August 21, 2019, 11:18:17 PM

Author Topic: Dark Eldar Impaler Failure in Squadrons  (Read 1740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bozeman

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • Loc: Lansing, MI
    • Four Strands Hobby
Dark Eldar Impaler Failure in Squadrons
« on: January 26, 2016, 04:00:16 AM »
A Dark Eldar Player is using the list from Armada with the 2010 update.  He takes 6 Corsair escorts with Impaler attack Modules.  The Impalers launch as a wave of 6 and attack an Imperial Navy ship.  The IN ship spectacularly fails to shoot them, and so the Dark Eldar Player rolls 6 dice for the Impalers.  They come up 1, 1, 4, 4, 5, 6.  Two of the Impalers have been destroyed by the Imperial Navy defenders, never to be used again!

Which of the Dark Eldar Corsairs in the squadron loses the ability to launch Impalers permanently?

1. Distributed like hits, the two closest escorts lose their Impalers.

2. The Dark Eldar player chooses. (after all, they are his ships)

3. The Imperial player chooses. (after all, he did the damage with his brave crew!)

4. The affected escorts are chosen randomly.

5. When making Impaler attacks each ship that is responsible for Impalers must roll separately to see which ones get disabled.  The Dark Eldar player should have indicated each ship in the squadron and rolled a D6 individually, rather than all at once.

I think 4 is the most fair, however 1 requires the least book keeping which is very desirable. (who wants to keep track of piddly stuff like this anyway?)

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Dark Eldar Impaler Failure in Squadrons
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2016, 05:30:05 AM »
I say number two. Impalers can dock at any available escort.

Offline Seahawk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • Bombardment!
Re: Dark Eldar Impaler Failure in Squadrons
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2016, 04:07:21 PM »
#5 is probably how it SHOULD be played, for clarity's sake. Our DE player just sends them all as single waves anyway so it's never come up.

I think 4 is fair, though the real answer is just don't do it. :P

Offline Lotus

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • Loc: germany
Re: Dark Eldar Impaler Failure in Squadrons
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2016, 01:22:44 PM »
I say number two. Impalers can dock at any available escort.


It does make sense fluff-wise, and if we look at the ordnance rules in general - it never does matter from wich source the ordnance came from. I can have 3 eclipse on the field, but it would be perfectly legal to just launch from one eclipse for the whole game.

Impalers are a special case, but they do follow the ordnance rules as close as possible, and it would make sense to keep it this way.

Offline heavygear

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • Loc: france
Re: Dark Eldar Impaler Failure in Squadrons
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2016, 09:46:36 AM »
p-55 Armada says
"it is assumed that a damaged module limps back to its parent vessel and must await hurried repairs"

"these are assumed to have been forced to return to their parent ship due to lack of fuel"

The point stressing the parent vessel in the rules, make it for answer #5 They move as a wave but resolve separately the attacks.. Which is logical considering the DE fluff, as Dark Eldar are paranoiacs guys who are unlikely to return to anything but their mother ship.

For each passing Impaler from the wave, DE players I play with point a parent ship in the squadron then roll a dice to resolve the attack (most of the time from left to right or right to left for parent ship selection).

But answer #2 could be used if the opponent players agreed as FaQ always said:
"Finally, it is almost guaranteed that in the course of game play, some situation is going to come up that is not covered by this Q&A. As this is a GAME and therefore played for FUN, there is no reason why these cannot be solved simply by looking at which solution is the fairest for all players should the situation be reversed"
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 10:01:46 AM by heavygear »