Reaver Randomisation?

It seems the new Dark Eldar FAQ has omitted the section on resolving reaver wounds (discussed here). Does that mean we are back to randomisation or have I missed something in the main rule book?

It's not a shooting or combat attack, so I can't think where in the BRB it would be covered.

Wasn't the randomisation originally an FAQ inclusion anyway? Now we have a new FAQ there seems to be no argument for using the old one. I'd say it's now down for you to agree it with your opponent (as sadly it's not covered in any current rules.

I'd imagine most people will agree to stick with the old FAQ ruling (probably best to sort out beforehand)!

One more thing about the reavers.
If I understand it correctly, now nothing prevents us to bledevane swooping monsters. There is nothing said about auto-hit attacks in the rules.
"Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule." And that's all.
However in the flying vehicles section it is clearly indicated, that you can't hit an airplane with attacks, that don't need to hit rolls.

I'm going to have to check this out quickly when I get home tonight as I have a game with a big unit of reavers and FMCs are pretty likely to be present. It's nicely fluffy, I can just see a squadron of reavers flying up towards some swooping beast and ripping through its wings with their blades.. And the reavers can move faster than the FMC, so seems vaguely plausible.

After a quick check of the rules for both reavers and the BRB, it appears we totally can bladevane swooping FMC.  

The Hard to Hit rule specifies that all SHOTS (ie shooting attacks) are fired as snap shots.  According to the rule for Snap Shots if you don't roll to hit you can't snap shot.

Bladevane however, is an attack in the movement phase.  It is not specified what KIND of attack this is.  Frankly a better argument can be made for it being a combat attack than a shooting one.

Speaking of which, guess what is ALSO not immune to combat attacks?  Thats right FMC!
According to the rules they can only NOT be charged. So if you can deliver a NON-SHOOTING attack, EVEN a close combat attack, so long as you don't have to charge you can totally wreck that FMC!

Bladevane is not an attack in the movement phase. It is an attack in the shooting phase, triggered by a movement action that takes place in lieu of shooting.

However, I agree with your basic analysis, and so did my opponent (a Nid player). So for our group at least we're considering this legal.

Not sure how you'd ever manage a close combat attack if you can't charge it. There may be a loop-hole somewhere, but I can't think of one.

Most powerful application of this is surely the tantalus' d6 s7 ap2 attack...

That would now seem to be a pretty solid option, yes.
*goes off to check his bank balance*

What's the wording of the tantalus' attack v vehicles? Does it specify non fliers?

It doesn't, however the rules for Flyers in the BRB do make them immune to weapons that do not roll to hit. There is a discrepancy for the wording of the hard to hit rule between flyers and FMCs in the 7th ed rulebook that opens up FMCs to blade vane attacks while flyers remain immune. Im at work, so can't cite pages, but it's not hard to find.

Very interesting indeed.   Bummer about the fliers.   I was getting excited as i read this thread.

I haven't had a chance to play 7th ed. yet. But in terms of the reaver randomization, i plan to just discuss with my opponents to get agreement before we start.

It really isn't a huge deal either way, so mostly it is just important to agree before hand.

Still looks like the tantalus is one of the best anti FMCs out there (in theory). In practice I'd imagine it will be hard to get the most out of this.