it true.

According to the rules, players never have to intermingle formations unless they want to.


And so they should its a risk the player takes when trying to gain an in game advantage, similar to intermingling formations so you can do a combined assault thus risking a clipping assault if the opponent gets to act before you do. Or Air Transports picking up troops for an end of turn disengage to re assault next turn risking being attacked before the end of the turn.

It does not matter if it is competitive or not you still have to follow the rules.

This reads like an accusation that I intentionally misrepresented the rules at two EUK tournaments to gain an unfair advantage?

I was assuming this was not deliberate and, tongue in cheek, pointed to the fact that someone looking to win a tournament wouldn't be gambling with an Executioner! Never mind.

Let this be a warning to players not to try any of the more exotic or unusual units at EUK events lest you get it wrong.

What a ridiculous statement, diversity of lists is something that we have encouraged for years.

Nobody is accusing anybody of cheating in this case, exactly as nobody is creating any new rules just clarifying what the rules already say. That it has, on occasion, been used wrongly in the past is not a reason not to clarify it for the future, in fact quite the reverse.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion