[dwalker18]

When Grotesques are being shot at by weapons below S6, is there any way that the character joining them can be wounded?

The way I have been playing it with my firends is that all the grotesques in the squad have to be wounded before the character can be wounded. I just wasn't sure if this is correct. Thank you.

 

[Mongooseo]

If the number of shots is >/= the number of models in a squad, then all models will have test for wounding. So you were right.

 

[Toloran]

When Grotesques are being shot at by weapons below S6, is there any way that the character joining them can be wounded?

The way I have been playing it with my firends is that all the grotesques in the squad have to be wounded before the character can be wounded. I just wasn't sure if this is correct. Thank you.

There is exactly one way: The rarely mentioned and often forgotten "Torrent of Fire" rule (pg 26, 4th paragraph, half wya down). Basically, if a unit takes as many wounding hist as there are models in the unit from a single volley then the ATTACKING player may designate a single model from the targeted squad to take one of the wounds (the defender still gets to choose which save if any to use). So if your squad of 9 grotesques and an Archon take 12 wounds, the attacker may say "Your archon is taking one of those wounds."

 

[Sesshomuronay]

in my opinion grotesques are fairly weak. they just dont hold their own in combat wyches do better and can have a squad leader. what i think should happen to grotesques is REAL feel no pain toughness 4 and a 5+ armor save for the normal ones and maybe a 4+ armor for the Ubers and strength 5.

 

[Splata]

why should they be str. 5?

they are tough beasts of burden (or zombies of sloth). They aren't all that strong, they are tough and sluggish and slowly amble towards their opponent as a living human shield that was bred for 3rd ed. which no longer is required (3rd. you could not shoot through units).

But to stay true to their current fluff they should be tough nuts to crack that are terrifying to behold, not that they should necessarily be good in combat.

So to simplefy the rules they would gain 5 toughness and FNP, no armour save and still 2 wounds. That way strong things will still kill them outright (although you can count the str.10 guns on one hand). And they can be a menace as they trudge unstoppably down the field.



My question on grotesques with characters in transports.
The codex says that you can only have a grotesque transport if you have a character with them. How do you know that you will haa character with them when you are making your list? What if it the character is not reserve olled at the same time as they are?

 

[Seeker84]

My question on grotesques with characters in transports.
The codex says that you can only have a grotesque transport if you have a character with them. How do you know that you will haa character with them when you are making your list? What if it the character is not reserve olled at the same time as they are?

I would make the assumption that they need a leaderships check to move. So the Raider can move, but in order to disembark you need to take a leadership test.
So if the raider has not moved and you wish to move the grots, take a leadership test, this should be good the them to move after they disembark. But if the raider has moved and you want to disembark then take the test, but the unit then can not move due to embarking and disembarking rules.

That's how I would do it if the Character doesn't come with them.

 

[KwiKwag]

My question on grotesques with characters in transports.
The codex says that you can only have a grotesque transport if you have a character with them. How do you know that you will haa character with them when you are making your list? What if it the character is not reserve olled at the same time as they are?

Although its not a concrete answer we play it like this:

Haemoculi and Lords may start on the raider with grotesques when placed in the warp. They are considered one unit and only needs one roll for reserves. When the raider is cleared to enter the game both the Lord and grotesques are onboard.

There is no way to prove this and I would say there is probably more reason to believe you can't than you can but the logic here is strong that the grotesques wouldn't have boarded the raider in the first place if there wasn't someone there to lead them on. And since you can't have grotesques sitting on a raider without one then I can usually prove the Lord is on it and is attached to the squad to start the game.

Also, I still play it that the Lord can still separate once the raider makes planet fall (the grotesques are not a retinue). The only retinue that are grotesques are the uber grotesques for Urien.

Honestly, no one has ever challanged this - it never been an issue as my opponents would rather see grotesques than wyches.

As for the "usefulness" of the grotesques current rules - I find them interesting and fun to play. They are not a "powerhouse" army but are more of a "shock troop" unit where you have to hit hard on the charge to either "break" your target or hit them hard enough that they can't hit back well. Yes, they really stumble against marines but have had excellent success against Eldar, Tau and Orks (can't say I ever used them against nids yet). You need to use large groups of them as they need to deliver as many attacks as possible.

I do agree their rules are outdated and odd but at least they are clear.

 

[Wicky]

Although its not a concrete answer we play it like this:

Haemoculi and Lords may start on the raider with grotesques when placed in the warp. They are considered one unit and only needs one roll for reserves. When the raider is cleared to enter the game both the Lord and grotesques are onboard.

There is no way to prove this and I would say there is probably more reason to believe you can't than you can but the logic here is strong that the grotesques wouldn't have boarded the raider in the first place if there wasn't someone there to lead them on. And since you can't have grotesques sitting on a raider without one then I can usually prove the Lord is on it and is attached to the squad to start the game.

Also, I still play it that the Lord can still separate once the raider makes planet fall (the grotesques are not a retinue). The only retinue that are grotesques are the uber grotesques for Urien.

Honestly, no one has ever challanged this - it never been an issue as my opponents would rather see grotesques than wyches.

As for the "usefulness" of the grotesques current rules - I find them interesting and fun to play. They are not a "powerhouse" army but are more of a "shock troop" unit where you have to hit hard on the charge to either "break" your target or hit them hard enough that they can't hit back well. Yes, they really stumble against marines but have had excellent success against Eldar, Tau and Orks (can't say I ever used them against nids yet). You need to use large groups of them as they need to deliver as many attacks as possible.

I do agree their rules are outdated and odd but at least they are clear.

Hi,
Unless I am misreading this I thought that it is covered by the Rules FAQ and specifically –

“If an independent character, a squad and a non-dedicated transport( or dedicated) all become available at the beginning of turn 3, you could deploy them all separately as normal, or the character could join the unit and then the unit could enter the battlefield embarked on the transport, as long as they fit inside it. Or any other legal combination.”

So you have to luck it to become all available at the same time and when using a portal the chances for this can be increased by using more than one Haemonculi because these rules use “unit” Choice unlike the normal Reserves rules that use “FOC” choice.

Independent characters have to be rolled for separately in a portal game.

And Kwi, how do you mount a Dark Lord and a Haemy on a Raider? The Haemy cant take a Raider as an option and I thought that a lone Lord could not also due to both being IC’s – it’s the inclusion of the retinue that allowed this to be done in the case of the Lord.

But if you can get away with it…………………

Thanks.

 

[Splata]

Two IC's may join any squad. Because an IC may join a squad and nothing says two may not join the same squad. As a result in that case what kwi was doing was correct.

But the problem stems from the unit description of grotesques. The description says that if a squad has an accompaning character it may take a raider.

But it can't take an IC until the game. So all you can do is hope that it will come out atteh same time.

Kwi's way is a solution. In fact the easiest solution really... and although it is against the rules i don't see a way to do it without being against the rules of either the codex or the BGB. The outdated codex strikes again!

 

[KwiKwag]

Wicky, I have no proof or written word that the way we play it is correct - just logic that the grotesques wouldn't be on a raider to begin with without a Lord attached to start with (logic plays no part in the rules I already know). However, as I mentioned before, there is more evidence to suggest you are right and I am wrong - no one has challanged my logic yet at the store and its really only an issue with other Dark Eldar players (we are the only ones challanging our own rules).

Splata - you are correct with what I was trying to say, we may not be exact with the rules but its logical and fair and it aint no big deal really (I'd be more than happy to change them out for a squad of wyches!).

Perhaps GW didn't want us to take Grotesques on raiders in the Warp - its an odd way to prohibit grot squads w/lords in the warp, they could have just said grots on raiders are not allowed in the warp. Otherwise, if a raider with grots does start in the warp without a lord then all the raider would have to do is drive within 2" of a Lord and pick him up (my logic sounds so much better than this!)

P.S. not sure where I said I attach 2 lords to a single raider in the warp. If I did then I apologize as I think I was trying to infer either one lord or the other (archon/dracon or haemoculus, these 2 kinds of lords) not both. However, when I start Haemys on the board in a raider with Grots I almost always put 2 Haemys in - having one is not enough any more.

Sorry for the confusion ;Y

 

[Wicky]

I agree that its only the rules Nazi's that would ever notice this slight tweak in the mounting rules and it does seem to follow the spirit of the Codex to allow it.

I do wonder if this point was mentioned in the letter to GW from the other group of players from 40K online?

Cheers.

 

[Toloran]

I agree that its only the rules Nazi's that would ever notice this slight tweak in the mounting rules and it does seem to follow the spirit of the Codex to allow it.

I do wonder if this point was mentioned in the letter to GW from the other group of players from 40K online?

Cheers.

Off Topic: Godwins law strikes again.

On topic: Well, according to the 5th Ed rumors, you can declare that your ICs are joining a unit at the start of the game while they are still in reserve and then roll reserves for them together (ie, the sensible way).