Hey Dakka, I was wondering what rules you get wrong or see others get wrong. Maybe some of us will learn something, too.
If this is in the wrong section, can you please move it? Thanks.
If it's breaking any rules, I'm sorry (Although I'm certain it's not.)
If it (somehow) ends up in YMDC, go nuts! But please keep it civil, follow the rules, follow the tenets, etc. (If I spelled tenets wrong, sorry. )
Alright, I'll start.
Chapter Tactics: People seem to think that vehicles gain the traits from Chapter Tactics when it says "All models..." even when you show them otherwise, because "Iron Hands are different to X chapter."
Ever-Living: Some people seem to think that when RP rolls are made for the characters with this rule that if they can't get up within 3" that they can place themselves as close as possible (6" from their death spot, for example)
I can't think of any others right now, so I shall be back in 8-ish hours. (Going to the LGS.)
Terrain rules, I guess. There seem to be too many people out there who play on an empty table with a couple buildings or something. It distorts things horribly toward gunline armies.
Smashotron wrote: Wait Iron Hands vehicles do not gain those abilities? I just played my first match against an Iron Hands army and he seemed to play it otherwise.
Lets see, in my group:
Monstrous Creatures have Fear.
FMCs have Fear
Daemons have Fear (noticing a trend?)
Controlling player allocates wounds from exploding transports.
That's all I can think of for now.
Happyjew wrote: Lets see, in my group:
Monstrous Creatures have Fear.
FMCs have Fear
Daemons have Fear (noticing a trend?)
Controlling player allocates wounds from exploding transports.
That's all I can think of for now.
Happyjew wrote: Lets see, in my group:
Monstrous Creatures have Fear.
FMCs have Fear
Daemons have Fear (noticing a trend?)
Controlling player allocates wounds from exploding transports.
That's all I can think of for now.
Aren't the first 3 correct though?
Herp derp, never mind. Understood the context.
Yeah for some reason we always seem to forget about Fear...
Riptides are not Fearless. Daemons are not Fearless. Obliterators are not Fearless. Daemons can Go to Ground and are immune to Terrify. Notably, Greater Daemons can Go to Ground. There is nothing preventing a Swooping FMC from claiming cover. Homing gear does not necessarily need to start on the table to function properly. You can totally 'chain-in' Reserves if you sequence it properly and your specific bit of kit allows you to. There is no rule that prevents first-turn charges. As long as you have a unit that is capable of moving more than 24" and doesn't rely on Scout or Infiltrate to do so. Orks in particular have a lot of options to do so. It is *impossible* for most units to make a Turn-1 charge. You deploy 'at least' 24" away and therefore are always slightly out-of-range no matter how closely you think you've measured it.
Smashotron wrote:Wait Iron Hands vehicles do not gain those abilities? I just played my first match against an Iron Hands army and he seemed to play it otherwise.
Formosa wrote:Iron hands are an exception and there vehicles do receive a bonus from there chapter tactics
Iron Hands vehicles only benefit from the CT that gives IWND.
FNP doesn't apply to them.
Edit:
Casting Nova powers while in assault. (Unless I'm the one wrong on this?) Apparently you can because of the wording. It's slightly off topic of my own thread, but is that right? It's still a shooting attack.
(I know, YMDC is the correct place for rules questions, so I'll post it there if I have to.)
Another one I've thought of; Choosing weapons for a model. Namely "How can you take that?" followed by showing them and then they respond with "Well... Have you checked the FAQ? Because that makes no sense that you can take X and X"
They thought it didn't make sense that you could hold the TH with one hand and have a LC on the other... So it must have been FAQd, obviously.
<.<
Happyjew wrote: Lets see, in my group:
Monstrous Creatures have Fear.
FMCs have Fear
Daemons have Fear (noticing a trend?)
Controlling player allocates wounds from exploding transports.
That's all I can think of for now.
Aren't the first 3 correct though?
Herp derp, never mind. Understood the context.
Yeah for some reason we always seem to forget about Fear...
Probably because it only works on about 1/5 of the armies in play
Happyjew wrote: Yeah for some reason we always seem to forget about Fear...
Probably because it only works on about 1/5 of the armies in play
Actually in my meta it works on almost every army.
There are very few SM players (2 maybe 3). There is 1 Iyanden player. There is a single Daemons player. And I'm one of two Nids player. So yeah, not a whole lot of Fearless or ATSKNF.
Aegis lines don't necessarily force you down to initiative 1.
I've played a few people who thought they'd be safe from my nids behind one, as they don't have grenades. But as long as you don't cross the line (or any other terrain) while charging, you can fight at normal initiative.
Happyjew wrote: Yeah for some reason we always seem to forget about Fear...
Probably because it only works on about 1/5 of the armies in play
Actually in my meta it works on almost every army.
There are very few SM players (2 maybe 3). There is 1 Iyanden player. There is a single Daemons player. And I'm one of two Nids player. So yeah, not a whole lot of Fearless or ATSKNF.
Fair enough.
I was referring to the game as a whole.
I'd love to play in your meta, as the only thing my Daemons ever get to make fear saves are grots and guard
Furyou Miko wrote: Everliving models can still get up when the unit is Swept.
I'm not going to start an argument, but that is a rather heated debate when it comes up in YMDC.
It's my experience that everything is a heated argument in YMDC.
Not really.
For example:
Sweeping Advance vs EL. Both sides are potentially right, and neither side will back down until GWFAQs it.
Multiple Coteaz - Just about everybody agrees that the intent is only 1 Coteaz, however, no one can quite agree on what the actual rule is (only name or special rules as well)
Attached IC embarking into vehicles - RAW causes a lot of arguments, but most people agree with HYWPI.
Where can I find "X" - generally involves someone giving a reference
Now of those 4, 3 cause heated arguments mostly because regardless of all else no one agrees with what the RAW actually is.
Happyjew wrote: Yeah for some reason we always seem to forget about Fear...
Probably because it only works on about 1/5 of the armies in play
Actually in my meta it works on almost every army.
There are very few SM players (2 maybe 3). There is 1 Iyanden player. There is a single Daemons player. And I'm one of two Nids player. So yeah, not a whole lot of Fearless or ATSKNF.
Fair enough.
I was referring to the game as a whole.
I'd love to play in your meta, as the only thing my Daemons ever get to make fear saves are grots and guard
Come to Buffalo. We have hockey, indoor lacrosse, beer and wings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But I digress, we are getting a bit off topic here.
I don't think it applies to 6th anymore but in 5th, when rolling to see who goes first, and the first roll is a tie, and you roll again, and it's still a tie, the game is over.
Davor wrote: I don't think it applies to 6th anymore but in 5th, when rolling to see who goes first, and the first roll is a tie, and you roll again, and it's still a tie, the game is over.
Since we only play 2nd edition,this might not make much sense to many,but here goes!
If you have the Assassins or Witch Hunt mission your entire army may ignore the 'choosing a target' rules and fire at the object of your mission.
If one of your squads is in h2h, but not all models are engaged, then the un-engaged models may shoot in their turn. Or even run away!
You may use any weapon or grenade that isn't 'move or fire' in h2h against a vehicle.
You may begin the game in hiding, even though nobody ever does.
If a Chaos player has Daemons waiting to be summoned then every time an enemy model teleports- for any reason- it is possessed on a roll of a 1. Warp Spiders just love this rule!
People moving their Jet-pack models 12' inches in the movement phase.
I played an Eldar guy on the weekend who moved his Warp Spiders 12', insisting they are both Jet & Jump Infantry. I play Eldar as my primary army, and quickly whipped my codex & rulebook out and showed him that they can move 6' as walking, or 2d6+6 using their packs.
CrownAxe wrote: That the Aegis Defense Line works on TLoS like everything else
It baffles me how many times people claim that standing within 2" of it gives you its cover save
Weirdly enough, that was one of the many rules mistakes that made me abandon a gaming group. Seriously, I even had the rulebook out in front of me, and I explained how cover worked, but I still got outvoted, and only things within 2" of the ADL were allowed the 4+ save (while things further back got a 5+ save for being obscured).
I swear this group just played a mishmash of rules from 4th, 5th, and 6th edition, because some of the things that they would pull out were just bizarre.
CrownAxe wrote: That the Aegis Defense Line works on TLoS like everything else
It baffles me how many times people claim that standing within 2" of it gives you its cover save
Weirdly enough, that was one of the many rules mistakes that made me abandon a gaming group. Seriously, I even had the rulebook out in front of me, and I explained how cover worked, but I still got outvoted, and only things within 2" of the ADL were allowed the 4+ save (while things further back got a 5+ save for being obscured).
I swear this group just played a mishmash of rules from 4th, 5th, and 6th edition, because some of the things that they would pull out were just bizarre.
To be fair though, cover has terrible rules and the Aegis makes that situation worse. Maybe they just house ruled it?
This is partly why I've been enjoying video games for a while. The rules don't change because of a disagreement or misunderstanding of how an ability or buff or stat works. My Shaman's Haste rating didn't make her move faster because I misunderstood how Haste worked at first.
Davor wrote:I don't think it applies to 6th anymore but in 5th, when rolling to see who goes first, and the first roll is a tie, and you roll again, and it's still a tie, the game is over.
insaniak wrote:That would technically still apply. The rules specifically forbid you from re-rolling anything more than once.
Both of these rules are on pg. 5, I find it funny that they contradict each other so early in the book. "...no single dice can be re-rolled more than once, regardless of the source of the re-roll." and then "If the players roll the same result, both dice must be re-rolled until one player is the winner."lol
Needing to re-roll more than once also comes up in other places, such as rolling for psyker powers. You aren't allowed to have the same power twice, and have to re-roll until you get a different one. Roll it twice and the game breaks.
You can also argue that it's a case of general vs specific. Prohibiting "all re-rolls" is a fairly wide scope, but re-rerolling until someone wins first turn is a fairly specific instance of permission that overrules the "all re-rerolls" thing.
Davor wrote: I don't think it applies to 6th anymore but in 5th, when rolling to see who goes first, and the first roll is a tie, and you roll again, and it's still a tie, the game is over.
If the re-roll fails too, call a new game and keep going until:
a. you get bored,
b. someone wins the roll.
If only 1 re-roll can happen per game, just play again. It'll lead to lots of handshaking, but you get to play eventually.
Night fighting: We usually forget to roll at all, and when we do, forget about it by turn 5 anyway.
Grenades: 1 model per shooting unit gets forgotten, unless it's haywire.
Fear: Never happens. We always forget that too.
Init when charging: Since assaults only really happen to vehicles, I doesn't come up much.
Cover and 2": most of us started at 5th and later, so the 2" rule only exist as a distant memory.
I find that people look at me funny when I explain that since a second source of pinning caused a wound on a unit they must make ANOTHER pinning check since it was from a seperate unit's fire.
Davor wrote: I don't think it applies to 6th anymore but in 5th, when rolling to see who goes first, and the first roll is a tie, and you roll again, and it's still a tie, the game is over.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I find that people look at me funny when I explain that since a second source of pinning caused a wound on a unit they must make ANOTHER pinning check since it was from a seperate unit's fire.
I actually had this one confused, glad you brought it up. I was treating pinning tests the same as the moral tests for losing more than 25% (one test made at the end of that phase).
Terrain, terrain, terrain, and cover saves. Half the fellas in my 25+ member group think that if it's not the open table top, it's 4+ area terrain. It gets frustrating explaining it every game.
For a group that uses an unusually high amount of sniper rifles, we ALWAYS forget about pinning tests.
Forgetting about Fear happens to me too. Doesn't help that I play overwhelmingly against various flavors of Space Marines, so it doesn't come up often.
It takes the most experienced members of our gaming group to remember to roll for night fighting.
We don't use the Warp Storm table most of the time for Daemons, but this is more of a personal preference than getting the rule wrong.
We know about all the scenarios and objectives, but half the time we just toss them aside and fight to annihilation.
Every alliance is an Alliance of Convenience.
We have, knowingly and deliberately, ignored the allies chart to let Daemons fight alongside Grey Knights.
Because some men don't care about tournaments or RAW. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
- FMCs and Flyers are subject to the same line of sight and cover rules as any other unit
- Flyers have firing arcs
- Having two shots from Rapid Fire does not reduce the weapon's range when it comes to wound allocation
- Ordnance and Barrage are separate things
- Template weapons cannot allocate wounds out of line of sight, even if they're Torrent
- Template weapons and blasts that aren't Barrage follow the same wound allocation rules as normal shooting attacks
- You need line of sight to declare a charge
- You do not need line of sight to complete a charge
- Pretty much any time you need to use random allocation
- Scoring vehicles are not automatically denial units
- An army must have a warlord to be a legal list
- Your warlord must be from your primary detachment
- Your warlord must be a character
You're like 98% right PrinceRaven but only because of two things:
Codex Inquisition lets the Inquisitor be the Warlord even if he's not in the Primary Detachment (it's mentioned under the Warlord traits section how an Inquisitor can be your Warlord of he's in the Inquisitorial detachment....which makes sense fluff wise but mucks with the rules).
Codex Supplement Iyanden lets you use a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord and neither are characters.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're like 98% right PrinceRaven but only because of two things:
Codex Inquisition lets the Inquisitor be the Warlord even if he's not in the Primary Detachment (it's mentioned under the Warlord traits section how an Inquisitor can be your Warlord of he's in the Inquisitorial detachment....which makes sense fluff wise but mucks with the rules).
Codex Supplement Iyanden lets you use a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord and neither are characters.
A Wraithlord is a character.
Neither are HQ slots though, which would also disqualify them normally.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're like 98% right PrinceRaven but only because of two things:
Codex Inquisition lets the Inquisitor be the Warlord even if he's not in the Primary Detachment (it's mentioned under the Warlord traits section how an Inquisitor can be your Warlord of he's in the Inquisitorial detachment....which makes sense fluff wise but mucks with the rules).
Codex Supplement Iyanden lets you use a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord and neither are characters.
A Wraithlord is a character.
Neither are HQ slots though, which would also disqualify them normally.
Well I was half right then, as a Wraightknight isn't a character.
I forgot they "upgraded" the Wraithlord to character status though.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're like 98% right PrinceRaven but only because of two things:
Codex Inquisition lets the Inquisitor be the Warlord even if he's not in the Primary Detachment (it's mentioned under the Warlord traits section how an Inquisitor can be your Warlord of he's in the Inquisitorial detachment....which makes sense fluff wise but mucks with the rules).
Codex Supplement Iyanden lets you use a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord and neither are characters.
Well, yeah, there are exceptions, but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about when someone tries to bring a Tervigon as their only HQ choice or ally in Shadowsun and use her Warlord trait.
I forgot they "upgraded" the Wraithlord to character status though.
Nope, they were characters with the old codex too. Precision shooting Bright Lances baby!
Other rules that people get wrong are piling models into combat before their init step, and forgetting that they need to be within range of a model locked in combat to strike.
Using flamers over friendly models.
Asking for a morale check after each shooting attack, rather than at the end of the phase.
I played a guy at a tournament this past weekend who didn't put his Hive Crone's on their stands. I asked him to put the models on their stands and on the board. His reply was "But then I can't get them next to each other, they won't fit" I replied "My point exactly". He then went to the TO for a ruling, and was promptly told that it's a game of models, not bases.
CrownAxe wrote: That the Aegis Defense Line works on TLoS like everything else
It baffles me how many times people claim that standing within 2" of it gives you its cover save
Weirdly enough, that was one of the many rules mistakes that made me abandon a gaming group. Seriously, I even had the rulebook out in front of me, and I explained how cover worked, but I still got outvoted, and only things within 2" of the ADL were allowed the 4+ save (while things further back got a 5+ save for being obscured).
I swear this group just played a mishmash of rules from 4th, 5th, and 6th edition, because some of the things that they would pull out were just bizarre.
To be fair though, cover has terrible rules and the Aegis makes that situation worse. Maybe they just house ruled it?
I would totally believe that if it weren't for everything else they "house ruled." Just a few examples:
1. Consolidating after an assault isn't a die roll anymore, it's just a flat 3".
2. If a vehicle is an assault vehicle, you can always disembark from it after moving, no matter how fast it moved.
3. You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.
Believe me, the 2" cover rule was not an isolated incident. I stopped going to that game store because I got sick of trying to get people to actually follow the rules.
Yeah, Witchfires should at least automatically hit like Maledictions / Blessings. It's silly how they need to pass a psychic test (with risk of wounds / death), roll to hit, pass an arbitrary anti-psyker save that all units get, and then the target still gets any usual protection such as cover saves.
Crazy.
PrinceRaven wrote:- Scoring vehicles are not automatically denial units
Might I ask when this applies? I never knew this one.
Here's some;
- You may only accept (And I believe issue) a challenge if your model is engaged in combat AND a character. (You'd be surprised how many times people have tried to tell me "Oh, there's no character so I/you can accept with ANY model")
- When you charge you put the closest model to the closest model and then *attempt* to put the others into B2B with other enemy models. This does NOT give permission to move further than the 2D6" you rolled. -.- (Had a guy barely make it into B2B with the closest model and he moved the others behind my squad of 30 Boyz....)
- People thinking they can fire more witchfires than the model may normally fire as shooting attacks.
- Necron players shooting the Death Ray and firing the other weapons at a unit they didn't even hit with the ray.
- Necron players thinking that the Death Ray is from anywhere on the hull. Also ignoring firing arcs on the Death Ray. (that thing DOES have them, right?)
PrinceRaven wrote:- Scoring vehicles are not automatically denial units
Might I ask when this applies? I never knew this one.
Fast Attack vehicles in The Scouring, Heavy Support Vehicles in Big Guns Never Tire, and Imperial Knights taken in a Primary detachment are all scoring non-denial units.
Yes, people do seem to conveniently forget firing arcs, particularly on Flyers.
PrinceRaven wrote:- Scoring vehicles are not automatically denial units
Might I ask when this applies? I never knew this one.
Fast Attack vehicles in The Scouring, Heavy Support Vehicles in Big Guns Never Tire, and Imperial Knights taken in a Primary detachment are all scoring non-denial units.
Yes, people do seem to conveniently forget firing arcs, particularly on Flyers.
Aha! Thank you.
Wait, so HS and FA can claim Linebreaker in Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring respectively?
Most of my group tends to forget that as vehicles, you ignore the Flyers base for just about everything, and measure to the hull. Especially when moving. Moving within the playing area not a big deal, however, they always try to get that extra inch when coming in from reserves.
PrinceRaven wrote:- Scoring vehicles are not automatically denial units
Might I ask when this applies? I never knew this one.
Fast Attack vehicles in The Scouring, Heavy Support Vehicles in Big Guns Never Tire, and Imperial Knights taken in a Primary detachment are all scoring non-denial units.
Yes, people do seem to conveniently forget firing arcs, particularly on Flyers.
Aha! Thank you.
Wait, so HS and FA can claim Linebreaker in Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring respectively?
Happyjew wrote: Most of my group tends to forget that as vehicles, you ignore the Flyers base for just about everything, and measure to the hull. Especially when moving. Moving within the playing area not a big deal, however, they always try to get that extra inch when coming in from reserves.
PrinceRaven wrote:- Scoring vehicles are not automatically denial units
Might I ask when this applies? I never knew this one.
Fast Attack vehicles in The Scouring, Heavy Support Vehicles in Big Guns Never Tire, and Imperial Knights taken in a Primary detachment are all scoring non-denial units.
Yes, people do seem to conveniently forget firing arcs, particularly on Flyers.
Aha! Thank you.
Wait, so HS and FA can claim Linebreaker in Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring respectively?
Correct.
Ah, thank you.
^_^
As for measuring on a flyer...
I had a guy that tried to claim an objective with a Doomscythe. He was measuring from the base, of course. The objective was on the lowest possible ground for a gaming board.
On topic;
- People think that flyers can't claim an objective (in Big Guns/Scouring, obviously) unless they hover. This *is* assuming that the hull is close enough, of course.
- People think you can't put the relic into a flyer that is zooming. (You can, it just automatically crashes.)
ClockworkZion wrote: You're like 98% right PrinceRaven but only because of two things:
Codex Inquisition lets the Inquisitor be the Warlord even if he's not in the Primary Detachment (it's mentioned under the Warlord traits section how an Inquisitor can be your Warlord of he's in the Inquisitorial detachment....which makes sense fluff wise but mucks with the rules).
Codex Supplement Iyanden lets you use a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord and neither are characters.
Well, yeah, there are exceptions, but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about when someone tries to bring a Tervigon as their only HQ choice or ally in Shadowsun and use her Warlord trait.
Tervigons are an HQ choice though. You have to take a bunch of Gaunts to be allowed to take them as a Troops choice.
And yeah, allies outside of the Inq don't get to be Warlords.
PrinceRaven wrote: Tervigons aren't characters, so they can't your Warlord, thus no army can have a Tervigon as its only HQ.
Except that there is nothing stopping you from doing it in the Nids Codex. And we've already got Wraithknight Warlords despite not being characters so it's not like it's the first example of this. But this will quickly turn into a RAW vs RAI so I'll stop here.
EDIT: And Imperial Knights have no characters either, but they still get Warlord Traits.
Maybe that should be considered a rule GW gets wrong in 40k?
PrinceRaven wrote: Tervigons aren't characters, so they can't your Warlord, thus no army can have a Tervigon as its only HQ.
Except that there is nothing stopping you from doing it in the Nids Codex. And we've already got Wraithknight Warlords despite not being characters so it's not like it's the first example of this. But this will quickly turn into a RAW vs RAI so I'll stop here.
Of course the rule isn't in the Nid Codex, it's in the Rulebook.
EDIT: And Imperial Knights have no characters either, but they still get Warlord Traits.
Maybe that should be considered a rule GW gets wrong in 40k?
Yes, because they have a rule that allows them to break the usual Warlord rules, like the Inquisition does and Tyranids don't.
PrinceRaven wrote: Tervigons aren't characters, so they can't your Warlord, thus no army can have a Tervigon as its only HQ.
Except that there is nothing stopping you from doing it in the Nids Codex. And we've already got Wraithknight Warlords despite not being characters so it's not like it's the first example of this. But this will quickly turn into a RAW vs RAI so I'll stop here.
Of course the rule isn't in the Nid Codex, it's in the Rulebook.
Which is an issues because you shouldn't need to look in the rulebook to get the restrictions of your codex can and can't do like that. GW is usually pretty good about just saying what options are restricted in the book itself, so the fact that it doesn't tell players that they can't use a Tervigon as a Warlord is definitely GW's fault.
You're playing Kill Team, is a Warlord required? No.
That's why they don't put in the book, for the same reason they don't put the force org chart in the book. They're rules specific to playing the basic game laid out in the rulebook, while the Tyranid Codex can be used in more than just those missions.
While you are correct that it doesn't, it is also a variant game that still has warlord like traits in it. Also good luck fitting 30 Gaunts and a Tervigon in a 200 point list.
PrinceRaven wrote: That's why they don't put in the book, for the same reason they don't put the force org chart in the book. They're rules specific to playing the basic game laid out in the rulebook, while the Tyranid Codex can be used in more than just those missions.
I'll b honest, I didn't even notice that they pulled FOC out of the 6th edition codexes. I don't see why when 5th ed had them and those books were meant for Kill Teams, Cities of Death and Battle Missions though.
And as I pointed out, the requirement to take a Warlord is not bound to FOC, it's bound to the rules involving Warlords.
That SM chapter master with all the fun wargear and a bike in front of the unit of Centurians? Yeah I am going to focus fire on the models without a cover save (from jink).
PrinceRaven wrote: Well, if you're playing with an alternate Force Org Chart a Warlord might not be required.
Warlords aren't a requirement by FOC, they're required by the rules for Warlords.
doesnt the new nid book tell you you HAVE to roll on the warlord table... and its being disputed as pure raw which is great in YMDC.... sadly the real world tends to invade when the rules are written by GW and their loose english and double using of words. these rules arent written to MTG standards.
Are you referring to this rule?
"When generating its Warlord Traits, a Tyranid Warlord may either roll on one of the Warlord Traits tables in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, or instead roll on the Warlord Traits table presented here."
as i dont own the nid dex its something i have heard that it was a they ahd to roll on the table.
perhaps im also missing how many armies have a HQ, thats NOT a character? im just going through the codex's i have. from 6th that seems to be the only hq choice not labeled a character... would you consider this an oversight from GW? their typical balls up? or saying character in more than one sense?
(if they exist id love a list) dont bother with stuff like x model in a command squad isnt a character but yeah
xttz wrote: "Every army contains at least one Headquarters unit, and a character from one of the army's HQ units must be nominated as the army's Warlord"
~BRB pg108
It's clearly an oversight - as people have already stated you can have Knight or Wraithknight warlords, which aren't Characters.
I think I was the only one who was actually making a point of that, and last I checked the only time I've ever used "we" was to invoke the "royal we" as in "we are not amused at being referred to as a group of people".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ausYenLoWang wrote: as i dont own the nid dex its something i have heard that it was a they ahd to roll on the table.
perhaps im also missing how many armies have a HQ, thats NOT a character? im just going through the codex's i have. from 6th that seems to be the only hq choice not labeled a character... would you consider this an oversight from GW? their typical balls up? or saying character in more than one sense?
Tervigons might benefit from character status. Powerfist Sarge runs up and gets crumped in a challenge by Crushing Claws because MCs don't care about "unwieldly".
But yes, it's an oversight by GW one way or the other.
Davor wrote: Now I think we are dangerously making a YMDC here. But now I am confused. I thought WE HAD TO have a Warlord.
So is CWZ saying taking a Warlord is optional? I thought it was Mandatory.
No, no I am not. I'm saying there is an obvious issue involving the Tervigon not being a character but not being limited from being you're only HQ choice. I blame GW for that one as it breaks RAW about needing a Warlord.
Frankly the "it must be a character to be a Warlord" thing is kind of pants. I'd rather they'd gone to Fantasy route and highest Leadership (or you choose if it's a tie) is the Warlord.
rigeld2 wrote: It is mandatory. A list without a warlord is as illegal as a list with only a single troops choice.
Unless you're playing a mini-codex that says otherwise on the troops thing.
Seriously this whole game is a big list of "you can/can't do X unless you have this rule that makes it so you can/can't do X". It's all loopholes based on knowing specific rules. Makes me thik a bit of 3.5 D&D.
add to that CWZ how loose gw are over their use of english... as wel all know and i said before this isnt written like MTG, the fact that there is even a YMDC section as always speeks to this :(
You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.
ausYenLoWang wrote: add to that CWZ how loose gw are over their use of english... as wel all know and i said before this isnt written like MTG, the fact that there is even a YMDC section as always speeks to this :(
GW is British. They write like Brits.
And GW is picking up clues from other games, slowly. The use of universal USRs with key words instead of inventing 10 new rules that do the same exact same thing in four different codexes is something they've recently gained in 6th and it's a small improvement, but an improvement none-the-less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sickening wrote: You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.
Sorry but I can't find the rules to support this.
Of course not, as it was someone mentioning the kind of house rules the folks they know play with.
So, we've gone off a bit of a tangent, let's get this thread on track:
- Vector Strike does not need Line of Sight
- Beasts and other units that "are not slowed by difficult terrain" still need grenades to strike at initiative when charging through difficult terrain
- Jump Infantry don't get Hammer of Wrath unless they use their jump pack in the assault phase
- Look Out, Sir! happens before saves are rolled
- Flyers & FMCs have to choose whether to Skyfire or not at the beginning of the shooting phase
- A Hovering Flyer or Gliding FMC cannot choose to Skyfire
Setting up the table seems to be something I see done incorrectly a lot of the time so let's go over the mistakes I usually see:
-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.
-Terrain is set up by using 2'x2' sections
-Each section gets D3 terrain peices, which need to be a sing substantial element (building, forest, ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller terrain peices (such as battlefield debris).
-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)
-Terrain that's in more than one 2'x2' section counts for which ever section the majority of it is in
-After setting up terrain players are free to move and shuffle terrain about as long as both sides agree on it to "create the best looking board possible"
Basically you should have at minimum 6 good sized terrain peices (like buildings, or forests), and upwards to 18. Small things, such as battlefield debris count as a single peice of terrain in groups of up to 3 pieces. So setting it up like 5th edition with a single piece in each corner and one in the middle isn't good enough kids.
It doesn't have to be City Fight (but honestly unless you're playing a gunline City Fight is a fine way to think of how dense it should be ), but generally people need more terrain because they're just not using enough of it.
PrinceRaven wrote: For me, it's not so much as doing it correctly as it is thinking the the terrain setup rules are completely idiotic and deliberately ignoring them.
Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.
It's the fortifications before terrain thing that really bothers me, it makes absolutely zero sense.
I much prefer the Narrative Terrain deployment setup.
PrinceRaven wrote: It's the fortifications before terrain thing that really bothers me, it makes absolutely zero sense.
I much prefer the Narrative Terrain deployment setup.
Which is basically "wing it as long as it serves the story" if I recall correctly. And that's fine, but I still think for your average player you need something akin to hand holding to get them to put enough terrain on the table.
I think it says something along the lines of both players being happy with the terrain placement, so if there's not enough terrain on the board just say you're not happy with it.
PrinceRaven wrote: For me, it's not so much as doing it correctly as it is thinking the the terrain setup rules are completely idiotic and deliberately ignoring them.
Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.
These rules would've been fine if it wasn't for the fortification BS- I love having tons of terrain but in the last tourney I played in my opponent cut off my ADL with a 6" tall 2' long wall with no stairs or access points...
I object to this. :p I am quite capable of writing a tight, concise ruleset for a game with all my British spelling and use of language.
The game system for Tsunami - Wave of Change is very simple.
Most actions will be resolved narratively, with no dice rolling involved.
When there is a conflict between two individuals that risks physical injury, or there is a chance of danger if an action is failed, a single D20 will be rolled.
Odd numbers are good. Even numbers are bad.
A roll of a 1 is a critical success, while a roll of a 3 or a 9 is a good success.
A roll of a 20 is a critical failure, while a roll of a 12 or 16 is a serious failure.
If a character is skilled in the task being attempted and a failure is rolled, they may roll a d6. On a 4+, a failure becomes a success, a serious failure becomes a failure, and a critical failure becomes a serious failure.
That's it.
See? A whole RPG system in 8-10 lines (Depending on wordwrap). Made In England.
sickening wrote: You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.
Sorry but I can't find the rules to support this.
This seems to be an issue with how people are writing examples in this thread, half of the posts have the ridiculous rule, half the posts have the real rule. In my case, it's definitely just a ridiculous rule that someone seems to have gotten the impression that that's how it works, because under the real rules, you target an enemy unit, which gives them a Deny the Witch save.
On the topic of psychic powers, I came across an interesting one the other day that I'm pretty sure everyone at my FLGS has been doing wrong, and that's rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek. Every time anyone used it, they just rolled the psychic test, rolled the Deny the Witch test, and then rolled the 3d6 for the power's effect. But unless I missed a FAQ somewhere, it is in fact a witchfire power, meaning that it has to roll to hit before it can be used.
ClockworkZion wrote:GW is British. They write like Brits.
HEY! I'm offensive and I find that to be incredibly British.
ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.
Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"
ClockworkZion wrote:-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)
Why would someone want to do that?
O.o
- You make your saves up until you hit a character/member with a different save. Then decide if you want to Look Out, Sir! NOT roll 20 4+ saves even though the 10th out of the 21 guys is a Necron Lord.
Also, with the above, I guess that would be; You remove models CLOSEST to the firing models. Not take all your saves and ignore the 10th guy with a 2+ because you took 20 4+ saves.
>.>
- You cannot Look Out, Sir! a Look out, Sir!
- You cannot Look Out, Sir! onto a model unless it is the closest and within 6". No that one Guardsman at the back of your 50 man squad.
- You cannot Look Out, Sir! unless it is a character.
Locclo wrote: On the topic of psychic powers, I came across an interesting one the other day that I'm pretty sure everyone at my FLGS has been doing wrong, and that's rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek. Every time anyone used it, they just rolled the psychic test, rolled the Deny the Witch test, and then rolled the 3d6 for the power's effect. But unless I missed a FAQ somewhere, it is in fact a witchfire power, meaning that it has to roll to hit before it can be used.
Well all they're doing is skipping the bit where you roll 0 dice, since Psychic Shriek is an Assault 0 Witchfire that resolves its effect regardless of whether it hits the target or not.
ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.
Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"
It's even worse from a nerative viewpoint (which is incredibly ironic given the whole "forge a nerative" bullsh*t GW dumps on whoever criticizes their rules)- by placing fortifications first and terrain second you're essentially saying construction crews came and built a defensive emplacement in an empty open plain and then geology happened...
It's stupid enough when you have to make believe that some imperial commander decided to erect a defensive position in the middle of nowhere followed by some architect who reached the conclusion it'll be a particularly bright idea to build the administratum building right in front of that quad gun, but placing a hill/rock formation there that's tall enough to render the thing useless basically means your army had to travel hundreds of thousands if not millions of years back in time in order to build that ADL...
Seriously, from both a nerative and game rules perspective you'd have to be a real idiot to write up this terrain setup order, and I'm being both generous and rather mild with my terminology here.
As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.
Leonus wrote: As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.
I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.
Galorian wrote: I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.
I do not recall anyone ever complaining.
Rolling for deployment type and table-end usually sorts that out.
Also, IIRC, players get to rearrange the terrain before the game starts anyway.
I object to this. :p I am quite capable of writing a tight, concise ruleset for a game with all my British spelling and use of language.
You can object all you like, but they write in a way that feels very stereotypically British. And it's not just the spelling, it's the word choice. All in all the only way it could feel more British is if my rulebooks came with a complimentary cup of tea.
ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.
Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"
It's even worse from a nerative viewpoint (which is incredibly ironic given the whole "forge a nerative" bullsh*t GW dumps on whoever criticizes their rules)- by placing fortifications first and terrain second you're essentially saying construction crews came and built a defensive emplacement in an empty open plain and then geology happened...
It's stupid enough when you have to make believe that some imperial commander decided to erect a defensive position in the middle of nowhere followed by some architect who reached the conclusion it'll be a particularly bright idea to build the administratum building right in front of that quad gun, but placing a hill/rock formation there that's tall enough to render the thing useless basically means your army had to travel hundreds of thousands if not millions of years back in time in order to build that ADL...
Seriously, from both a nerative and game rules perspective you'd have to be a real idiot to write up this terrain setup order, and I'm being both generous and rather mild with my terminology here.
Just forge a narrative The construction crew obviously got lost in the warp.
I object to this. :p I am quite capable of writing a tight, concise ruleset for a game with all my British spelling and use of language.
You can object all you like, but they write in a way that feels very stereotypically British. And it's not just the spelling, it's the word choice. All in all the only way it could feel more British is if my rulebooks came with a complimentary cup of tea.
I am offensive and I also find this to be very British.
You want a cuppa, mate?
:3
WAITWAITWAIT.
So your books all have our British spellings?
I did wonder about that, actually.
ClockworkZion wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote:-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)
Why would someone want to do that?
O.o
I don't know, but on some forum somewhere I recall a question about putting an ADL inside of Ruins.
....
...
Wha...?
I just don't even...
<.<
Automatically Appended Next Post: - Dedicated Transports being separate units from their own unit.
- FA and HS Dedicated Transports score in Scouring/Big Guns respectively.
On the subject of terrain, I much prefer the 5th edition way that things worked. You set up terrain so that both you and your opponent are happy, and THEN roll off to pick sides. You would have to put of fortifications after picking sides and deploying terrain for this version, but it created a far more balanced game because you had to make sure both sides were about equal. (So you wouldn't be screwed over by getting the wrong side.)
Waaaghpower wrote: On the subject of terrain, I much prefer the 5th edition way that things worked. You set up terrain so that both you and your opponent are happy, and THEN roll off to pick sides. You would have to put of fortifications after picking sides and deploying terrain for this version, but it created a far more balanced game because you had to make sure both sides were about equal. (So you wouldn't be screwed over by getting the wrong side.)
1. Opponent puts large flat piece of terrain in middle of board to make it difficult to block line of sight
2. I put line of sight blocking terrain in front of opponent's Quad Gun
3. Opponent puts the nice big ruin piece on their side of the board so I can't have it
The terrain placement rules encourage players to be jerks and I don't think that's a good way to start off the game.
PrinceRaven wrote: 1. Opponent puts large flat piece of terrain in middle of board to make it difficult to block line of sight
2. I put line of sight blocking terrain in front of opponent's Quad Gun
3. Opponent puts the nice big ruin piece on their side of the board so I can't have it
The terrain placement rules encourage players to be jerks and I don't think that's a good way to start off the game.
No more or less than doing it any other way really. Frankly doing that I think that acting like that with the terrain (or really anything in the game) breaks the whole "don't act like a dick" thing basically outlined in the "Spirit of the Game" bit at the start of the rulebook, which talks about the game being a thing that needs to be enjoyable for BOTH players. Which really needs to be a rule (kind of like how Warmachine has that page about basically not being a dick in their rulebook) just to get people approaching the game in a manner that isn't "how can I screw over my opponent so I can win easier?"
I'd rather just use narrative terrain setup than having to deliberately handicap myself and rely on my opponent to do the same just to make a system work.
PrinceRaven wrote: I'd rather just use narrative terrain setup than having to deliberately handicap myself and rely on my opponent to do the same just to make a system work.
I fail how setting up a fair and balanced table under the new rules is any different than the narrative set up or how it puts you at a disadvantage. All it takes is some decent sportsmanship and not acting like a dick.
davethepak wrote: I thought the terrain set up rules were rubbish as well.
UNTIL WE ACTUALLY TRIED THEM.
Now, my friends and I use the terrain set up rules in every game we can. it really adds another dynamic to the game, and is a ton of fun.
Don't read it and judge, actually do it. It adds a lot more to the game.
- often we forget night fighting
- barrage and cover saves in area terrain (I always forget if this works or not).
I do use the new rules. All the time. And I stand by my statement that calling them slowed is rather accurate. For creating a scenic looking battlefield, it's just awful. For creating an interesting layout, its awful. Assault armies always block Line of Sight in a big line down the middle of the board, and shooty armies always stick every big piece of terrain in the corner where it is useless. If you use the official rules any other way, you are handicapping yourself. The only terrain placement style that is rewarded ends up with stupid, un-fluffy boards. If you want a decent looking board, you have to A. Not give yourself any help for the upcoming game and B. Pray that your opponent cares about looks.
The one thing EVERYONE gets wrong is thinking the way they believe the rules should be played, is the only way to play the 40k game.
40k is not written as a clearly defined instruction to play a specific game.(As most other games on sale are.)
But rather a group of ideas roughly shaped into a GUIDE LINE on how you COULD play the game.
The 40k rules DEPEND on mutually agreeing on interpretation/changing of rules, what selection of units you are going to include, and how competitive you are going to play.
For groups that meet regularly , this is not so much of a problem.But for pick up games it can cause quite a few 'issues'.
'The only important rule then is the rules are not all that important.'
But I suppose if you are paying a premium price for a book that said it is a 'rule book', some people could believe the rules have to be important .
Otherwise you might as well just download free rules off the internet and house rules them to fit your idea of what 40k should play like.
ClockworkZion wrote:Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.
Leonus wrote:As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.
Galorian wrote:I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.
I do not recall anyone ever complaining.
I always use narrative setup too, but I think the important thing to remember is that, by the rules, a 6th edition 40k table should now have an average of twelve bits of significantly-sized terrain (with scatter terrain counting in group of three). That's a lot more than 5ed....
ClockworkZion wrote:Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.
Leonus wrote:As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.
Galorian wrote:I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.
I do not recall anyone ever complaining.
I always use narrative setup too, but I think the important thing to remember is that, by the rules, a 6th edition 40k table should now have an average of twelve bits of significantly-sized terrain (with scatter terrain counting in group of three). That's a lot more than 5ed....
I like to set up buildings so that their fronts align into a "street" that bisects the map, sometimes with an administratum building with an open square in front of it in the middle. A large gate with walls stretching to either side of it would be the "town limits" with mostly natural terrain beyond it. I then add sandbags and the like in likely places so it'll look like the place was previously defended and thuroughly trashed in previous battles (usually the lines would be facing the city gate and/or cutting off streets/alleys).
Too bad most of my terrain is unpainted (not to mention most of my buildings are butchered naked cardboard boxes and duct tape)...
So to add on to what I was saying before about Fear.
I talked to a couple of mates (there was a tournament going on today, and I was surprised when a Tau player told his opponent to roll for Fear after charging with his Riptide). Here are a few of the things that were said:
I generally don't bother, it doesn't affect things much.
What is "Fear"?
Dude, you're thinking Fantasy, 40K doesn't have Fear.
Happyjew wrote: So to add on to what I was saying before about Fear.
I talked to a couple of mates (there was a tournament going on today, and I was surprised when a Tau player told his opponent to roll for Fear after charging with his Riptide). Here are a few of the things that were said:
I generally don't bother, it doesn't affect things much.
What is "Fear"?
Dude, you're thinking Fantasy, 40K doesn't have Fear.
Thinking of Fear, I think we need a "Terror" rule in 40k. Things like Greater Daemons, the Swarmlord and generally monsters of that caliber (either big and extra dimensional or so identifiable, like the Swarmlord, that it can make you crap your pants through reputation alone).
Additionally, I'm fine with Space Marines ignoring Fear, I can even handle the "Can't Be Swept in Close Combat" part of the rule (which needs to be it's own rule like "Stand Your Ground!" to make it more universal, for like CSM who should have that bonus), but that auto-rally nonsense needs to go. That is some literal BS that is making ATSKNF broken for how much it basically costs Marines. Make it a seperate rule, give it to special elite units in armies and not just Marines if you want it on the table (preferably only as long as there is a character in the unit too) or get rid of it.
Sorry, ATSKNF bugs me because as a rule it gives way to many benefits in a single rule.
I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?) but it is also quite difficult to balance gamewise.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)
I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?) but it is also quite difficult to balance gamewise.
Even if it's fluffy it should not be a rule with 3 unique effects, it should be three separate rules that they basically pay for each of. ATSKNF is the only rule that has three different effects like that. It's like the Interceptor problem all over again, if GW wanted a rule for shooting at incoming reserves units and a rule for shooting at ground targets if you're a model who has Skyfire they should have been two different rules instead of one.
But looking past the fact that different effects warrant different rules, the regroup is too strong. It's not just a regroup, it's a free regroup followed by no penalty for movement, shooting or assaulting the turn. So Marines fall back and then get a 3" move followed by being allowed to move 6"....why? Why can they suddenly get to move 9" that turn in a game where Infantry moves 6"? It throws off the balance of the game and makes Marines faster that they should be.
I'm not too pleases with the "can't be swept" bit because there are lots of units and armies that shouldn't able to be swept by their own fluff. I mean, what about the careful calculating nature of the Necrons? They'd ever retreat if it'd put them in more danger than staying and you can still cut down their units by Sweeping Advances. Why are Marines the only ones who are immune to this? They don't even have the most expensive units in the game, so why are they getting such preferential treatment to this one rule?
Heck, even the immunity to Fear is weirdly overpowered. It's not a "per model" basis, but something you can buff whole units of Guardsmen with by loaning them a Independent Character. It hardly needs to be that strong and a "per model" application of Fear would just mean that in the same situation the Guardsmen would be able to go to WS1, but the Marine would be immune.
ATSKNF should have been just that, and been a rule that makes Marines immune to Fear (which is why we need Terror in the game so at the very least they can be unnerved by stuff that is a step above "I wee'd a little" and is in firmly "bring my brown pants" territory).
And thinking of Fear: entirely too many units are getting Fearless as a thing this edition. It's like Fifth Edition and it's obsession with handing out FnP and EW. I really hopes GW knocks that off because it's making what should be a cool and fluffy rule basically useless.
I agree. Fear is something that we just don't recognize in most games we play. I've had one person within the last year have me roll a fear check on MC, the rest of the times we just never remembered or never bothered.
Just like soul blaze. I've had to remind people that some weapons actually have soul blaze thrown on them and nobody seems to remember. Most of the time it just takes up extra time because we have to look up the rule to remember what it does just to roll and see that it does nothing. Ever. I don't think I've seen a single wound caused by it and it's just too much hassle to keep up with.
Oh and my two cents on ATSKNF and sweeping, I can't think of a good justification that a lot of HQ units like Crisis Suit commanders would get shived in the back while Tactical Marine Expendicus the 27th stands and fights.
On topic the one rule I've seen used wrongly the most is deep striking drop pods and units staying 1" away. Had lots of times where people tried slipping between models.
Line of Sight has to be one of my new favorites. Not many people seem to grasp the concept in my area. Your EW Iron Hand Chapter Master on a bike is the closest model, but I can't see him with any unit so the rest of his squad takes wounds instead of him.
I was hanging out at my FLGS yesterday (don't worry, I gave them most of my money on Friday so it's not like I'm one of those people who just freeloads off of them ) and I was taking a break from painting and wandered over to see how the Apoc game (which had a single Knight in it as its lone Superheavy, it was mostly massive collections of models which was cool) was going. I ended up explaining how Overwatch in an open-topped vehicle works to the Ork player who was running a Battlewagon because they didn't know that all their models could shoot if it's charged.
And apparently no one at the table was 100% how it worked out of like 6 people. I was a little saddened by this.
It took my opponent and I at least 7 minutes of rule arguing to figure out how to emergency disembark from a vehicle. He thought they all died for some reason, don't remember why.
It's mostly from the fact that combat and transports are rare this edition, and now combat with transports is even more rare.
Savageconvoy wrote: It took my opponent and I at least 7 minutes of rule arguing to figure out how to emergency disembark from a vehicle. He thought they all died for some reason, don't remember why.
It's mostly from the fact that combat and transports are rare this edition, and now combat with transports is even more rare.
Yeah, people seem to forget that GW made it harder to kill units off by blocking the doors.
With how much "Ignores Cover" that's being handed out (I'm looking at you Tau, Eldar and now that new Guard tank) I'm starting to wonder if people are just going to stop bothering with Cover Saves pretty soon.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)
I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.
That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.
They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.
That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.
They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.
But why is it that Space Marines are able to get this army wide and even confer it to non marine units?
Why are Crisis suits lead by a commander thrown into complete disarray and over run by cultist while a few tactical marines can turn back around and fight a Carnifex that just ate the rest of their squad?
I agree that there is a reason fluff wise on why they would have it. I disagree that fluffwise no other units would get these benefits.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)
I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.
That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.
They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.
Yes, because necrons, a race of machines who calculate everything and are driven by cold logic, would totally drop them guns and run to the hills when a guardsman whacks one over the head with his lasgun.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I can understand why ATSKNF works the way it does, it's fluffy (When Marines run, it is never out of fear, so why should they remain uncontrollable in their retreat?)
I disagree. When marines run, even if it is not out of fear, they are just as likely to get stabbed in the back as anyone else. So, no sweep immunity. When marines run, it takes them just as much time as everyone else. So, no free turn after regrouping. I am okay with auto-rallying. Just not with the awful broken combo rule ATSKNF is now.
That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.
They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.
And there are a lot of units who should be doing the same exact thing, that's why it's such an egregious error for it to be buried under ATSKNF and not available to other units. Either everyone has potentially the same access to it no one should. It shouldn't be nested inside of a rule that doesn't really fit the effect.
Hell, Necrons don't panic and break by their fluff, they make tactical retreats only when it's the best option (using complex probabilities and math most likely to know for sure) and yet we can mow down whole units of them.
Then again I think the Sweeping Advance rule should basically be changed to the Sweeping Unit getting a free attack for every model in it's unit on the unit that's trying to flee and they stay locked in combat (if the fleeing unit lives).
That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.
They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.
But why is it that Space Marines are able to get this army wide and even confer it to non marine units?
Why are Crisis suits lead by a commander thrown into complete disarray and over run by cultist while a few tactical marines can turn back around and fight a Carnifex that just ate the rest of their squad?
I agree that there is a reason fluff wise on why they would have it. I disagree that fluffwise no other units would get these benefits.
Oh, I never said that it should be exclusive to Space Marines.
Some kind of 'controlled retreat' USR should be implemented, and its mechanic removed from ATSKNF.
That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.
They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.
But why is it that Space Marines are able to get this army wide and even confer it to non marine units?
Why are Crisis suits lead by a commander thrown into complete disarray and over run by cultist while a few tactical marines can turn back around and fight a Carnifex that just ate the rest of their squad?
I agree that there is a reason fluff wise on why they would have it. I disagree that fluffwise no other units would get these benefits.
Oh, I never said that it should be exclusive to Space Marines.
Some kind of 'controlled retreat' USR should be implemented, and its mechanic removed from ATSKNF.
people talking about ATSKNF usually falls into one of two categories from what I've seen.
One side hates all the benefits it has for a 1pt upgrade and how no others get access to a fraction of the benefits.
-Compare ATSKNF to Vet of the Long War or Bonding Ritual. Both 1pt upgrades and one clearly stands out as more all around useful.
The other side just doesn't see the benefit to it and says it generally doesn't come into play much. Some have played games without it to show that it's just not needed.
I can actually see this, since a majority of the time I try to kill every last marine possible since I know they will just regroup and contest an objective. So if you're treating marines like they have it and putting in effort to kill them instead of just trying to run them off the board, then it probably won't make much difference.
I also hate it because it makes killing the squad leaders less important. You test on a slightly lower leadership and if you fail... well you'll get right back in the fight.
Once in 5th edition I played a game against a guy who worked in a game store and owned two 40k armies. At one point I moved a Basilisk and fired the gun directly in the subsequent shooting phase. Not everyone knew you could fire ordnance barrage weapons directly in that edition but that wasn't what he complained about. He said, "You can move and fire ordnance now?" Yes, yes you can move and fire ordnance now. You could do it in the previous edition too.
Ascalam wrote: The word is pronounced 'egreeeegious' (egregious for spelling) - egress means exit.
I also get tired of ATSKNF sillyiness, but that's GW for you
Sorry, it's still early for and my brain didn't recognize that spellcheck was offering the wrong word.
It's all good, but how often do i get to misquote Capt. Jack
'Couldn't resist, mate...'
I didn't drink last night and I still want to say "Why is all the rum gone?" so I know the feeling. Just one of those days that I'm not 100% I suppose.
I am offensive and I also find this to be very British.
You want a cuppa, mate?
:3
Actually I enjoy tea myself (I've sworn off soda and coffee just gives me heart burn). No lumps, no milk, just tea.
Ond Angel wrote: WAITWAITWAIT.
So your books all have our British spellings?
I did wonder about that, actually.
Yes, it's "Power Armour" here too.
And "colour". And because I have been playing off and on for 20 years…i use those spellings at work in my reports. I will normally mutter, "it's the British spelling."
PrinceRaven wrote: I am currently resisting the urge to go on a rant about the standardisation of the English language and the correct way to spell things.
See that's the thing, American English is the result of our country absorbing all the tired, weary and poor from everywhere else (to include the heavily illiterate...something that hasn't changed too much it seems) as well as every language they speak. Not to mention we had a long time of little direct influence from Jolly Ol' England (thanks to that whole revolution thing) so our English went one way, and theirs another.
Spelling and word choice aside, English is a horrible language that requires a lot of words to be extremely precise, even more so when trying to limit yourself to the most common words used as to not potentially lose your readers.
We generally ignore night fight rules.
We set up terrain however we feel like, nobody uses fortifications usually, but if they do they'd be placed after terrain.
We always forget soul blaze and awkwardly 50% of our group is some flavour of Chaos.
TheSilo wrote: You cannot take feel no pain against insta-kill!
Dark Angels don't get back up from a S10 AP2 demolisher blast!
And the related, Eternal Warrior doesn't mean you get to take FnP against Instant Death.
^Damn, beat me to it!
XD
I have had the same guy try to insist he gets FNP against my S10 AP<whatever> weapon because he's got EW.
Also; The same guy used to insist (as did a number of others) that they get FNPbefore my force weapon vaporises his ***** ass. (Y'know, assuming my librarian *doesn't* have an aneurysm trying to activate it.)
(That's not me being an ass to them, that's just the way we talk to each other. Friendly insults. )
Edit: Had this one the other day; You don't pile in if you can't make it into base to base or 2" of a friendly model's base. (This was them saying it.)
Ond Angel wrote: Edit: Had this one the other day; You don't pile in if you can't make it into base to base or 2" of a friendly model's base. (This was them saying it.)
If you're not in 2", you're not in coherency.
It happens in cc as models die, but it if happens in the initial charge, someone's got to hold back IIRC.
Ond Angel wrote: Edit: Had this one the other day; You don't pile in if you can't make it into base to base or 2" of a friendly model's base. (This was them saying it.)
If you're not in 2", you're not in coherency.
It happens in cc as models die, but it if happens in the initial charge, someone's got to hold back IIRC.
We were locked in combat. I'm talking about piling in at initiative step.
And I should have worded it clearer, I meant
or 2" of a friendly model's base that's in base to base
(Bold is what I added)
I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.
Ond Angel wrote: I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.
Ond Angel wrote: I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.
Is that a facepalm to me? Am I missing something? (I tend to miss things, sorry.)
Edit; I realise I get attacks, but I meant I don't get attacks with certain models. (Trying to avoid posting the entire rule)
Savageconvoy wrote: people talking about ATSKNF usually falls into one of two categories from what I've seen.
One side hates all the benefits it has for a 1pt upgrade and how no others get access to a fraction of the benefits.
-Compare ATSKNF to Vet of the Long War or Bonding Ritual. Both 1pt upgrades and one clearly stands out as more all around useful.
The other side just doesn't see the benefit to it and says it generally doesn't come into play much. Some have played games without it to show that it's just not needed.
I can actually see this, since a majority of the time I try to kill every last marine possible since I know they will just regroup and contest an objective. So if you're treating marines like they have it and putting in effort to kill them instead of just trying to run them off the board, then it probably won't make much difference.
I also hate it because it makes killing the squad leaders less important. You test on a slightly lower leadership and if you fail... well you'll get right back in the fight.
just gonna add, VotLW, its not always 1 point... the better the model type the more you pay.... very tedious
Ond Angel wrote: I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.
Is that a facepalm to me? Am I missing something? (I tend to miss things, sorry.)
Edit; I realise I get attacks, but I meant I don't get attacks with certain models. (Trying to avoid posting the entire rule)
I think it was a facepalm in your favor, because that's nonsense.
Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?
For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.
Happyjew wrote: Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?
For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.
But you do have to be within 3" as measured from the hull (pg 71 and pg 80, as the base is basically just there to hold it up, much like a skimmer is held up by the large flying base) and generally the model is going to be 5" off the table so that objective needs to be 2" tall or on the second floor of a building (or above) for it to work.
Happyjew wrote: Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?
For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.
But you do have to be within 3" as measured from the hull (pg 71 and pg 80, as the base is basically just there to hold it up, much like a skimmer is held up by the large flying base) and generally the model is going to be 5" off the table so that objective needs to be 2" tall or on the second floor of a building (or above) for it to work.
is correct fortunately the helldrakes wings can hang to an inch off the table top
And "colour". And because I have been playing off and on for 20 years…i use those spellings at work in my reports. I will normally mutter, "it's the British spelling."
Haha. I use inches and centimetres freely interchangeably because even though we're supposed to be metric over here, GW uses inches in everything except BFG.
ClockworkZion wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote: I am currently resisting the urge to go on a rant about the standardisation of the English language and the correct way to spell things.
See that's the thing, American English is the result of our country absorbing all the tired, weary and poor from everywhere else (to include the heavily illiterate...something that hasn't changed too much it seems) as well as every language they speak. Not to mention we had a long time of little direct influence from Jolly Ol' England (thanks to that whole revolution thing) so our English went one way, and theirs another.
Spelling and word choice aside, English is a horrible language that requires a lot of words to be extremely precise, even more so when trying to limit yourself to the most common words used as to not potentially lose your readers.
Actually, interestingly enough, American English is a lot closer to Old English than British English is. For example, England used to be criss-crossed by highways, but when we adopted the car wholesale we started calling them motorways instead. The most obvious difference (the dropped 'u') is because of independent development - when America were left to fend for themselves, spelling was still mostly considered optional.
Happyjew wrote:Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?
For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.
Well, in a way, they're kind of right. Not because of the rules, of course, but it's very difficult to maintain a hold on an objective when you're obligated to move 18" every turn.
Happyjew wrote:Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?
For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.
Well, in a way, they're kind of right. Not because of the rules, of course, but it's very difficult to maintain a hold on an objective when you're obligated to move 18" every turn.
Except for the Mysterious Objective bonuses, the only time controlling an objective matters is at the end of the game, at which point the Flyer is not moving anymore.
Well the other thing about Flyers is that they can't contest objectives (vehicle aren't contesting units) and can't score without special mission types or characters that make them scoring (but they still don't contest in that case).
Ond Angel wrote: I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.
Is that a facepalm to me? Am I missing something? (I tend to miss things, sorry.)
Edit; I realise I get attacks, but I meant I don't get attacks with certain models. (Trying to avoid posting the entire rule)
I think it was a facepalm in your favor, because that's nonsense.
Happyjew wrote: Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?
For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.
But you do have to be within 3" as measured from the hull (pg 71 and pg 80, as the base is basically just there to hold it up, much like a skimmer is held up by the large flying base) and generally the model is going to be 5" off the table so that objective needs to be 2" tall or on the second floor of a building (or above) for it to work.
is correct fortunately the helldrakes wings can hang to an inch off the table top
Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.)
Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.
BoomWolf wrote: Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You should re-read the vehicle rules.
When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) Note that, unlike for other
models,a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.)
Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.
BoomWolf wrote: Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You should re-read the vehicle rules.
When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) Note that, unlike for other
models,a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.)
Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.
Wrong.
BRB page 71, Vehicles & Measuring Distances wrote:ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.
Or is there another part I've missed?
Edit:
BRB page 73, Shooting At Vehicles wrote:When a unit fires at a vehicle... (ignoring the Vehicles gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc)
BoomWolf wrote: Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You should re-read the vehicle rules.
When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) Note that, unlike for other models,a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.) Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.
Wrong.
BRB page 71, Vehicles & Measuring Distances wrote:ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.
Or is there another part I've missed?
Edit:
BRB page 73, Shooting At Vehicles wrote:When a unit fires at a vehicle... (ignoring the Vehicles gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc)
Yes.
Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
BoomWolf wrote: Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You should re-read the vehicle rules.
When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) Note that, unlike for other
models,a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.)
Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.
Wrong.
BRB page 71, Vehicles & Measuring Distances wrote:ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.
Or is there another part I've missed?
Edit:
BRB page 73, Shooting At Vehicles wrote:When a unit fires at a vehicle... (ignoring the Vehicles gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc)
Yes.
Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
Ah, I see.
Thanks.
Edit: I guess that's what I get for not reading onwards.
That's good to know, though.
BoomWolf wrote: Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You should re-read the vehicle rules.
When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) Note that, unlike for other
models,a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.)
Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.
Wrong.
BRB page 71, Vehicles & Measuring Distances wrote:ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.
Or is there another part I've missed?
Edit:
BRB page 73, Shooting At Vehicles wrote:When a unit fires at a vehicle... (ignoring the Vehicles gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc)
Yes.
Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle's wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull.
Ah, I see.
Thanks.
Edit: I guess that's what I get for not reading onwards.
That's good to know, though.
yeah it also make shooting at drakes easier, they tend to stick out a bit so its almost a wash and the times you will use one to score is minimal... and the mesuring for the flamer as well was FAQ to mesure range from the base of the model and not the model itself.
PrinceRaven wrote: I'd rather just use narrative terrain setup than having to deliberately handicap myself and rely on my opponent to do the same just to make a system work.
But you are 100% onboard with not putting superheavies in your list and not only hoping your opponent doesn't...but insisting so? Interesting...
Well I could put my models down on the field, spend a couple of turns removing them, then pack up, but I don't really see the point.
My stance on Escalation conforms entirely with my stance on alternating terrain set-up, they are broken systems that I would rather simply not play with than try and make work through relying on both players to follow an elaborate code of conduct.
Also, didn't anyone tell you not to cross the streams threads?
)
