Or maybe some people are just pissed off that their competitve stategy has been ruined? You know some people really do play 40k competitively and *gasp* have fun?? Yeah, it might not be your personal bag but you don't have to piss on others cause they don't share your concept of a good time...
Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nudibranch wrote: Or maybe some people are just pissed off that their competitve stategy has been ruined? You know some people really do play 40k competitively and *gasp* have fun?? Yeah, it might not be your personal bag but you don't have to piss on others cause they don't share your concept of a good time...
I find it both apalling and intriguing you used the words 'competitive' and '40k' in the same sentence.
Topics closed, open up a thread if you want.
Neronoxx wrote: Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?
Depends if you count the supplements like Clan Raukon and the Dark Vengeance Chaos faction book(I forget the name) as mini factions or not, but up next should be the codexes.
Neronoxx wrote: Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?
Depends if you count the supplements like Clan Raukon and the Dark Vengeance Chaos faction book(I forget the name) as mini factions or not, but up next should be the codexes.
Oh, they might actually FAQ those huh? I would hope they couple those with the actual codexes they are relevant to.
Neronoxx wrote: Aaaaand reds8n closes it. Thank you.
Back on track, who are we left with? Are all the mini factions out of the way?
Depends if you count the supplements like Clan Raukon and the Dark Vengeance Chaos faction book(I forget the name) as mini factions or not, but up next should be the codexes.
Oh, they might actually FAQ those huh? I would hope they couple those with the actual codexes they are relevant to.
Well, they didn't do Militarum Tempestus alongside Astra Militarum, thought I guess that is a more "complete" codex than a supplement. Just have to wait a week to find out!
Neronoxx wrote: [And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.
How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?
Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.
I understand that a lot of the rulings in the FAQ were decided because they 'make sense', but I feel GW is missing the forest for the trees. I'm glad GW responded to the high demand for FAQs, but the ultimate reason behind this demand is that players want a better game. I'm grateful that GW is attempting to duct tape some of the leaks on this sinking ship, but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
I get that it may be a bit unfluffy to have a Venomthrope provide cover to a Cultist, but from a gaming perspective, it's really frustrating that Tyranids keep getting the short end of the stick because 'it makes sense'. The army-wide handicap known as Synapse is bad enough, and I can live with Tyranids never having models with an AV value, but now GW has declared that Tyranids will never have a true ally, either.
I'll stop there since this is starting to get a bit rant-y, but I really do love this game, and it pains me to see 40k slip further and further down this rabbit hole of sacrificing gameplay for cool models and fluff.
MajorTom11 wrote: Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.
Not exactly true for GSCs. They are kinda their own deal, separate from the Hive Fleets. They exist to summon in the true, proper Nids. After that, they are devoured like anything else. So, to me it makes perfect sense.
Neronoxx wrote: [And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.
How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?
So what is really baffling you?
What is baffling me is how you literally ask a question i have answered twice now. Seriously, read all of my posts before calling me out on something.
IF you had read all of them, you would see that I admit GW has not handled the fluff 100% correctly, but it shouldn't be a bad thing when they do.
That being said, the discussion is closed. But I guess you missed that too. By chance, do you wear white armor and work for a sith lord? Cuz you're 0 for 2 right now buddy.
MajorTom11 wrote: Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.
Not exactly true for GSCs. They are kinda their own deal, separate from the Hive Fleets. They exist to summon in the true, proper Nids. After that, they are devoured like anything else. So, to me it makes perfect sense.
After the invasion, aren't all ground forces including the invading tyranid army devoured? GSC are controlled by the hive mind during the time of the invasion, and afterwards are treated no differently to any other ground force. The difference is pre-invasion, which has no in-game impact here.
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Can't wait for the AM / IG page when they get to them, although from what has been posted so far in regards to general rules ( PE no longer allowing Plasma Russes to re-roll their gets hot), I foresee some personal adjustment in the future for my force.
TheMostSlyFox wrote: Can't wait for the AM / IG page when they get to them, although from what has been posted so far in regards to general rules ( PE no longer allowing Plasma Russes to re-roll their gets hot), I foresee some personal adjustment in the future for my force.
Honestly, I can't wait to see how they handle my Blood Angels.
"Blood Angels are like Ultramarines, but worse, so they are losing 'ATSKNF' and their dreadnoughts lose 2 attacks. Stop whining, this is fair.'
Neronoxx wrote: [And that's an important disticntion that Tyranids don't make. The concept of Family.
When two Tyranid forces meet, they devour each other until there is only a single victor. Tyranids literally kill each other when the meet.
And people are mad they're not Battle Brothers with GSC. It baffles me.
How about some people just want a fair play like all other people have? Like an even playing ground? Space Marines have it easier, Eldar have it easier. You talk about fluff, but a lot of these armies when being used are not even following fluff? Isn't that hypocrisy right there? It's ok for SM and Eldar to be BB and not follow the fluff, but Tyranids must follow the fluff and can't be BB?
So what is really baffling you?
What is baffling me is how you literally ask a question i have answered twice now. Seriously, read all of my posts before calling me out on something.
IF you had read all of them, you would see that I admit GW has not handled the fluff 100% correctly, but it shouldn't be a bad thing when they do.
That being said, the discussion is closed. But I guess you missed that too. By chance, do you wear white armor and work for a sith lord? Cuz you're 0 for 2 right now buddy.
Oh I am sorry. What makes you so special that I will remember reading your comments that will stand out after reading so many other ones?
What is this 0 for 2 right now? This is not a contest. There is no need to win or loose. You asked a question, I answered it.
Why ask a question if you don't want it answered? Now that is baffling.
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Yeah, there are cases where sacrificing your soldiers is a good thing. Which is stupid when you try to apply logic, as one would think that a soldier would try to keep himself alive, and bad things tend to happen to commanders who deliberately put their soldiers in harm's way for minor reasons. The wording should really be "which ever is best for ignoring the wound" Which means that mathematically 4+ rerollable would be better than a 3+ (75% as opposed to 66%, if my math checks out)
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
Echoing Mr Morden: how is that any different from, say, moving 10 guardsmen into the path of a blob of Hormagaunts to slow them down? Players put their models in suicidal situations all the time.
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
Uhhh....Have you ever heard of this cool faction called the Imperial Guard? They totally don't do that thousands of times everyday, all across the imperium. Yessir, only legitimate tactics there....
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks? For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
Uhhh....Have you ever heard of this cool faction called the Imperial Guard? They totally don't do that thousands of times everyday, all across the imperium. Yessir, only legitimate tactics there....
They really don't. If a general tries to pull that sort of thing with the Catachans he gets fragged. Look up what happens to commissars who outstay their welcome in a Catachan regiment. Also, there's a difference between "take this heavily defended enemy point" and "commit mass suicide to make the enemy look silly for trying to charge you. We'll die before they kill us! That'll show em"
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
Echoing Mr Morden: how is that any different from, say, moving 10 guardsmen into the path of a blob of Hormagaunts to slow them down? Players put their models in suicidal situations all the time.
"Incoming fire! Go to ground for cover! But strip off all your armor first!"
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks? For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
Echoing Mr Morden: how is that any different from, say, moving 10 guardsmen into the path of a blob of Hormagaunts to slow them down? Players put their models in suicidal situations all the time.
"Incoming fire! Go to ground for cover! But strip off all your armor first!"
"Jokes on you! I stabbed myself before you could stab me! You didn't win, you didn't win!
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
ok so that's two factions that it works for...... I really do think you are thinking about this way way too much
Humans did odd things - even in warfare - in the Napoleonic period armies walked towards each other, dying in their hundreds and thousands and might not even get to fire back............
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is stupid when you try to apply logic, as one would think that a soldier would try to keep himself alive, and bad things tend to happen to commanders who deliberately put their soldiers in harm's way for minor reasons.
TheMostSlyFox wrote: Can't wait for the AM / IG page when they get to them, although from what has been posted so far in regards to general rules ( PE no longer allowing Plasma Russes to re-roll their gets hot), I foresee some personal adjustment in the future for my force.
This and the no-Pask thing ruined my favorite list. :(
What blows my mind is how clear the rulebook was about PE re-rolls... this just seems so arbitrary!
Telly wrote: but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.
.
letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.
Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?
According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.
Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?
Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks? For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.
ok so that's two factions that it works for...... I really do think you are thinking about this way way too much
Humans did odd things - even in warfare - in the Napoleonic period armies walked towards each other, dying in their hundreds and thousands and might not even get to fire back............
That's still different than getting your soldiers killed so they are no longer in enemy range. Instead of...you know, moving backwards. Or killing the enemy unit before they can threaten anything.
Or a small unit is used as a sacrifice to lure a given enemy to a certain area - that happened throughout the ages.
Half of what we do on the table top would not be done by real soldiers - "pinning" should apply to all weapons really I would think. Its a game with meta elements
Ever watched Zulu - warriors just stand there and die so their chief can count the guns....
What is the actual game situation when you want to take the inferior save and there s likely a narrative to make it "fluffy".
Yeah, there should really be a suppression mechanic.
I have not seen Zulu, but I do know Rourke's Drift - Didn't the Zulus lose that engagement? Even then, I don't think the chieftain told his soldiers "line up and get shot so I can count the guns" and more "attack that point"
Now, using bait is still a little different, as the reward is usually pretty significant, and the bait isn't intended (ideally, if the general isn't a foolish tyrant) to be destroyed.
Sun Tzu was quite fond of using baits, but even then I doubt that getting the bait killed was his intention; he wasn't too fond of attrition after all. Hannibal is also famous for such tactics, using light units to direct enemy forces into traps and dangerous terrain. Again, I could not find such reference of his baits being allowed to be destroyed.
I have not seen Zulu, but I do know Rourke's Drift - Didn't the Zulus lose that engagement?
Now, using bait is still a little different, as the reward is usually pretty significant, and the bait isn't intended (ideally, if the general isn't a foolish tyrant) to be destroyed.
Sun Tzu was quite fond of using baits, but even then I doubt that getting the bait killed was his intention; he wasn't too fond of attrition after all.
Hannibal is also famous for such tactics, using light units to direct enemy forces into traps and dangerous terrain. Again, I could not find such reference of his baits being allowed to be destroyed.
Suppression I believe works in Bolt Action?
Zulu is a wonderful film - the bit in it is that the Zulu's have a number of warriors from their force sacrifice themselves by standing still so that the chief can count the muzzle flashes and work out the firing power of the British defences. It costs them 10 or 20 warriors but they are clearly keen to prove themselves and their bravery and the loss is insignificant as they have about 2-3000 men. I don't know if they ever did this - it does not seem unlikely but it was a good narrative.
The Zulu's do loose - at the time we British focussed quite a lot on that defence to distract from the fact that we had just had a modern army of several thousand slaughtered by the Zulus in open battle mere days before.
Baiting enemy forces is dangerous - quite often in history light forces get caught by their pursuers. Bad officers throughout the ages have given foolish or ill thought out orders for troops to stay in a given place and got them all killed for nothing. Some have also used units as sacrifices to buy time, to allow the enemy to be distracted, sometimes these are volunteers - sometimes they don't realise that they are.....
War, from what I read, is full of weirdness..........
Maybe the one going to ground are suffering from Shell shock and throwing off their armour and trying to bury themselves in the mud - it happened
Maybe they are trying to surrender?
Maybe they took cover, took a helmet off and looked over the top of the cover....
Honestly though I think it is kind of a non issue. When was the last time you go shot at and thought 'man - I really wish I had a worse save there'
If killing a model is going to extend an assault range by a significant amount, chances are the enemy wouldn't choose to shoot at them anyway.
This was meant to solve all those arguments where people said that ravenwing bikers with rerollable jink had to use their 3+ armor save because it was numerically lower even though the 4+ rerollable would actually save against more wounds.
If the game were designed better you would only rarely wish your own guys dead.
It's not. As a result, players need to be given the benefit of the doubt, and be allowed to choose between one option or the other that best suits them. Being forced to kill (or not kill) your own guys because it's not "realistic" is worse than what we have--a highly abstract game that only vaguely resembles war.
"Let the controlling player choose" is the fairest way to write the rule.
MajorTom11 wrote: Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.
Not exactly true for GSCs. They are kinda their own deal, separate from the Hive Fleets. They exist to summon in the true, proper Nids. After that, they are devoured like anything else. So, to me it makes perfect sense.
After the invasion, aren't all ground forces including the invading tyranid army devoured? GSC are controlled by the hive mind during the time of the invasion, and afterwards are treated no differently to any other ground force. The difference is pre-invasion, which has no in-game impact here.
yup, that is the case. Hive mind supersedes brood mind once Nids are close enough -
Requizen wrote:At least KDK is more or less an actual codex, tired of all these non-dexes that keep getting FAQ'd before the ones people actually give a crap about.
They're easier to do. I believe Tau and SM will be the last ones
I think they are getting the Codexes with the fewest questions out first, then working their way up to the bigger ones. But, like Vector Strike said, SM will be the last one, probably preceded by Tau a week before.
I wonder if some Tournaments will allow Aid From Beyond as stated in this FAQ - it's not like it'll make LotD the most overpowered thing in the world, but it'll allow people to run their fluffy lists.
Requizen wrote: I wonder if some Tournaments will allow Aid From Beyond as stated in this FAQ - it's not like it'll make LotD the most overpowered thing in the world, but it'll allow people to run their fluffy lists.
Requizen wrote: I wonder if some Tournaments will allow Aid From Beyond as stated in this FAQ - it's not like it'll make LotD the most overpowered thing in the world, but it'll allow people to run their fluffy lists.
Only if the Deathwing get it too!
Well... that's a bit different. The "Aid From Beyond" rule already exists as a mission rule that can just be transplanted into tournament missions. We already see this with "Impending Doom" (+1 to seize if your opponent has a LoW and you don't) and "Through Attrition, Victory" (1 extra VP per 3 hull points/wounds from a SHV/GC) from Escalation being used in most events.
No such rule exists for Deathwing, so any changes a TO makes to give them something similar would be a change/errata on their part, which some people don't like. You see how people already react to ITC FAQs.
Frankenberry wrote: I love how for the LOTD one people immediately ask if they auto lose for not being on the board T1...when it's answered immediately in the FAQ.
I really don't get people sometimes.
Weren't all these questions asked before the first FAQ came out though?
I do find it amusing that people ask ridiculous crap like the LOTD question (or that earlier one "herp derp can I take an army of only fortifications derp herp"), and I like even more GW's snarky response which comes off like:
There are some things in this game that no true gentleman would ever dare consider doing. However, if some uncouth blaggard would deign to do such a thing, we suggest you ask your opponent to allow such an ungentlemanly approach. However we know that no true learned man would ever harbour such thoughts, for 'twould be an affront to his mother, the Queen and even God Himself.
I like the Daemonkin FAQ overrall, in the end it seems that the way they called everything was how our group was playing them anyway:
-only earn blood tithe from characters dieing in challenges (not anytime they died)
-blood thirster can arrive swooping or gliding (BRBfaq)
-goredrinker buff carries on with demon prince
So not much actually changed for me. I never played the Korlath demon prince + double blood thirster combo anyway (now nerfed).
I like that they clarified blood oath (Warhammer World Exclusive Campaign) Fist Of Khorne formation (20 zerkers in a dreadclaw) can assault first turn - thats fun I might actually buy a dreadclaw one day
WayneTheGame wrote: I do find it amusing that people ask ridiculous crap like the LOTD question (or that earlier one "herp derp can I take an army of only fortifications derp herp"), and I like even more GW's snarky response which comes off like:
There are some things in this game that no true gentleman would ever dare consider doing. However, if some uncouth blaggard would deign to do such a thing, we suggest you ask your opponent to allow such an ungentlemanly approach. However we know that no true learned man would ever harbour such thoughts, for 'twould be an affront to his mother, the Queen and even God Himself.
I find it amusing that people are still missing the point of this FAQ; to clear up any vague and unclear parts of the ruleset. I'm glad people are trying to break the ruleset and asking these questions. You should always attempt to break the ruleset when creators are asking for feedback. Why? Because they can fix it and potentially save everyone some grief later. Breaking a ruleset reveals unintended "bugs" that the writers can patch up. How is that anything but good? It can only lead to a tighter set of rules.
Blood Oath is a campaign book(let) based on a Warhammer World exhibition diorama and only sold there. It comes with formations for Ultramarines, Khorne Daemonkin, Grey Knights and others
Warhams-77 wrote: Blood Oath is a campaign book(let) based on a Warhammer World exhibition diorama and only sold there. It comes with formations for Ultramarines, Khorne Daemonkin, Grey Knights and others
A okay. Thanks for clearing that up. So what other minor codices/supplements are left before they get to the meat of the game. No offense to KDK, LOTD, et. al., but I know we're all waiting for IG, SM, Tau, Eldar, etc. FAQs.
I was on page 2 of the faq when it went poof. I guess something wasn't ready yet. However as far as I got power of the machine spirit is pretty darn good again allowing you to snap fire blasts and templates etc.
Salamanders having resistance to demonic flames as well as flames in reality made no sense to me. So kudos to GW for straightening that up. Methinks there's gonna be some serious butt-hurt from skimming through that lot.
Frozocrone wrote: Heldrakes murder Salamaders now. Guy who asked that is the real hero xD
+1
I also see they see they are cracking down on drop pod shenanigans. Thank god.
Can you explain your reasoning? I.e. What shenanigans were resolved? LoS is based on the model and the doors count as part of the model - so seems like you can keep the doors up when you need dem walls, or drop them when you don't - or when you want to occupy a big footprint of ground. Will people be encouraged to grab the model and yank on the door to see if it's "really" glued on?
Maybe you bring a whole box of drop pods with doors glued in different configurations so you can grab the one that best fits the current battlefield.
Someone explain to me this please. Getting back to 40K and don't understand this at all.
First there was a question about units in a drop pod on how they move. First they say the unit inside use the disembarkment rule then the next question they say since the unit was in a drop pod and it deep struck in, it can't move then. ???
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Superfriends seem to have taken a beating with Chapter Tactics not working with BA/DA/SW/GK anymore.
Yep, Librarians no longer give hit and run to Thunderwolves.
In exchange, they buffed drop pods. Just make a nice wall in front of their deployment zone, and watch the annoyance flow.
Davor wrote: Someone explain to me this please. Getting back to 40K and don't understand this at all.
First there was a question about units in a drop pod on how they move. First they say the unit inside use the disembarkment rule then the next question they say since the unit was in a drop pod and it deep struck in, it can't move then. ???
What am I missing here?
They count as deep striking, but still get to make the disembark rule, since they must disembark. Allowance is given within the drop pods rules.
This means they count as moving, can't charge, etc.
Yea I don't want to live in a world where 9 drop pod lists can open their doors on top of objectives so that empty ObSec pods cant even be contested any more.
Zach wrote: Yea I don't want to live in a world where 9 drop pod lists can open their doors on top of objectives so that empty ObSec pods cant even be contested any more.
Well if this happens what about a Mawloc? Would that help at all?
OMG... That some of these questions were even asked hurts my head.
On a good note... Librarius Conclave is finally put to bed.
Interesting... Multiple iterations of (Chapter Tactics) cancel each other out. Also, characters without (Chapter Tactics) that join a unit null (Chapter Tactics) for the whole unit.
Ooo... Characters joining a unit from a formation null the special rule(s) bestowed on that unit from the formation.
The wording of the Shrike question suggests that they still don't actually understand the problem.
The drop pod door ruling is pants on head territory. While I'm not a fan of treating them as invisible when closed (too many complications that way) treating them as part of the vehicle when open makes the pod either impossible to deploy or hugely effective at blocking off large swathes of the table if you're using any decent amount of terrain on the board.
Most of the rest of it looks pretty good, though. A few calls that go against the written rules but are headed in the right direction, and some nice clarifications of contentious issues (like the Chapter Master upgrade thing, and Dreadnoughts vs Stormravens...)
Another positive note is that Shrike can actually join units now. Woot.
No, he can't.
The FAQ just says that a JI unit he joins can infiltrate... which is true, since both he and the unit he joins would have to have the rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
casvalremdeikun wrote: So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
There is so many issues or shenanigans to drop pods now.
It is in the space marine players best interest to pin those doors to open and close.
You can make impenetrable walls that block line of sight and movement.
You can open and close those doors to fire whenever you want or block your opponent from firing.
You can drop the door and disembark up to 9in away from the model.
You can surround a unit in drop pods and lock it in place opening doors as needed to form a circle. And your opponent can't move within 1in of the droppod.
You can just block access to an objective by camping it with an open drop pod.
There is so many issues with this rule.
You can open and close those doors to fire whenever you want or block your opponent from firing.
Slight clarification there: You can choose whether to deploy them with the doors open or closed... but there is no rule that would allow you to change how the model is configured once it's actually on the table.
casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.
casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.
It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...
Interesting... Multiple iterations of (Chapter Tactics) cancel each other out. Also, characters without (Chapter Tactics) that join a unit null (Chapter Tactics) for the whole unit.
Where does it say that? It only talks about characters from BA/DA/SW/GK nulling Chapter Tactics, Inquisitors are still fair game, no?
I'm a bit confused about the flamecraft ruling. Does that mean that salamanders only get 4+ FNP from flamer weapons only? not heavy flamers, for example? What about ork burnas?
And it's been said, but the drop pod rule seems pretty crazy. I know it's a draft, but 35 points for like a 8" impassable terrain bubble is nuts. The other way for a giant LOS blocking pillar isn't much less crazy.
casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.
It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...
What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm a bit confused about the flamecraft ruling. Does that mean that salamanders only get 4+ FNP from flamer weapons only? not heavy flamers, for example? What about ork burnas?
And it's been said, but the drop pod rule seems pretty crazy. I know it's a draft, but 35 points for like a 8" impassable terrain bubble is nuts. The other way for a giant LOS blocking pillar isn't much less crazy.
Flames listed under the Flamer weapons in the rule book. which i think burnas are listed under as well or otherwise is explained in the codex.
just because it uses a template doesnt make it a "flamer weapon" which makes sense.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm a bit confused about the flamecraft ruling. Does that mean that salamanders only get 4+ FNP from flamer weapons only? not heavy flamers, for example? What about ork burnas?
They get benefits against the list of Flamer weapons in the rulebook. Flamer weapons are further defined in the new FAQ.
Q: Are alien and daemonic flame weapons like Ork burnas, Flames of Tzeentch, Baleful Torrent, etc., treated as flamer weapons for rules that interact with them?
A: Only if the entry in their codex specifically notes it is a flamer weapon as described in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
EnTyme wrote: I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.
a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.
casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.
It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...
What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.
its open topped...doesnt that make access points moot?
What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.
Drop pods are open topped. The access point is any part of the hull.
casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.
It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...
What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.
its open topped...doesnt that make access points moot?
So interesting quandry, if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull, even when deployed, I assume this means marines can no longer disembark and stand on the doors, as part of the model placement rule?
Open topped vehicle passengers can disembark from any point of the vehicle. (pg. 88) So you might be able to make a claim to disembark from the tips of the doors.
On pg. 72, when talking about measuring from vehicles, it allows us to ignore decorative elements. One could make an argument that pod doors are decorative, and thus don’t count. This would prevent them from creating a massive impassible footprint.
Overall I think the FAQs make sense, but could use a little refining.
gameandwatch wrote: So interesting quandry, if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull, even when deployed, I assume this means marines can no longer disembark and stand on the doors, as part of the model placement rule?
yep. nore can friendly models walk through the leafs ether.
so if you want to move around a drop pod. you need to seriously WALK around the entire drop pod..
the doors are low enough to provide no cover though.
if they are wrecked they become difficult terrain. neet
EnTyme wrote: c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.
Thing is now, that is a big HUGE foot imprint you have to deepstrike now. Since you can't open and close the doors, you either model them open for "road block" and farther disenbarkemnt but take the hit in where you may not be able to deep strike exactly where you want because of the bigger foot print, which is what, double the size now deep striking it with the doors open?
Nevelon wrote: Open topped vehicle passengers can disembark from any point of the vehicle. (pg. 88) So you might be able to make a claim to disembark from the tips of the doors.
On pg. 72, when talking about measuring from vehicles, it allows us to ignore decorative elements. One could make an argument that pod doors are decorative, and thus don’t count. This would prevent them from creating a massive impassible footprint.
Overall I think the FAQs make sense, but could use a little refining.
Too bad FAQ specifically specified the doors are not ignored. They are part of the model. They are not ignored for game purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: Thing is now, that is a big HUGE foot imprint you have to deepstrike now. Since you can't open and close the doors, you either model them open for "road block" and farther disenbarkemnt but take the hit in where you may not be able to deep strike exactly where you want because of the bigger foot print, which is what, double the size now deep striking it with the doors open?
True that. But still choice is marine players...He can deploy them doors closed. Still good LOS blocking.
gameandwatch wrote: [...]if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull[..]
Does the FAQ say they are part of the hull? Or just part of the model?
as people have said, pods are open topped, so the whole thing is hull as far as disembarking is concerned.
Not why I was asking, but, were does it say that in the book? As far as I remember it only says that all of the vehicle is
considered to be an Access Point. I do not see a correlation between Access Point and hull (might be missing it).
I can see how that could allow a larger disembarking footprint; but if it is not a hull, would it prevent model from walking through/close to it?
it would make sense to ignore the drop pod doors for gaming purposes...
but either way its a win-loose scenario for both sides... because dont forget that you must place the droppod WITH OPEN doors before rolling to scatter
so on one hand you can deny a hell lot of boardspace from the enemy... on the other hand thought, it will be hard to place the damn thing on a crowded board or near the table edges >
gameandwatch wrote: [...]if the pod doors are now considered part of the hull[..]
Does the FAQ say they are part of the hull? Or just part of the model?
as people have said, pods are open topped, so the whole thing is hull as far as disembarking is concerned.
Not why I was asking, but, were does it say that in the book? As far as I remember it only says that all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point. I do not see a correlation between Access Point and hull (might be missing it).
I can see how that could allow a larger disembarking footprint; but if it is not a hull, would it prevent model from walking through/close to it?
edit actually i shouldnt say that ima look it up and be right back
its in the measuring distances and stuff in the vehicle section.
ignore gun barrels, dozerblades antenna banners and other decorative things. i dont think doors are really decroative.
also its mentioned in the shooting section for vehicles as well.
RedNoak wrote: it would make sense to ignore the drop pod doors for gaming purposes...
but either way its a win-loose scenario for both sides... because dont forget that you must place the droppod WITH OPEN doors before rolling to scatter
so on one hand you can deny a hell lot of boardspace from the enemy... on the other hand thought, it will be hard to place the damn thing on a crowded board or near the table edges >
Assuming marine player simply doesn't deploy them with doors closed. Which he can do. As many players already have glued them to ease the life(those opening doors can be pain and since before there wasn't gaming wise difference generally...).
Now he can go for whichever he feels gives him best advantage.
EnTyme wrote: I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.
a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.
Okay yeah. That's a bunch of crap. If drop pods are really that powerful, they should cost at least as much as a Razorback. I'm gonna go ahead and self-impose a houserule against my drop pods so that the doors are just decorative. They don't block LoS, you can't measure from the doors, feel free to move across the doors. The only part of the model that matters is the chassis (the vertical portion).
EnTyme wrote: I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.
a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.
Okay yeah. That's a bunch of crap. If drop pods are really that powerful, they should cost at least as much as a Razorback. I'm gonna go ahead and self-impose a houserule against my drop pods so that the doors are just decorative. They don't block LoS, you can't measure from the doors, feel free to move across the doors. The only part of the model that matters is the chassis (the vertical portion).
Which is basically how it has been played around here at least...
Only issue was occasional LOS questions with doors that were glued up but those were very rare and generally leaned toward "if in doubt visible".
EnTyme wrote: I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.
a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.
Okay yeah. That's a bunch of crap. If drop pods are really that powerful, they should cost at least as much as a Razorback. I'm gonna go ahead and self-impose a houserule against my drop pods so that the doors are just decorative. They don't block LoS, you can't measure from the doors, feel free to move across the doors. The only part of the model that matters is the chassis (the vertical portion).
Which is basically how it has been played around here at least...
Only issue was occasional LOS questions with doors that were glued up but those were very rare and generally leaned toward "if in doubt visible".
I guess someone did ask the questions, so they are real, but this is really an answer to a question almost nobody had and nobody wanted.
What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.
Drop pods are open topped. The access point is any part of the hull.
Now that BoLS has the FAQ posted, I can read them! I do find the wording of a couple of these to be very interesting.
Q: In a Gladius Strike Force, is a unit allowed to take a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport but then deploy on the board while the Drop Pod Deep Strikes?
A: Technically, taking a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport and then deploying the unit and the Drop Pod separately is something you can do.
I fell like the second half of that answer is "but it's kind of pointless and a borderline dick move".
EnTyme wrote: Now that BoLS has the FAQ posted, I can read them! I do find the wording of a couple of these to be very interesting.
Q: In a Gladius Strike Force, is a unit allowed to take a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport but then deploy on the board while the Drop Pod Deep Strikes?
A: Technically, taking a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport and then deploying the unit and the Drop Pod separately is something you can do.
I fell like the second half of that answer is "but it's kind of pointless and a borderline dick move".
I was reading it more like a very long yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
also really liked this one
"if you are reasonable about this, your opponents is unlikely to complain."
Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)
EnTyme wrote: Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)
But NAMED Chapter Masters can't be taken in place of a Captain. Because reasons.
And yet, the Pinion Battle Demi-Company and Stormlance Battle Demi-Company DO allow named Chapter Masters (except Marneus Calgar, if I remember right). The plain Battle Demi-Company is the odd one out here.
if you shouldn't, they shouldn't have made it possible to do so. if you *can* do it and there's an advantage to doing so, of course people are going to, 'fluff' be damned.
Go Anvillus pattern for ultimate pod LoS blocking now That's a pretty tall/large model to block LoS. On a side note, I love the model.
Spoiler:
And/but/or -- can you imagine if you kitbashed it with the doors open how much space it would take?! And the horizontally mounted version could be totally used for some crazy LoS blocking advantage. Ironically, when I build mine, I will probably do it that way, because it shows off the bottom of the pod, which is very cool. OTOH, I doubt it will see a gaming table.
Spoiler:
edit - lol.. the dreadnought pod just got more useful Not only is it bigger, but look at the way the petals are when open (how tall / how much cover) ....
but now other models can actually block you from opening them correct ? If my pod lands within 1+ inch of an model now the doors "cant" open. In the past I would drop the pod and then open the doors.. since they were ignored I would pick up any models that blocked the door petals and place them back on top of the open doors. Now you couldn't do that
casvalremdeikun wrote: So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
Give it a try, report back to us on if your friends still call you friend, or how many times you get punched in the face.
casvalremdeikun wrote: So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
Give it a try, report back to us on if your friends still call you friend, or how many times you get punched in the face.
By following the rules? Let me ask you, have you ever punched someone in the face for having a Riptide put a toe in cover?
zedsdead wrote: but now other models can actually block you from opening them correct ? If my pod lands within 1+ inch of an model now the doors "cant" open. In the past I would drop the pod and then open the doors.. since they were ignored I would pick up any models that blocked the door petals and place them back on top of the open doors. Now you couldn't do that
You don't deploy the pod and then open the doors. There are no rules that allow you to change the model once it is on the table. You either deploy it with doors open, or doors closed.
RedNoak wrote: Now he can go for whichever he feels gives him best advantage.
I wouldn't call that fair. Modelling for advantage I would say. So before the game, it's either doors open or doors closed, you can't pick and choose during a game. Other wise we will have someone change their minis in the game for different stances as well then. Have them kneeling in one turn so they can't be seen behind something, then stand up where they are half covered so they can shoot.
So no, I wouldn't allow these kinds of shenanigans to start with. After all if a Drop Pod can do it, why can't a Monstrous Creature or even a Space Marine infantry do it?
zedsdead wrote: but now other models can actually block you from opening them correct ? If my pod lands within 1+ inch of an model now the doors "cant" open. In the past I would drop the pod and then open the doors.. since they were ignored I would pick up any models that blocked the door petals and place them back on top of the open doors. Now you couldn't do that
You don't deploy the pod and then open the doors. There are no rules that allow you to change the model once it is on the table. You either deploy it with doors open, or doors closed.
I think what he is saying is that if you land within an inch, you can't open the doors ( you don't get the option). And yes, when you play the game you do put the pod on the table, then open the doors ( for those of us who magnetized them). Do some people just put down the pod with doors flopping already? Yes.
Are you saying that if I want to deploy the pod with doors open, I have to actually open them before I put the pod on the table?
Talys wrote: Go Anvillus pattern for ultimate pod LoS blocking now That's a pretty tall/large model to block LoS. On a side note, I love the model.
Spoiler:
And/but/or -- can you imagine if you kitbashed it with the doors open how much space it would take?! And the horizontally mounted version could be totally used for some crazy LoS blocking advantage. Ironically, when I build mine, I will probably do it that way, because it shows off the bottom of the pod, which is very cool. OTOH, I doubt it will see a gaming table.
It doesn't have doors like a normal drop pod, just the one on the bottom.
Are you saying that if I want to deploy the pod with doors open, I have to actually open them before I put the pod on the table?
Since the doors will count for determining the placement of the pod and whether or not you mishap, yes, you'll need to have the doors already open when you put it on the table.
Again, there are no rules that would allow you to deploy a model and then change its configuration later. The model you deploy is the model you use.
And yet, the Pinion Battle Demi-Company and Stormlance Battle Demi-Company DO allow named Chapter Masters (except Marneus Calgar, if I remember right). The plain Battle Demi-Company is the odd one out here.
Actually, the Errata on the 12th page of this FAQ changes it so that you can take named Chapter Masters in the BDC.
I'm looking forward to being able to use Vulkan in the FBSF without going through the special command option.
zedsdead wrote: but now other models can actually block you from opening them correct ? If my pod lands within 1+ inch of an model now the doors "cant" open. In the past I would drop the pod and then open the doors.. since they were ignored I would pick up any models that blocked the door petals and place them back on top of the open doors. Now you couldn't do that
You don't deploy the pod and then open the doors. There are no rules that allow you to change the model once it is on the table. You either deploy it with doors open, or doors closed.
Now this doesn't bother me as much anymore.
A)playing the pods with the doors deployed means that there's an increased table edge mishap...
and
B)playing the pods with doors deployed makes it easier for enemy to REACH the pod in assault.
And yet, the Pinion Battle Demi-Company and Stormlance Battle Demi-Company DO allow named Chapter Masters (except Marneus Calgar, if I remember right). The plain Battle Demi-Company is the odd one out here.
Actually, the Errata on the 12th page of this FAQ changes it so that you can take named Chapter Masters in the BDC.
I'm looking forward to being able to use Vulkan in the FBSF without going through the special command option.
You could always use Vulkan that way (despite not being a Captain...). Pedro should be able to be taken as he functions as the Crimson Fists' First Company Captain.
Although truthfully I can't see many outside of the WAAC or TFG crowd arguing that deployment starts from the drop pod doors - shouldn't be an issue overall I don't think. Then again, given the responses so far, it appears it WILL be an issue - it's almost like GW doesn't know what drop pods are used for.
Although, from a game standpoint the whole model being counted for LOS and movement instead of just the hull makes sense.
I can't imagine the Drop Pod portion not being completely rewritten before this goes "official"
I get the sense they put very little thought into this and are going to use the questions ad comments they generate as a means to hone in on where the weak spots are and what needs to be improved.
I sure hope that's what they're doing anyway, because that portion of it at least is a complete mess.
Are you saying that if I want to deploy the pod with doors open, I have to actually open them before I put the pod on the table?
Since the doors will count for determining the placement of the pod and whether or not you mishap, yes, you'll need to have the doors already open when you put it on the table.
Again, there are no rules that would allow you to deploy a model and then change its configuration later. The model you deploy is the model you use.
There are no rules that specify how you deploy a drop pod and its doors, open or closed. There's no rule that says they all have to be opened. There's no rule that says you have or do not have the option to change the configuration. It is a total grey area. Can you quote for me the appropriate rule in the rulebook to support your position?
There are no rules that specify how you deploy a drop pod and its doors, open or closed. There's no rule that says they all have to be opened.
That's correct. You can deploy with doors open, doors closed, or a mix of the two... because those are all valid ways to assemble the model.
There's no rule that says you have or do not have the option to change the configuration.
And so it is not an option.
You only have the option to do things that the rules tell you that you can do.
Can you quote for me the appropriate rule in the rulebook to support your position?
That would be 'The entire rulebook' which doesn't contain a rule that would allow you to change the configuration of the model once it is on the table.
Weboflies wrote: I can't imagine the Drop Pod portion not being completely rewritten before this goes "official"
I get the sense they put very little thought into this and are going to use the questions ad comments they generate as a means to hone in on where the weak spots are and what needs to be improved.
I sure hope that's what they're doing anyway, because that portion of it at least is a complete mess.
Indeed. Everyone should remember that this is a DRAFT. It is not an official FAQ yet.
EnTyme wrote: Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)
That was silly answer. Just say yes or no. Now it's like "technically yes but you really shouldn't be doing it". If you don't want people doing it ban it. If you don't ban it don't start implying players are doing it wrong if they do it.
EnTyme wrote: Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)
That was silly answer. Just say yes or no. Now it's like "technically yes but you really shouldn't be doing it". If you don't want people doing it ban it. If you don't ban it don't start implying players are doing it wrong if they do it.
It's actually rather amusing to see the distinction between RaW and RaI spelled out in the FAQ. RAW, yes, it is legal. RaI, it's not what matches the fluff (usually) and not their preference.
It would help if they made captains not just a weaker/blander chapter master, making the CM upgrade a no-brainer. Next time around maybe let you choose titles for your captains to make them different or something.
20pts:: Master of the Fleet, gain Orbital Bombardment wargear.
10pts: High Executioner, gain +1 Attack.
10pts: Master of the Marches, all Non-Vehicle models with the same chapter tactics as the captain may use his Leadership for morale and pinning checks.
20pts:: Master of the Fleet, gain Orbital Bombardment wargear.
10pts: High Executioner, gain +1 Attack.
10pts: Master of the Marches, all Non-Vehicle models with the same chapter tactics as the captain may use his Leadership for morale and pinning checks.
The types of things?
...That's not bad. Having a bunch of captain-specialty options could bring them some sun-time again.
What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.
Oaka wrote: What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.
Oaka wrote: What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.
You are why we can't have nice things.
Well I'm for sure going to use that if someone insists on me using these idiotic FAQ rules for the Pods.
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)
Oaka wrote: What if you just assemble the drop pod to have one or two doors open? Then you can deploy it with the door facing the direction you want the models to disembark from without having to worry about mishaps from an overall increased footprint.
I'd be happy with that simply because I would know exactly what I was getting before you placed the pod.
Jimsolo wrote: Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)
This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.
Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!
Jimsolo wrote: Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)
This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.
Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!
Other than units that have to purchase grenades for the entire unit rather than per model, the grenade ruling made perfect sense to me. Drop pod doors, however, do not. Even the answer of "it depends on how it is modeled" is too vague for my tastes.
casvalremdeikun wrote:So do I understand this right, when I disembark a unit from the Drop Pod, I can measure my disembark move from the tip of the open door?
The tip of the open drop pod door is NOT and access point. Disembarkation will still be measured from the hull.
It's difficult to argue that the doors that comprise 90% of the exterior of the pod are not part of its hull...
What on Earth are you talking about? We're referring to disembarkation not hull points. RAW, disembarkation is measured from the access point(s). The tip of a very long door is NOT an access point. This is common sense. Don't be a troll.
Drop pods are open topped, meaning you can disembark from where ever the feth you want.
Although truthfully I can't see many outside of the WAAC or TFG crowd arguing that deployment starts from the drop pod doors - shouldn't be an issue overall I don't think. Then again, given the responses so far, it appears it WILL be an issue - it's almost like GW doesn't know what drop pods are used for.
Although, from a game standpoint the whole model being counted for LOS and movement instead of just the hull makes sense.
Oh look, it has already begun. Now any new player following the RAW and the official FAQ is apparently TFG? What stupid remark. Hate the clarification all you want, but honestly drop pods have NEVER been clear. It always annoyed me that people would not count the fins or doors and walk over them, yet take cover. Or, when glued shut I am supposed to assume LOS through them when in reality the gaps through an open pod are actually quite hard to draw LOS through when you actually look down the barrels of your own vehicles or from your own infantry.
People need to actually play the rules first. If a player is takeing a drop pod heavy list and used them to block LOS then either he trapped a portion of his own guys behind that curtain, or he just screwed over his own LOS. Oh wait, you think this helps assault deathstars? Not really since he can't get to you through that wall of his own vehicles either. Honestly, there appears to be a double edged sword to either way you play it. If you drop them in open they are now HUGE. Good luck finding a clear spot to even land, and despite the owning player gaining some ground disembarking, you can now assault the tips of the pod as well. Personally I always felt they should be played as shut since there is no rule suggesting the doors remain open and honestly it avoids many assumptions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am so happy about the rulings on chapter tactics as well. No more stacking abilities on deathstars or formations. Now if you add one foreign model to a unit with chapter tactics and they all lose them. This makes the game much easier and cleaner. If the trend follows into the other marine chapters, say goodbye to wolf stars. Or I should say, broken as feth wolf stars, i have nothing against a big bad unit so long as they aren't gaming rules from 3-4 different sources.
Jimsolo wrote: Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)
This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.
Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!
Yeas. Clearly SM hate. They aren't one of the best armies in the game and the posterboys of the whole franchise. Nevermind that supplement with the insane powers and all the other support they get, clearly 1 grenade = SM hated.
Jimsolo wrote: Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)
This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.
Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!
Yeas. Clearly SM hate. They aren't one of the best armies in the game and the posterboys of the whole franchise. Nevermind that supplement with the insane powers and all the other support they get, clearly 1 grenade = SM hated.
Hahaha Space Maarine hatred. Oh boy you have not had to live life as a Tau player. Or Eldar.
There's no rule that says you have or do not have the option to change the configuration.
And so it is not an option.
You only have the option to do things that the rules tell you that you can do.
I would play with "deploy it the way you want it configured, and then leave it alone". It just makes it simple -- especially since if you can reconfigure -- then in which phase? That would matter, potentially a lot. If you could reconfigure any phase, you could open the doors, shoot, close the doors, and that just opens up a whole can of worms (and hurt).
However, that said, the FAQ says play it as modelled. The model has a hinge, so, much like a turret or a door on a land raider that's hinged, you can manipulate the hinged part as you wish. And really, if the Astartes could win 5% more battles by closing drop pod doors, I'm sure they'd happily hoist up the doors as shields, no differently than closing a land raider door after egress. The real issue is just that drop pods are exceptional because the doors are huge, on a model that people can field a lot of -- so we're asking for special rules for them.
Note that "play it as modelled" could potentially cause problems with other models, too. For example, you could play a storm raven with front and rear doors that open (this isn't even uncommon), and then open both to shoot through them, and then close both when you're done. Or even model a storm raven, land raider, or even rhino with side doors that you could shoot through (just model it with the doors open, or better, a hinge at the bottom that allows you to open/close it).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)
Back when most of us had articulating doors, we did it exactly like you: mark the closed pod, scatter, open the doors you want (it made sense that you didn't have to open every door). However, now, I and the people I play with play with either drop pods door open or drop pods doors closed, because we tend to not want to rub off the paint around the hinges of our drop pods The fun thing, of course, is transporting drop pods with doors open. It's like, 1 drop pod to a box.
We always played with pods as partial cover, regardless of modelling, and nearly since the beginning, with doors as not counting as part of the model. When they first came out, we did play them with (open) doors as part of the hull, for a short time, but it was just impractical.
I always thought the simplest way to run drop pods is closed always. The are easiest to assemble and paint (not that that should matter to game rules) but more importantly you are making less assumptions. I hate it when people want to ignore the doors open or shut, it makes zero sense and has a very real impact on a game that functions on true line of sight. It's the same reason I hate melting through solid walls, go ahead and run through the crumbly ones, cool aid manning through a solid wall and then disallowing shots behind you makes zero sense as well.
I really don't think either method the FAQ presents is game breaking, there are obvious benefits and hindrances to either options for deployment. People worried about being fenced in need to realize this is possible in several other lists already using tanks. I mean white scar gladius, with scout moves, can end it's first turn 6 inches into an enemy deployment zone in dawn of war using rhinos and razorbacks, not half of them, ALL OF THEM. Those block LOS to any standard tank or infantry in the game as well. Better yet, the guys inside are guaranteed to be out of sight
t seems to me that trying to DS 5, 9" diameter vehicles would be very difficult. Especially while trying to avoid other models and mishaps in a finite space. Attempting to do this while coordinating around objectives would also be problematic.
Deploying from the edge of the debarkation ramp doesnt seem crazy to me given that it never transports anything again, and you MUST disembark when it lands. Its a little extra deployment given its limitations. Especially its random landing spot and its massive, semi-circular foot print. Which, with my out dated high school diploma, says is about 60" (Pi*r squared, and 1" of clearance around the pod).
Wow...I'm stunned by just the grenade ruling alone and cannot even delve into what other surreal ajudications lies inside those Facebook FAQ Follies.....
So as I read it, only one model in a squad can attack at initiative when assaulting into cover.
Only one model can remove an assault players bonus attack from charging.
A single haywire grenade is nearly worthless (though admitted a squad full of them is downright mean).
(please correct me if I have misunderstood the FAQ that this ruling does not affect ALL Grenades ALL forms as ALL Grenades are thrown to take effect (except for Meltabombs, which I'm fairly sure still fallls under this ruling) I have not been able to scour all 27 pages of this thread, so I am uncertain if people have figured this out.
It makes the whole concept of grenade upgrades to a squad as a "per model" cost ridiculous. Why not charge a "per model" cost on special/heavy weapon upgrades (meaning each member of the squad pay the weapon price, though only 1 model may fire the weapon per turn?
I hope that doesn't stick. I'll never buy a squad a grenade upgrade of any type ever again.
Yeah, the FAQ doesn't change Initiative bonuses. It just clarifies that the ' only 1 model can throw ' part applies both to shooting and to using it as a weapon in close combat.
Desubot wrote: I dont think you have to necessarily use a grenade to avoid the cover penalty. IIRC it just states you need to have them.
Thanks for the answer. I believe from a RAW standpoint, that is the ground you have to take IF you want the FAQ ruling to stand. I beleive that is where people will ty to draw the line to prevent this from affecting ALL grenades of ALL types. the wording in the rulebook for making this kind of exception for grenades whose effects to not inflict actual damage is very loose on what defines WHAT causes the grenade effect. the most common forms of grenade verbage are:Owning grenades,Using grenades and sometimes references to grenades being throwngrenades.
In MY 40k universe, when you thorw the grenade andit goes boom, THAT's what keeps the enemy with his head down.
I do not fault you for answering as such and I mean no offense to you in the following hyperbole I'm about to embark.(seriously, you are probbly very cool since you were at least nice enough to answer liek us all, you are just the unwitting victom of poor rules governance on the part of an evil wargaming enetertainment conglomerate's overtasked games development team.
Offense can be inferrer to the authors of the FAQ, as it is truly as blasphemous and heretical to good rules modelingas anything I have ever seen in my 95 years in the gaming hobby (I first started playng in the pre-RT days when it was still Warhammer:9,861!!!)
the rules for grenades exist to repreesent the act of throwing grenades in combat to have their intended effect....The idea that a grenade is not actuallly thrown or used to benefit from an effect is a terribly poor abstraction of a modeled rulebase ever imagined.
from now on, I have to imagine that instead of space marines throwing grenades into trenches as they move into assault, they now instead just point threateningly to the dangling greandes that adorn their belt . the terified enemy(in their entreched defensive fortification) quiver at the MERE CONCEPT of the marines OWNING grenades that they freeze like a deer in the headlights to be slaughterd.... and never a grenade is thrown again in the entire universe.
In the grim darkness of the 41st millennia, there is only war, or at least the preemptive owning of war-like items preempting the need of actually having to use them and cause unpleasantries like things blowing up and stuff....
You don't need to change your thinking at all, because the initiative boat from charging with grenades was never the result of a physical attack. You don't resolve a shooting attack on the charge... It's all resolved on the abstract plane.
So whether one guy in the unit is actually hurling a grenade or they all are, the end result is the same.
insaniak wrote: You don't need to change your thinking at all, because the initiative boat from charging with grenades was never the result of a physical attack. You don't resolve a shooting attack on the charge... It's all resolved on the abstract plane.
So whether one guy in the unit is actually hurling a grenade or they all are, the end result is the same.
Yep. Its also supported by the FAQ as well:
Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.
The same should apply to grenades as well, as Assault, Plasma and Defensive Grenades give their extra benefits simply by being equipped with them.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, the FAQ doesn't change Initiative bonuses. It just clarifies that the ' only 1 model can throw ' part applies both to shooting and to using it as a weapon in close combat.
I mean this sincerely.(you are a long stnding member on here Dakka^2 ) and Ive come to respect your opinion...
But why doesn't it change intitiative or other bonuses?
the rulebook phrase akin to "only one model per unit can throw a grenade of any type" is now reinforced by this FAQ ruling.
It really feels like splitting hairs by saying that the effect of the modeled rule/object (grenade) is caused by owning it (shiny!!) and not by it being used/thrown (KABOOM!!!).
This gets all very much into a "what is the defintion of the word 'IS' is?" kinda thing.and opens up more questions than it answers to me. Do you just have to own the grenade or actaully "use" it? is "using" a grenade the act of throwing it? is throwing a grenade the same as attaking with it? I can have a whole phonebook(anachronism) of new questions based on that one answer from GW by tomrrow morning.
What if an abilty is given to a unit/model and it "Counts as having type X grenade." but ithe effect does not come from throwing a small pineapple-shaped object somewhere.(perferably close to the enemy and away fro me). For example, if I have a loud eletric based guitar that makes me "count as being equipped with offensive and defensive grenades" do I have to throw my electric guitar in order to gain the effect? since ithe effect is generate from my JAMMING OUT(i'm teribly hip and current wit hte latest phrases) Do I get the benefit of offensive and defensive grenades. That first paragraph in the grenades section really has an impact I never noticed until now.
a meltabomb is NEVER thrown by it's description and it's rules for the non-use in the shooting phase, it only mentions that it "used". Since it does not give the method by which it is "used", but it is known NOT to be thrown, are they exempt from this ruling?
it feels like we're all trying really hard to let this abysmally constructed ruling NOT effect the value of anything unlucky enough to be governed by the grenades section of the 40k main rulebook.
(I know I'm using hyperbole in my argument, but again please know this is not a sign of disrespect towards you or your answer, jst of a very poorly concievd GW answer)
derling wrote: It really feels like splitting hairs by saying that the effect of the modeled rule/object (grenade) is caused by owning it (shiny!!) and not by it being used/thrown (KABOOM)
And yet its totally supported by the FAQ I quoted.
But why doesn't it change intitiative or other bonuses?
the rulebook phrase akin to "only one model per unit can throw a grenade of any type" is now reinforced by this FAQ ruling.
What it reinforces is that 'throwing' is synonymous with ' making an attack with'.
The initiative bonus comes from (fluffwise) chucking grenades as the model charges, but rules-wise this isn't reflected by an actual attack... It's just a passive effect that is in play if you have the requisite equipment.
insaniak wrote: You don't need to change your thinking at all, because the initiative boat from charging with grenades was never the result of a physical attack. You don't resolve a shooting attack on the charge... It's all resolved on the abstract plane.
So whether one guy in the unit is actually hurling a grenade or they all are, the end result is the same.
Yep. Its also supported by the FAQ as well:
Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.
The same should apply to grenades as well, as Assault, Plasma and Defensive Grenades give their extra benefits simply by being equipped with them.
Whie preparing a response to this post (which had eve MORE TERRIFYING REVELATIONS!!), I was able to slow down and comprehend Ghaz's (and all preious others) answers as to why this poor ruling doesn't break ALL grenades of ALL types.
I still hate the GW ruling on thie matter and corrupts the universal modelling of all objects (grenade), but it does not dos not destroy all thins( grenade).
Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
rollawaythestone wrote: Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.
Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...
insaniak wrote: 'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.
Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...
C'mon now, don't exaggerate. You don't have to sell a kidney, some blood will do
Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.
The same should apply to grenades as well, as Assault, Plasma and Defensive Grenades give their extra benefits simply by being equipped with them.
Well, it does. Plasma grenades, say, "Models equipped with plasma grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal initiative step in the ensuing combat." So that means that models (bearing) plasma grenades get that bonus whether or not they're using a plasma grenade that turn.
It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."
It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."
Put knife away/down, throw grenade with free hand then grab the knife again. How exactly do you think actual soldiers use grenades in combat? It's not like you're able to properly use something like a G36 one-handed - your rifle becomes "inoperable" while throwing a grenade.
insaniak wrote: 'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.
Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...
Well to be fair we don't know everything that every companies make. Of course PP is not the first one to make them, but I see what the poster was saying as the first of the major companies to put one out for sale. In other words, GW copied PP.
insaniak wrote: 'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.
Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...
Well to be fair we don't know everything that every companies make. Of course PP is not the first one to make them, but I see what the poster was saying as the first of the major companies to put one out for sale. In other words, GW copied PP.
To be fair I'm pretty sure GW has been in business making games longer than any other company (name one thats been in business longer) and almost all other game companies have taken at least inspiration from GW and a lot more.
Also, I've always felt that GW thinks they live on a floating cloud above the rest of us mortals gifting us with their commandments (rules) as they see fit and are too self absorbed to notice the passing lives of us mortals (i.e. acknowledge the existence of PP never mind copy their ideas). Latest facebook FAQ stuff being the very first time they acknowledged our puny existence.
rollawaythestone wrote: Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
I saw that and I had no choice but to do a Picard facepalm. Seriously, after the drop pod ruling it is the Apothecary they are worried about? I mean, apothecaries with upgrades is hardly game breaking or unreasonable, and it in fact adds some usability to the apothecary. Where as the drop pod thing creates nothing but problems. Just when I think GW is making a step in the right direction, they do something to show all they have done is tripped, fell, and smashed their face into the ground.
rollawaythestone wrote: Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
I saw that and I had no choice but to do a Picard facepalm. Seriously, after the drop pod ruling it is the Apothecary they are worried about? I mean, apothecaries with upgrades is hardly game breaking or unreasonable, and it in fact adds some usability to the apothecary. Where as the drop pod thing creates nothing but problems. Just when I think GW is making a step in the right direction, they do something to show all they have done is tripped, fell, and smashed their face into the ground.
Yup, so much this ^^. So a Apothecary with a special weapon is 'broken' but the gak-storm they opened up ( get it? its funny because I say its funny[said in my best Alucard voice]) with the drop-pods is just arm chair quarterbackrific. Thanks for delivering again bob the temp @ GW
rollawaythestone wrote: Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:
Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.
Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.
I saw that and I had no choice but to do a Picard facepalm. Seriously, after the drop pod ruling it is the Apothecary they are worried about? I mean, apothecaries with upgrades is hardly game breaking or unreasonable, and it in fact adds some usability to the apothecary. Where as the drop pod thing creates nothing but problems. Just when I think GW is making a step in the right direction, they do something to show all they have done is tripped, fell, and smashed their face into the ground.
Yup, so much this ^^. So a Apothecary with a special weapon is 'broken' but the gak-storm they opened up ( get it? its funny because I say its funny[said in my best Alucard voice]) with the drop-pods is just arm chair quarterbackrific. Thanks for delivering again bob the temp @ GW
No. The guy in the graphics department put up the wrong answer to the Apothecary question (or something to that effect). It was changed to what it was supposed to be even before it was posted incorrectly, not due to feedback on the Facebook page.
No. The guy in the graphics department put up the wrong answer to the Apothecary question (or something to that effect). It was changed to what it was supposed to be even before it was posted incorrectly, not due to feedback on the Facebook page.
I know that. What I am saying is, so the apoth with a special weapon or a close combat weapon ( ie a powersword, power fist etc) isn't what GW wants but somehow the vague wording on the drop pods FAQ is ok and good to go?
So a Apothecary with a variant load out is 'bad' and a no go, but somehow drop pod shenanigans are A-OK? Or are we suppose to "Forge the Narrative" with drop pods also?
Thanks again bob the temp in the graphics dept for your clear and concise FAQ ruling on drop pods
It doesn't matter if the Apothecary with a special weapon is 'good' or 'bad'. Their answer is for how they intended it to be played. Trying to compare it to the drop pod question is like comparing apples to oranges.
Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
However the drop pod is 90% doors. The simple response from GW is the doors on drop pods are decorations not part of the model.
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Ghaz wrote: It doesn't matter if the Apothecary with a special weapon is 'good' or 'bad'. Their answer is for how they intended it to be played. Trying to compare it to the drop pod question is like comparing apples to oranges.
And what I'm saying is that it is a bad answer.
How is it a different question? It's both inconsistent rulings based on a lack of in game knowledge and how the models operate. Seems like apples to apples to me
The quick and dirty way to fix the drop pods would be, once the drop pods come down the doors/ramps are considered like aerials and banners and not counted, all measurement is from the hull of the drop pod. As for the blocking of true LOS, this is another problem with true LOS in a abstract game. The drop pod should be able to be shot through ( as if the doors are all open no matter how it is modeled) with the usual +4 or +5 cover save as per the normal rules for shooting through cover, models etc.
I have constructed my drop pods with the doors closed. Am I now boned? Do I have to rip apart my models and construct them with the doors open? I'm lazy and I don't want to have to construct/paint the interiors of my drop pods. Am I now 'That fething guy' who models for advantage?
This was not a well thought out rule and as I said before shows a lack of in game knowledge from the company that makes the models/rules. Do I have to now 'Forge the Narrative"(aka make up the fething rules because GW is to lazy/incompetent to actually you know makes rules for their games) on my drop pods with my gaming friends?
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.
Ghaz wrote: It doesn't matter if the Apothecary with a special weapon is 'good' or 'bad'. Their answer is for how they intended it to be played. Trying to compare it to the drop pod question is like comparing apples to oranges.
And what I'm saying is that it is a bad answer.
How is it a different question? It's both inconsistent rulings based on a lack of in game knowledge and how the models operate. Seems like apples to apples to me
The quick and dirty way to fix the drop pods would be, once the drop pods come down the doors/ramps are considered like aerials and banners and not counted, all measurement is from the hull of the drop pod. As for the blocking of true LOS, this is another problem with true LOS in a abstract game. The drop pod should be able to be shot through ( as if the doors are all open no matter how it is modeled) with the usual +4 or +5 cover save as per the normal rules for shooting through cover, models etc.
I have constructed my drop pods with the doors closed. Am I now boned? Do I have to rip apart my models and construct them with the doors open? I'm lazy and I don't want to have to construct/paint the interiors of my drop pods. Am I now 'That fething guy' who models for advantage?
This was not a well thought out rule and as I said before shows a lack of in game knowledge from the company that makes the models/rules. Do I have to now 'Forge the Narrative"(aka make up the fething rules because GW is to lazy/incompetent to actually you know makes rules for their games) on my drop pods with my gaming friends?
Not allowing an Apothecary to carry a special weapon is not a 'bad' answer and does not in any way demonstrate a lack of game knowledge. Its a simple 'yes/no' question with a clear answer.
The drop pod question is a bit more complex and goes beyond a 'yes/no' answer. Unlike the Apothecary question, the answer is not so clear and doesn't seem to satisfy anyone.
So again, when you're trying to compare the Apothecary answer to the drop pod answer you're trying to compare apples to oranges.
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.
Still learning the rules, so I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am, but doesn't something about being open top you measure for the vehicle instead of the doors when it's a closed top?
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.
Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.
Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.
Land Raider front ramp probably. Quite a few other vehicles are mechanically designed to allow the doors to open and close- rhinos, falcons, devilfish all come to mind.
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.
Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.
Are you serious There are over a dozen models in games that have openable doors and hatches that have never been used to extend a models reach. My chimeras are all modeled with pinned back hatches that I open up when I deploy my troops because it looks cool, one of them has the old forgeworld chimera insert, and they are painted inside as well.
You ignore the doors just like everyone has been playing the drop pod doors the last two editons.
insaniak wrote: Except the FAQ very specifically tells us to not ignore the doors...
this is a choice we have to make. This is just another ruling from GW which doesn't understand how the vast majority of peoples play with translucent drop pod doors. Your group and your tournaments can chose to accept this or not, and both are fine ways to play with dolls.
Do wait until the FAQ is final, of course. You have lots of time to decide.
It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."
Put knife away/down, throw grenade with free hand then grab the knife again. How exactly do you think actual soldiers use grenades in combat? It's not like you're able to properly use something like a G36 one-handed - your rifle becomes "inoperable" while throwing a grenade.
In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.
Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type
I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.
It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."
Put knife away/down, throw grenade with free hand then grab the knife again. How exactly do you think actual soldiers use grenades in combat? It's not like you're able to properly use something like a G36 one-handed - your rifle becomes "inoperable" while throwing a grenade.
In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.
Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type
I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.
Or you could abstract it as "throwing the grenade" as one model taking the time to line up the toss while the others cover him, while in an assault all the models quickly toss grenades for suppression value, so get the bonus.
@MajorWesJanson - The rules just say that the model needs a grenade equipped (not used, not used by a squadmate, etc) to get the benefits of the grenade, though. I'll just leave it as a game mechanic abstraction that "works" for point vs effectiveness vs balance.
Keep in mind that like I said, I totally don't have a problem with a rule. Originally, I was just pointing out that the FAQ clarifies that you DO get the Assault benefit of a Plasma grenade (for example) even if you're clearly using something else at the time. You just need to have paid the points for it, and the passive benefits are yours.
Talys wrote: I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt..
Except that's not what's happening. The Initiative benefit when charging is representing the model throwing a grenade as he charges. That grenade attack is simply abstracted as a bonus for his first round of combat, rather than as a direct attack.
Insaniak is right. This is to prevent confusion between "throwing" grenades as a shooting attack and "throwing" grenades to gain an Initiative bonus when charging. "To throw" applies to both, so for the abstraction of the game we separate this into "models equipped with" and use "throw" to refer to "make a shooting attack".
If we visualise the sequence of events in our "forged narrative", then yes, one or more of the models throws a grenade, flushing the enemy out from their cover so as to remove their close combat advantage. Defensive grenades are used in the opposite way, thrown by the defender to disorient or disrupt their attackers, but once again this isn't a shooting attack as defined by the rules.
The game mechanics of grenades and how they relate to charges and terrain don't result in any model movement or blast templates being placed. It's just how the game works. In the narrative, however, grenades are absolutely being thrown regardless. Such abstractions are useful, as is the abstraction that saves us the mind-numbing hassle of tracking each and every model's equipment. Imagine if you had to have actual numbers for how much ammunition and how many grenades a model has!
Therefore "throw" in game terms is restricted to "make a shooting attack". Models can benefit from the stated grenade rules all they want, but they can only ever make one shooting attack per unit with them in a turn.
@Insaniak, @Frozen Ocean - I am talking about this:
Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon? A: Yes.
BRB p. 180 Plasma Grenades - Models equipped with plasma grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain but fight at their normal Initiative step in the ensuing combat
So, an Autarch with Plasma grenades, Haywire Grenades, a shuriken pistol, and a power sword charges through difficult terrain and enters cc with his power sword and shuriken pistol (or, say, Azurmen by himself with his relic sword). He gets the bonus that the plasma grenades convey, even though he's charging with two other weapons.
Heck, he gets the plasma grenade bonus when he's using the haywire grenades. The FAQ says that it doesn't matter what he is using: as long as he has a plasma grenade in his wargear, he always receives the passive assault bonus conveyed by the plasma grenades, because the bonus listed on Plasma Grenades reads, "Models equipped with ..." rather than when the item is used, or when the item causes damage, or some other similar text.
This was NOT how our group played it; with grenades specifically, we played it such that the Autarch only received the grenade's Assault bonus only if the Autarch was using the grenade (which is pretty rare). But we will change as a result of the FAQ.
That the FAQ has brought your group around to the correct procedure is a happy coincidence, but the question, I'd imagine, was probably more geared to items of wargear such as the Blade Of Blood from Codex: Chaos Daemons which confers Rampage on the bearer, and even at my club's level provoked discussion on whether one needed to be using it to attack in order to receive the effect, or merely be carrying it.
Frozen Ocean wrote: Insaniak is right. This is to prevent confusion between "throwing" grenades as an attack and "throwing" grenades to gain an Initiative bonus when charging. "To throw" applies to both, so for the abstraction of the game we separate this into "models equipped with" and use "throw" to refer to "make an attack".
If we visualise the sequence of events in our "forged narrative", then yes, one or more of the models throws a grenade, flushing the enemy out from their cover so as to remove their close combat advantage. Defensive grenades are used in the opposite way, thrown by the defender to disorient or disrupt their attackers, but once again this isn't an attack as defined by the rules.
The game mechanics of grenades and how they relate to charges and terrain don't result in any model movement or blast templates being placed. It's just how the game works. In the narrative, however, grenades are absolutely being thrown regardless. Such abstractions are useful, as is the abstraction that saves us the mind-numbing hassle of tracking each and every model's equipment. Imagine if you had to have actual numbers for how much ammunition and how many grenades a model has!
Therefore "throw" in game terms is restricted to "make an attack". Models can benefit from the stated grenade rules all they want, but they can only ever make one attack per unit with them in a turn.
The general rulebook FAQ clarified that only one grenade could be used in the melee phase as well, so i fixed that for you.
gungo wrote: Here is ultimately the issue with the drop pod. On no other model are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance or even block movement or line of sight.
This is incorrect. On 100% of models with doors are doors used to claim objectives, gain distance, and even block movement or line of sight.
Where in the rulebook are you finding the rule that says "doors don't count as part of the model they are on". Because that doesn't exist.
You thought you understood something, but didn't. Now it's being pointed out that you didn't understand it, and you don't like that you misunderstood something. It's clear now, just accept it. Gaining knowledge is always positive.
Decorations and modeling a model for advantage don't count as part of the model. Boarding planks don't add to an Ork trukk profile, doors on buildings count as access points and don't block movement, you can't cut out a single door on any model In the game swing it open and be like oh look my stompas ass flaps now reach out 6inches and can claim that objective in my deployment zone just because you modeled it that way.
Maybe you need to reread those sections as well.
Nice false equivalence, now try naming a door on any other transport that is ignored. Not only that but you are assuming a door can't be a door as well as a major part of the hull which is daft.
Are you serious There are over a dozen models in games that have openable doors and hatches that have never been used to extend a models reach. My chimeras are all modeled with pinned back hatches that I open up when I deploy my troops because it looks cool, one of them has the old forgeworld chimera insert, and they are painted inside as well.
You ignore the doors just like everyone has been playing the drop pod doors the last two editons.
Right, so you have made it past step 1 without resorting to false scenarios now step two is where you show me in the rules, regardless of this FAQ, where it tells us we are allowed to ignore those doors? My guess is you have been making assumptions rather then following an actual rule.
We have always made assumptions while playing, and much more influencing than the hatches issue.
So according to the rules of LOS if your model can trace a real line of sight to the arms, legs, torso or head of an infantry model then you can see it. This means that spore mines are invisible since they have nothing of that. Obviously no one plays like that, and makes the assumption that the core and tentacles of the spore mines also count for LOS, but RAW you would never be able to see a spore mine.
Talys wrote: @Insaniak, @Frozen Ocean - I am talking about this:
Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.
BRB p. 180
Plasma Grenades - Models equipped with plasma grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain but fight at their normal Initiative step in the ensuing combat
So, an Autarch with Plasma grenades, Haywire Grenades, a shuriken pistol, and a power sword charges through difficult terrain and enters cc with his power sword and shuriken pistol (or, say, Azurmen by himself with his relic sword). He gets the bonus that the plasma grenades convey, even though he's charging with two other weapons.
Heck, he gets the plasma grenade bonus when he's using the haywire grenades. The FAQ says that it doesn't matter what he is using: as long as he has a plasma grenade in his wargear, he always receives the passive assault bonus conveyed by the plasma grenades, because the bonus listed on Plasma Grenades reads, "Models equipped with ..." rather than when the item is used, or when the item causes damage, or some other similar text.
This was NOT how our group played it; with grenades specifically, we played it such that the Autarch only received the grenade's Assault bonus only if the Autarch was using the grenade (which is pretty rare). But we will change as a result of the FAQ.
Am I missing something, guys?
Sorry, I thought your issue was that thematically it didn't make sense (I was explaining the rules behind your statement "getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt"), but no, it was just that you were playing it wrong the whole time. Nothing has changed. The rule was likely to clear up the debate over certain items such as the Dreadknight's sword (which was always completely clear, but people argued against it anyway).
Neronoxx, melee didn't come into it because the rulebook describes (from a pure fluff standpoint, of course) grenades being "clamped in place" in melee rather than thrown. Also your edited version of my last sentence is incorrect; a unit can make two attacks with grenades in a turn; one thrown (a shooting attack in the Shooting phase) and one in melee.
I consider myself your super average player and I dont see the 'sky is falling' with the drop pod ruling just now you measure to the doors and doors left closed block line of site. I dont see it affecting garage style gameplay too much.
The sky isn't falling... It's just a bad ruling, as the pod with the doors included has such a massive footprint. This makes it much harder to deep strike then on tables with dense terrain (which should be all of them), and means that if and when you do manage to find room to deploy them they have a massive impact on the table through blocking off potential movement routes.
The drop pod is basically one of the all time best examples of a model designed to look cool with no though put into the impact the model would actually have on the game.
@Frozen Ocean, Azreal13 - Yeah, I (our group) has been playing it wrong the whole time, though only specifically with grenades - not with other equipment that might confer bonuses. I don't think it'll make much of a difference either way in our games, tbh.
When I first posted about it a couple pages back, I was just mentioning that it wasn't a bad question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: The sky isn't falling... It's just a bad ruling, as the pod with the doors included has such a massive footprint. This makes it much harder to deep strike then on tables with dense terrain (which should be all of them), and means that if and when you do manage to find room to deploy them they have a massive impact on the table through blocking off potential movement routes.
But you could just play with the doors closed, right? Or swing open the doors that you elect to swing open. Then it would be no bigger a footprint than before, and the 100% cover ruling can be pretty beneficial.
In a way, if you build your pods with doors that can be articulated, it makes it a very flexibile unit to abuse. People already block off titans with drop pods, but this makes it even easier. Who needs superfriends when you can take the Flesh Tearers formation to get 6 drop pods -- with nothing in most of them -- just to fill the board up with LoS blocking and movement impeding crap so that you can safely maneuver and close in. That's only 210 points + troop + hq -- and you can plaster the board with 6 ginormous pieces of junk that's hard to delete. Add another 90 pts for DWL's, and they can even kill some stuff -- or at least make it so that they can't be ignored.
Neronoxx, melee didn't come into it because the rulebook describes (from a pure fluff standpoint, of course) grenades being "clamped in place" in melee rather than thrown. Also your edited version of my last sentence is incorrect; a unit can make two attacks with grenades in a turn; one thrown (a shooting attack in the Shooting phase) and one in melee.
It may be incorrect, but only because you said it XD.
And technically a unit could make three in a turn if given an out-of-phase shooting attack with interceptor or the like on the enemy turn (1 for shooting, 1 for overwatch and 1 in melee.
Talys wrote: @Frozen Ocean, Azreal13 - Yeah, I (our group) has been playing it wrong the whole time, though only specifically with grenades - not with other equipment that might confer bonuses. I don't think it'll make much of a difference either way in our games, tbh.
When I first posted about it a couple pages back, I was just mentioning that it wasn't a bad question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: The sky isn't falling... It's just a bad ruling, as the pod with the doors included has such a massive footprint. This makes it much harder to deep strike then on tables with dense terrain (which should be all of them), and means that if and when you do manage to find room to deploy them they have a massive impact on the table through blocking off potential movement routes.
But you could just play with the doors closed, right? Or swing open the doors that you elect to swing open. Then it would be no bigger a footprint than before, and the 100% cover ruling can be pretty beneficial.
In a way, if you build your pods with doors that can be articulated, it makes it a very flexibile unit to abuse. People already block off titans with drop pods, but this makes it even easier. Who needs superfriends when you can take the Flesh Tearers formation to get 6 drop pods -- with nothing in most of them -- just to fill the board up with LoS blocking and movement impeding crap so that you can safely maneuver and close in. That's only 210 points + troop + hq -- and you can plaster the board with 6 ginormous pieces of junk that's hard to delete. Add another 90 pts for DWL's, and they can even kill some stuff -- or at least make it so that they can't be ignored.
Yes, you will soon have no friends...
Or you could simply abuse the rules with the plethora of already available cheese and lose friends just as quickly. How about thunderwolf deathstars with ravenwing buds or wulfen turn 1 assault units? How about invisible super heavies?
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people jump all over something new as being a detriment to a game that already has countless fun sucking options available. I mean heck even a fluffy single codex ravenwing army can field a couple dark shrouds and have an army wide 2+ re-rollable cover save on t5 fast troops with scout, hit and run, stubborn and improved, twin linked overwatch. Try beating that with most armies.
But it is the drop pod that will ruin lives here lol. The footprint of a drop pod isn't a problem because luckily there is a perfectly legal alternative in keeping the things shut.
Spoletta wrote: We have always made assumptions while playing, and much more influencing than the hatches issue.
So according to the rules of LOS if your model can trace a real line of sight to the arms, legs, torso or head of an infantry model then you can see it. This means that spore mines are invisible since they have nothing of that. Obviously no one plays like that, and makes the assumption that the core and tentacles of the spore mines also count for LOS, but RAW you would never be able to see a spore mine.
Spore mines have limbs as well as a head and at the very least you can't claim they don't have a torso. If you chose to be pedantic about what is a head with your opponent then that's your decision. If your claiming a hive tyrant has legs and arms despite being alien in design you would be hard pressed to claim tentacles on a spore mine wouldn't fall in the same category.
There is a difference between a game revolving around true line of sight, meaning you have to literally (old definition) see your opponents model from your model in order to shoot it and how you choose to define or name the parts of that model. Playing drop pods as invisible movement blockers has and will always be a lazy mans approach, it immediately breaks one of the most important tenants of the games rules and never had any place in the rule set. I pointed this out earlier, show me in the rules where doors are permitted to be ignored. Pointing out other areas of sloppy writing isn't an answer to that question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zach wrote: Having played one game in the past 7 months, what were the shenanigans involved with Librarius conclave before?
People were widely apparently claiming they could empirically channel powers for easier casting while still manifesting their own powers. Resulting in stupid levels of efficiency in the psychic phase, a phase only regulated by it's random nature.
Doesn't count. Doors are not attached to the base, so the doors don't do nothing. Also why would you have the 2 pods touching? Why not put them 1.999" away from each other since no mini can move within 1" of the enemy. So increase your line. Come on, if you are going to whine about cheese, do it properly lol.
Hey more power to you if you can pull that off. After all they can't scatter for that to happen. There is more things to complain about this. If someone wants to do this, plan for it I say and adapt. Don't whine and cry about it.
Eh. Drop pods should be abstracted as Deep Strike and the model not be required anyway. Kinda silly to plonk this massive spendy bit of plastic down just to do what amounts to Deep Striking. But I know that doesn't help here.
Why is that an issue exactly? I wasn't aware of anything in the FAQ that somehow made Drop Pods completely invulnerable.
I've been dealing with Drop Pods keeping me away from objectives for 10 years now. You too can adapt.
The problem being that the enemy cannot reach that objective without either going around or first destroying a pod then difficult terrain-ing through it
How does that matter? I can do the same thing with a pair of rhinos parked sideways and 2.5 inches apart only when you try to move around I can tank shock you back each turn.
To be fair, especially as a Tyranid player and smash rules being what they are in 7ed, there is a huge difference in assaulting AV10 rear armor and AV12 all around with 3 hull points.
The rhinos have to drive across the table, and aren't all around AV12 and therefore generally immune to regular infantry attacks and all small arms fire.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people jump all over something new as being a detriment to a game that already has countless fun sucking options available. .
People will call out bad rulings where they see them. A bad ruling is no less bad just because there are other aspects of the game that aren't perfect.
Not sure why that would be so amazing, to be honest.
Although technically, blood angels just got a boost so...good for them?
The reason you'll not find BA players cheering is much the same reason you don't find Chaos players over the moon about IA 13 making their army viable.
The problem being that the enemy cannot reach that objective without either going around or first destroying a pod then difficult terrain-ing through it
gigasnail wrote: The rhinos have to drive across the table, and aren't all around AV12 and therefore generally immune to regular infantry attacks and all small arms fire.
And the drop pods have to start off the table and scatter into position with an amazingly hard to deploy footprint. Rhinos are also immune to 9/10 small arms fire being that they are av11 except at the rear. Also note that with the recent FAQ drop pods are more likely to die to units that assault with melta bomb or other anti tank grenade since they are open topped and can be exploded easier but more importantly since they are auto hit in combat.
with inertial guidance, it's hardly difficult to deploy pods within 2" of each other, you don't even have to touch them, and you get your pods pretty much on-order (some formations specifically on order). and AV12 all around is orders of magnitude better than AV11/10 rear.
but sure, whatever i'm sure we're all over reacting.
Talys wrote: In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.
Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type
I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.
Or howabout this scenario:
Squad prepares to charge in. One member takes up grenade, throw it and when it goes boom forcing defenders to duck in he and his squad mates charge in. While running he also has ample time to pull up his holstered pistol in preparation of combat.
Pretty much how it goes in real life(well apart from wielding pistol and sword)
Doesn't count. Doors are not attached to the base, so the doors don't do nothing. Also why would you have the 2 pods touching? Why not put them 1.999" away from each other since no mini can move within 1" of the enemy. So increase your line. Come on, if you are going to whine about cheese, do it properly lol.
Hey more power to you if you can pull that off. After all they can't scatter for that to happen. There is more things to complain about this. If someone wants to do this, plan for it I say and adapt. Don't whine and cry about it.
Doors are part of model as per FAQ. You can't move over enemy models. Ergo you can't go over the drop pods so are stuck at the other side until you blow those pods apart.
Red Corsair wrote: Also note that with the recent FAQ drop pods are more likely to die to units that assault with melta bomb or other anti tank grenade since they are open topped and can be exploded easier but more importantly since they are auto hit in combat.
Grenades and melta bombs got an FAQ too, saying only one model per unit can use it in combat. Some armies will simply have a very hard time getting past an area of drop pods.
Thing is drop pod blocking has been a tactic for years, now it has just been spelled out how it works and made more effective. Some armies laughed at it, others were severely hampered. A horde army will just come to a full stop, and prey there are no thunderfire cannons nearby.
i suppose it just depends on how much of a jerk your SM opponent is. For me, I think there should be a chance for any AA in range, to shoot them down before the drop pod is deployed on the field.
Although technically, blood angels just got a boost so...good for them?
The reason you'll not find BA players cheering is much the same reason you don't find Chaos players over the moon about IA 13 making their army viable.
JohnnyHell wrote: Eh. Drop pods should be abstracted as Deep Strike and the model not be required anyway. Kinda silly to plonk this massive spendy bit of plastic down just to do what amounts to Deep Striking. But I know that doesn't help here.
They used to be, and prior to that it was a special mission from codex space marines, then people kept whining at GW to make the model, then GW made the model, now you want the model to go and have an abstract... circles within circles, the dark angels approve!
Talys wrote: In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.
Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type
I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.
Or howabout this scenario:
Squad prepares to charge in. One member takes up grenade, throw it and when it goes boom forcing defenders to duck in he and his squad mates charge in. While running he also has ample time to pull up his holstered pistol in preparation of combat.
Pretty much how it goes in real life(well apart from wielding pistol and sword)
Doesn't count. Doors are not attached to the base, so the doors don't do nothing. Also why would you have the 2 pods touching? Why not put them 1.999" away from each other since no mini can move within 1" of the enemy. So increase your line. Come on, if you are going to whine about cheese, do it properly lol.
Hey more power to you if you can pull that off. After all they can't scatter for that to happen. There is more things to complain about this. If someone wants to do this, plan for it I say and adapt. Don't whine and cry about it.
Doors are part of model as per FAQ. You can't move over enemy models. Ergo you can't go over the drop pods so are stuck at the other side until you blow those pods apart.
Can't skimmers, jet bikes, and jump units move over enemy models?
Red Corsair wrote: Also note that with the recent FAQ drop pods are more likely to die to units that assault with melta bomb or other anti tank grenade since they are open topped and can be exploded easier but more importantly since they are auto hit in combat.
Grenades and melta bombs got an FAQ too, saying only one model per unit can use it in combat. Some armies will simply have a very hard time getting past an area of drop pods.
Thing is drop pod blocking has been a tactic for years, now it has just been spelled out how it works and made more effective. Some armies laughed at it, others were severely hampered. A horde army will just come to a full stop, and prey there are no thunderfire cannons nearby.
That was literally the FAQ answer I was talking about in my post, sorry. I was pointing out how that one attack is MUSCH more critical now, and in fact due to pods being av 12 all around but immobilized and open topped, they are much more vulnerable to melta bombs held by characters.
In regards to the horde army, this is a fair complaint about the game, but horde armies are not suddenly invalid due to the pod FAQ. Thunderfire canons and just about every other shooty thing in the game coupled with random assaults and overwatch already ruined hordes. There are already so many nails in that coffin you are out of empty space to pound in those extra nails.
EnTyme wrote: I think it may be time to dust off that old 35 drop pod list I saw on dakka a few months back. May be one of the most broken lists in the game now.
I wouldn't think so... On a standard table, even with no terrain or other models I don't think that many pods would physically fit on the board.
EnTyme wrote: I think it may be time to dust off that old 35 drop pod list I saw on dakka a few months back. May be one of the most broken lists in the game now.
It's be very likely to kill many of its own units. And if it doesn't, it'll finally give Battle Cannons something to do in 40k again. So go for it. Your opponents might appreciate it.
EnTyme wrote: I think it may be time to dust off that old 35 drop pod list I saw on dakka a few months back. May be one of the most broken lists in the game now.
I wouldn't think so... On a standard table, even with no terrain or other models I don't think that many pods would physically fit on the board.
WALLS FOR THE WALL GOD! TOWERS FOR THE MAZE THRONE!
EnTyme wrote: I think it may be time to dust off that old 35 drop pod list I saw on dakka a few months back. May be one of the most broken lists in the game now.
I wouldn't think so... On a standard table, even with no terrain or other models I don't think that many pods would physically fit on the board.
WALLS FOR THE WALL GOD! TOWERS FOR THE MAZE THRONE!
Honestly, playing a xenos race/chaos warband trying to get offworld while the marines are full deploying sounds like a half decent narrative to be forged. Imagine it, scurrying back to your ships/warp portals/whatever, and trying to get there before getting overwhelmed by the chapter dropping reinforcements in, pod after pod after pod.
Could work for playing against Tyranids as well, with them dropping spores that blow up and spawn guys as well.
Maybe I'm cray-cray... but, deploying doors during deepstriking sees more of a disadvantage, than advantage.
Why?
Because the SM player is going to account for the table edge to mitigate mishaps. Thus, bunching the pods towards the center of the table.
In malestorm missions... just place your obj as close to the table edge as possible.
In addition, your army will still need to deal with drop pods, so assuming it's deployed with the doors out, it'll be easier to get into CC by the nature of it's larger footprint to bust open the pods.
JohnnyHell wrote: Eh. Drop pods should be abstracted as Deep Strike and the model not be required anyway. Kinda silly to plonk this massive spendy bit of plastic down just to do what amounts to Deep Striking. But I know that doesn't help here.
They used to be, and prior to that it was a special mission from codex space marines, then people kept whining at GW to make the model, then GW made the model, now you want the model to go and have an abstract... circles within circles, the dark angels approve!
Not even mission but special way to deploy all foot marine army.
Did require them to forego all vechiles though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: In addition, your army will still need to deal with drop pods, so assuming it's deployed with the doors out, it'll be easier to get into CC by the nature of it's larger footprint to bust open the pods.
Or, am I smoking some there?
Who CC's in the shooty edition? Especially in tournament settings with their turkey shoot gallery tables...
Who CC's in the shooty edition? Especially in tournament settings with their turkey shoot gallery tables...
BA tries SW does. Certain marine units (looking at you IHCM Smash and Command squad) are quite effective in cc (about all we IH have left is Smash and he isn't even fluff compliant). There are a few other units here and there that are quite effective in cc when tooled correctly and used right. But , unfortunately, like you said for the most cc is the red headed step child of 40k.
Who CC's in the shooty edition? Especially in tournament settings with their turkey shoot gallery tables...
BA tries SW does. Certain marine units (looking at you IHCM Smash and Command squad) are quite effective in cc (about all we IH have left is Smash and he isn't even fluff compliant). There are a few other units here and there that are quite effective in cc when tooled correctly and used right. But , unfortunately, like you said for the most cc is the red headed step child of 40k.
Assault is still extremely powerful. Anything that can sweep shooting/important units or tie up/instagib a GC/SHV are very relevant in the game right now. Just because Assault Marines aren't good doesn't mean the act of charging things is a bad decision.
Optional Rule: Space Wolfves, Grey Knights and BA Dreadnauts get 2 more attacks, IF you can browbeat your friends into houseruling it.
OY.
Stop forcing us to rule lawyer our friends!
<sigh>
I understand that it is outside the realm of a FAQ to change the rule (or should be). but these FB posts are also encompassing some actual errata. Instead of whembeling about with “we think it should be this, but aren’t going to change it.” they could have just changed it!
It’s OK to recognize that you’ve made mistakes, game balance has changed, and fix things. How hard would that be? They might actually sell some dread kits while they are at it...
Optional Rule: Space Wolfves, Grey Knights and BA Dreadnauts get 2 more attacks, IF you can browbeat your friends into houseruling it.
OY.
Stop forcing us to rule lawyer our friends!
<sigh>
I understand that it is outside the realm of a FAQ to change the rule (or should be). but these FB posts are also encompassing some actual errata. Instead of whembeling about with “we think it should be this, but aren’t going to change it.” they could have just changed it!
It’s OK to recognize that you’ve made mistakes, game balance has changed, and fix things. How hard would that be? They might actually sell some dread kits while they are at it...
<grumble>
It's not surprising to me. The ruling is as follows: "We think BA/SW/GK Dreads are fine at 2 attacks, but if your group really thinks they should have the same amount as C:SM or DA Dreads, feel free. Our design team doesn't think it needs a full adjustment at this time, but here's an 'official house rule' that your friends may choose to use."
It's GW's own team that came to that conclusion not those who asked the question. Hence why it was improved in the last codex's. I can appreciate that they will get round to it but for me I'm happy for this to apply across the board even for hellbrute's.
Well done GW for once but I still don't understand why they don't errata it.
Some of those were answerable by the book themselves.
Not sure how I feel about Iron Priest spam...you could literally fun a whole army of them now.
I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should
I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should
?
Only if your opponent agrees to use house rules (you never needed a FAQ to ask your opponent to change rules)
I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should
?
Only if your opponent agrees to use house rules (you never needed a FAQ to ask your opponent to change rules)
Yep. First you and your opponent need to argue about using the house rule. Winner of the argument gets to decide whether or not the bonus applies.
What garage group/FLGS/TO would not choose to use the +2 attack rule? It obviously balances out the same models with the same rule.
Seriously, I'd love to hear someone's story about how someone was jaded enough not to allow it....and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.
It is not specific about that special case, but I know a lot of gamers in the club which play strict by the rules without any house rules.
And than there are those special people that only accept house rules that change rules which are considered stupid by them (while a Codex profile is like it is, we had that back in 3rd/4th with the assault cannon and the BT Codex in 5th)
And I understand those who want to play without any house rules.
If you start once changing every broken rule and Codex profile in 40k you get a complete new game
First one ask to increase the Dreadnought attacks because of the FAQ The other one now wants to get some units cheaper, another one to increase the attacks of his Carnifex, the next one wants to increase the points of another unit etc
So the only solution to keep everyone happy is to skip house rules at all
I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should
?
Only if your opponent agrees to use house rules (you never needed a FAQ to ask your opponent to change rules)
Yep. First you and your opponent need to argue about using the house rule. Winner of the argument gets to decide whether or not the bonus applies.
They really need to expand the Argument Phase as the current "roll a D6" resolution mechanic lacks tactical depth. They should add a few tables to roll on. Oh and give bonuses for Chaplains, Dark Apostles and Ethereals too!
I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should
?
Only if your opponent agrees to use house rules (you never needed a FAQ to ask your opponent to change rules)
Yep. First you and your opponent need to argue about using the house rule. Winner of the argument gets to decide whether or not the bonus applies.
They really need to expand the Argument Phase as the current "roll a D6" resolution mechanic lacks tactical depth. They should add a few tables to roll on. Oh and give bonuses for Chaplains, Dark Apostles and Ethereals too!
