Because it's come up again in one of the Facebook groups, what happens when a War Engine fails a Dangerous Terrain test?

1.8.1 DT:
Roll a D6 when you enter dangerous terrain, or when you start to move if already in dangerous terrain. On a roll of 1, the unit is destroyed with no save allowed, but the formation it is part of does not receive a Blast marker.

3.1 WE movement:
War engines follow the same movement rules as any other unit. War engines that fail a dangerous terrain test suffer a hit (see the damage rules below).

3.2.4 WE damage:
Every time a war engine loses a point of damage then the formation it is part of receives one Blast marker.



My reading of this has always been that the War Engine automatically loses a DC, without suffering a Blast Marker. It's being argued that 3.2.4 over-rides the 'does not receive a Blast marker' part of the Dangerous Terrain rule. Is this correct?

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

there is no way to be sure (thanks for that GW) but generally in the EUK scene that the war engine loses a DC without suffering a blast marker, the ambiguity comes (I think) from the rules clarifying that war engines are not destroyed outright but rather take hits/damage

I really hate the interchangeability in the rules of hits/damage.... hits can be saved, damage is caused after saves have been failed!!!

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

That’s exactly my issue - if 3.1 is turning it into a normal hit so that the Dangerous Terrain rule about Blast Markers isn’t applied, why is the bit about no saves still being applied?

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

No BMs for failed DTs.

I think the "(see the damage rules below)" part was included to point out that WEs aren't outright destroyed, otherwise "War engines follow the same movement rules as any other unit" would mean they were destroyed.

It definitely could have been done better, and the hit/damage thing is crap as well.

I have a FAQ update I'm finishing up this week, I will add this to it.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I agree as above. In effect BM are for your opponents actions, if you go pop walking through dangerous terrain, you sacrifice to summon, you get hit by a WE blowing up next to you = no BM. -> I assume this is due to the fact you are having a bad enough time.

I was having the little debate in one of the FB groups today. And I stated time and time again, I wasn't sure, and that it might be that the WE suffers a BM, but it feels incoherent and not fully logical? The 1.8.1 does say the unit is destroyed , and then goes on to say the formation does not suffer a BM.

Now there is no doubt that the 3.2.4 clearly states, "when ever a WE suffers a DC it receives a BM" But to me this still feels intuitively wrong. Just doesn't make sense to me why a regular formation would not get a BM and a WE formation would?

But at bigger tournaments I'm thinking there must be a consensus on how to go about it?

You take a BM if a unit is destroyed from a WE crit. Or are you saying you wouldn't take the BM for being "shot at" by an exploded WE, that's definitely true.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

you were there too? yeah that was a weird hill for that one dude to die on. finally had to leave the group after that load of stupidity.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Personally I really don't think it is all that ambiguous, it's just one person who finds it difficult to take a consistent approach to reading the rules but also posts a lot and doesn't let it drop.

It's pretty obvious to me that 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 are intended to be quite straightforward by saying 'for WE, remove a DC instead but still place a BM as normal'. There's no reason why those rules would specifically override 1.8.1, because it doesn't mention DTTs at all.

Now, 3.1 is the rule that is unfortunately worded because it should say damage instead of hit, but even then almost everyone intuitively knows what it means - it's just clarifying that WEs aren't automatically destroyed like normal units are. As with every other WE rule, it is intended only to override the equivalent mechanic in the normal rules (in this case the 'special' DTT rule in 1.8.1). The reason DTTs are mentioned explicitly is because 1.8.1 doesn't technically apply the normal 'hit' mechanic, it uses a 'special' mechanic (i.e. units are destroyed straight away rather than taking 'hits'). If 3.1 didn't exist, some players might question (as the original poster on FB did) whether WEs are also automatically destroyed by DTT failures, because DTT failures are not 'unsaved hits'.

In fact, the mere fact that 3.1 exists at all is further evidence that 3.2.4 is not overriding 1.8.1 - if 3.2.4 applied to 1.8.1, there would be no need for 3.1 in the first place.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Naaa that particular dude's got a long history of obstinate rules bickering. They're the person after all that endlessly argued that shadowswords bypass shields.

Good thread here and great summary Kyrt. Additional information in the FAQ would be grand so yay Dave.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Fortunately I missed that one...

Thanks for all the replies.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

I don't know how you can even begin to work that out.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

sorry for being the OP, i'm kinda new and did not know it would not be universally played one way, i guess with FAQ it will be solved! yay