Ynnari unoffical FAQ stop gap

So with the Ynnari a thing and me being a TO of many events (one this weekend even!) I have had to knock together an FAQ for the Ynnari to fill the gap until we get something official.

You may not agree with all the answers - and I am all for feedback and conversation - for me, these make the most sense and are the most inline with what I feel is the intent and the current rule set.

http://objectivesecured.com.au/ynnari-faq-stop-gap-set-answers/

Feedback is most welcome

If we ever see an official FAQ, I expect to see the vehicle question answered differently, but the rest of them seem about what I would predict the official answers will be.

All seem pretty reasonable. Might want to address whether or not something that moves with a jump pack and uses a soulburst action to move gets to use the 12" movement twice. We discussed it at length in another thread and mostly came to a group consensus that it does, since the jump pack rule effects the phase, but regardless of how you choose to rule it, it probably deserves clarification...I think the discussion was the Ynarri Tactics / First impressions thread if you'd like to reference it.

Awesome - thanks for the heads up BtW!

The vehicle one is contentious for sure - I can cite arguments both for and against it in the rules.

That said, I figured I should start somewhere - and this is the version I have seen most online being used.

@Massaen well done, I will certainly be using this until an official release by GW!

I know it's RAW how you wrote it but I think that a unit should be able to charge after wiping out another unit in close combat. That's also how they played it on warhammer tv.

They also played it that vehicles got to Soulburst so I'd take that with a pinch bucket of salt

That being said, despite my strenuous arguments over the RAW of this matter, I also believe that the intent was to be able to charge after wiping a unit.

I have to agree with count here, else why would they include rules for charging in and how to address the lowered initiative steps?  Those rules seem irrelevant if you cannot charge during the specific fight subphase for that unit.

I would agree with all of them. Seem reasonable to me.

I really hope all the questions with vehicles are answered, though having talked to my local GW representative (games workshop store owner/worker) the way we worked out the vehicles thing was that if I had a unit of wraithguard, they could start the game in a raider, if the raider was taken in the fast attack slot and not as a dedicated transport because they share the ynnari faction, and that seems to be pretty close to what you came up with for your unofficial FAQ ... But would it be a bit unreasonable to let interfaction dedicated transports be a thing?

Considering that dedicated transports are determined based on the datasheets found in the unit's appropriate codex, I can't see where there would be any room to allow for raiders to be taken as dedicated transports for CWE at this time.

I am sorry but I don't get the other side of the Shooting out of transports?  The FAQ says it all.  

This completely answer the question. in my opinion.

Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?

A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points, psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.

@Srota your not understanding the issue. It doesn't have anything to do with dedicated transports. It's about vehicles that happen to be transports purchased as stand alone Fast Attack or Heavy support (falcon) choices.

Archon_91 wrote:

But would it be a bit unreasonable to let interfaction dedicated transports be a thing?

This was the comment i was referring to.

Oh I see, my mistake. Your pointing to a good correction but are ignoring the broader picture with how you present it. It may just be that they misspoke and colloquialized transport class vehicles. Or, of course it's possible your correct and they are woefully misguided. By giving them the choice to determine how they screwed up you don't come across as not knowing the background issue.

Actually, I just wrote that while I was driving, thank you voice to text, hence the lack of formatting.

Word. Never forget that meta gaming can always wait.

In regard to the actual transport question, especially in regards to transports taken as fast attack, I'm inclined to say that they can start embarked, per the reasons stated in your FAQ stop-gap. I think the Sharing of Ynnari as a faction does override the secondary faction of their codex.

"But would it be a bit unreasonable to let interfaction dedicated transports be a thing?" I guess I'm bad at saying what I'm trying to say ... What I meant by that is because the ynnari are a faction that use three eldar codex's but acts like its own codex or set of rules and seeing as they are mixing the three separate eldar factions into one here why can't they take each other's transports as they are effectively their own army under this faction and have access to everything brought by each side, so why can't eldar units use dark eldar transports and vise versa, as under the ynnari faction they would have access to them ... And I did say that in the conversation I had that taking the raider as a fast attack did let the eldar unit start the game in it

Gotta love faulting internet making you post twice

The question about units falling back triggering soulburst is probably unnecessary, as it is, IIRC, addressed in the text of the soulburst rule itself.

Edit: No it isn't. I apparently mis-remembered what I had read. FAQ away!

mrmagoo wrote:

I am sorry but I don't get the other side of the Shooting out of transports?  The FAQ says it all.  

This completely answer the question. in my opinion.

Q: I have a question regarding unit special rules that affect all or some units within a certain range of a model or unit. How do these interact with units inside Transports, and what happens if the unit with the rule is inside a Transport?

A: When a unit embarks on a vehicle it is taken off the battlefield and does not interact with anything on the battlefield. However, certain rules may create exceptions to this rule, with the most obvious examples being Fire Points, psychic powers and Transports. If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.

The question is whether or not Soulburst counts as one of the 'certain rules' that create exceptions to this rule (with Soulburst allowing units to fire, and firing being something that units in transports are allowed to do), in part due to the fact that the text for Soulburst is pretty vague on a LOT of fronts (which necessitates a FAQ in the first place). Thus, it requires confirmation.

I disagree, the last line of that faq says If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this. It doesn't specify so that tells me no you cant use soulburst.

Archon_91 wrote:

"But would it be a bit unreasonable to let interfaction dedicated transports be a thing?" I guess I'm bad at saying what I'm trying to say ... What I meant by that is because the ynnari are a faction that use three eldar codex's but acts like its own codex or set of rules and seeing as they are mixing the three separate eldar factions into one here why can't they take each other's transports as they are effectively their own army under this faction and have access to everything brought by each side, so why can't eldar units use dark eldar transports and vise versa, as under the ynnari faction they would have access to them ...

The reason why is because their datasheets are drawn from their respective codices, and thus do not provide the option for taking dedicated transports from other codices. Its not the faction that limits the dedicated transport choice, but rather the datasheet itself. Now, if they were to eventually release datasheets that would supercede those from the codices, it might be different, but at this time, it just cannot be done.

I.E. In the Dark Eldar Codex, Kaballite Warriors only have Raiders and Venoms as dedicated transports listed in their upgrades. Since Starweavers are not listed, you could not take a Starweaver as their dedicated transport.

mrmagoo wrote:

I disagree, the last line of that faq says If a unit’s rules are meant to apply even when embarked on a Transport, they will specify this.  It doesn't specify so that tells me no you cant use soulburst.

Well, there is quite a bit of disagreement over this, hence the need for a FAQ resolution. The point is that GW's treatment of transported units is a little uneven. Also, the description of soulburst is inadequate. It seems equally likely that the rule doesn't specify anything regarding transports simply because the writers forgot to put it in, just like they forgot to account for a bunch of other scenarios involving the rule.