Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I was playing in a game the other week when my archon assaulted a unit in cover. Normally I don't find this an issue as I almost always give wyches plasma grenades or I can have the ASF drug with characters if I need to do so with them.
However, in this game, my opponent was adamant that I couldn't use the ASF drug to strike first when assaulting into cover, and when queried to other gamers and staff members they were unanimous that you NEEDED the grenades to strike first with the archon. This really seemed wrong and counter intuitive to how I normally use the drugs. Am I doing it right?
Always Strike First is kindof self explanatory, ALWAYS strike first.
Help the kin TAKE your soul, I mean, take your soul...
I play Vassal. I'm in V40K Open Ladder.
Which is how I always assumed it. But not for the rest of my local GW. Darn our ancient codex.
I suppose I could claim that its that old that it was written many millenia before the 40k rules were writen, and as such counts as warhammer '0', or 'fantasy', and use the ASF mechanic from that.
To be honest, I think it might also have had something to do with the fact that I had just pretty much wiped out three other apocalypse armies and was in the process of wiping out a fourth without having given up an objective all tournament. (DE are BRUTAL in apocalypse games, especially with flank march.)
I would have thought that if you had initiative 0 and the enemy had initiative 10 you would still ASF if you had the special rule.
Which (as I hit my 1000th post) was precisely my understanding, and has cropped up before when I assaulted banshees in cover with the drug active. My opponent did let me use it that time. It just seems that recently my local GW want to nerf my DE that little bit more if they can.
What argument did they give that ASF did not apply in this case, therefore negating the "always" part?? What rule did they quote? You know if it was in the main rule book, our codex trumps it, regardless of how old it is...
They were citing that it didn't state an I value, and that as the phrasing was outdated it didn't have meaning in the current ruleset and therefore the rulebook I rules took precedence. This was actually the only time in the whole tournament where the uses of this drug came into question, the rest of the time I wasn't assaulting into cover and nothing comes close to my I!
I have to agree with Darky on this one. The BRB does state specifically that if there is a rules conflict between the BRB and a Codex then the Codex takes precedence. Seeing as our codex has a little word... hmm... well.... Always that that would actually mean something like... well... Always.
Eyes without life, maggot-ridden corpses, mountains of skulls.
These are some of my favourite things.
- Dracon Borkor
if people question it, I usually just point them at the slightly expanded one in wargear, which mentions the 'regardless of cover' bit