List of questions for FAQ:
0. Do I die lose if I am killed concede?.1. QUESTOR TRAITORIS Faction Trait and Command Assets are non-functional.2. When "Chaos Boon", "Gift of Chaos", and "Bolt of Change" Command Assets say to replace a model with a CHAOS SPAWN model, does that mean any datasheet with the CHAOS SPAWN keyword?3. Ork Boyz prevent that detachment from getting a WARLORD3.5: Likewise for Spirit Seers and Wraith units4. Clarification needed on T'au Drones in general5. What happens if you use the "Demolitions" Command Asset on a terrain feature that is glued to the table?6. "Medicae Supplies" Command Asset can cause TMIR to trigger7. How do Movement Trays interact with rules that require Base Contact?8. Malanthropes have a broken Monstrous Brood rule?9. How does Phantasm interact with Barrage weapons and units that are not in Line of Sight?10. Do you have to reveal cards you tutor for?11. Do Gargoyles really have 6 attacks at 30 models?12. Why do Chaos Spawn get slower at 3 models then faster again at 4 or 5?

Great example of obvious intent with failed execution.

Even if it said <QUESTOR TRAITORIS> that keyword has been replaced...

Yeah, this is a clear case of RAW stomping all over the most likely RAI outcome. I can't say for certain, not being psychic, but I think the intent is clear - not that that matters past non-tournament games.

Why GW went for a keyword system when they struggle so much with writing clearly is a mystery.

Yup. They could have just given those 3 whole units 2 keywords. QUESTOR TRAITORIS and <QUESTOR TRAITORIS> and then it would have been fine.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yup. They could have just given those 3 whole units 2 keywords. QUESTOR TRAITORIS and <QUESTOR TRAITORIS> and then it would have been fine.

This is what I think the best solution would be, give them QUESTOR TRAITORIS and change <QUESTOR TRAITORIS> to <TRAITOR HOUSEHOLD> in the PDF. Then they don't need to errata the field manual.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, this is a clear case of RAW stomping all over the most likely RAI outcome. I can't say for certain, not being psychic, but I think the intent is clear - not that that matters past non-tournament games.

Why GW went for a keyword system when they struggle so much with writing clearly is a mystery.

Some RAW people don't care even when the game designers tell them what they intended clearly.

stratigo wrote:
Some RAW people don't care even when the game designers tell them what they intended clearly.

There is this thing called errata. If GW want to change what a rule does, they can issue errata, then everyone is happy!

I've added another rules issue and "oddities" I've come across on my travels to the OP as to not clutter the forum with multiple threads.

Appreciate the efforts BCB.

1) Yep, needs faqed. CHAOS KNIGHTS on the datasheets should be QUAESTOR TRATORIS on the cards. Since the datasheets are PDFs and presumably can be edited, I figure they should add the QUAESTOR TRAITORIS keyword on the card and get rid of CHAOS KNIGHTS - slightly more awkward but just in case the cards ever confuse anyone they should reissue the electronic doc.

2) I don't see this as any different from abilities that affect any keyword. You may select any one-model unit with the CHAOS SPAWN keyword, of which there are...three? Appearing in various indexes, sharing all stats except for faction keywords. So, if you're playing Thousand Sons, you probably want to be putting down Thousand Sons keyword spawn, while if you're playing Legionario Copyrighticum you probably want that keyword.

3) At first glance I thought this didn't seem intended, and I suppose they could FAQ the warboss to have LD7, but I do think the larger system of some units having too high LD to be commanded by some other units is intended to prevent the spike in usefulness that comes with a super low cost character in 40k. It allows 1PL cheapos like Archon Courts, Astropaths and the like to exist without making them strictly the best Warlords because you can just hide them behind stuff and generate cards for super cheap.

You can come up with plenty of situations that fluff wise "feel" strange - Spiriseers can't be the Warlord of any detachment that includes Wraith Constructs, as an example, or Masters of Ordnance can't be the Warlord of a detachment that includes Artillery - but I can see why you want to have game space for more support role characters who will rarely actually be a Warlord.

4) RAW they're definitely not. The blog is wrong pretty regularly.

5) I can't really come up with an example of a board game where you have to move and remove pieces that doesn't break down if you fix the pieces to the board. What happens if I glue any active game piece down and it gets destroyed, the rules say I have to remove it? "the rules for monopoly require you to move your piece the number of spaces on the dice when it's your turn, but I've SWALLOWED my opponent's piece when he went to the bathroom! Parker Brothers destroyed with facts and logic!"

6) Sure. I haven't checked the "modifying characteristics" section to see if there's a general rule against increasing your Wounds stat above the maximum but I'll assume it's not in there.

7) Given that the movement trays don't technically exist in game terms, and serve only to keep your models in coherency distance while you move them around, I guess you'd just be able to legally move over them. The best way to resolve it would probably be to just claim "wobbly model" as it is a place the model should legally be allowed to go they just can't be placed there. But I agree that the 1/2" engagement distance would have been better ala 2nd edition sigmar.

There is no general rule requiring players designate "Game active objects" and "non-game active objects". What happens if I put down a coke can in front of an enemy unit, or place my hand on the table in front of them as they go to make a move, and I refuse to remove it so the models can go where they should be able to go?

the_scotsman wrote:
2) I don't see this as any different from abilities that affect any keyword. You may select any one-model unit with the CHAOS SPAWN keyword, of which there are...three? Appearing in various indexes, sharing all stats except for faction keywords. So, if you're playing Thousand Sons, you probably want to be putting down Thousand Sons keyword spawn, while if you're playing Legionario Copyrighticum you probably want that keyword.

Huh, I never thought of it that way. I guess you can select any datasheet with the CHAOS SPAWN keyword. Scratch that one then (though an FAQ entry would be nice).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
2) I don't see this as any different from abilities that affect any keyword. You may select any one-model unit with the CHAOS SPAWN keyword, of which there are...three? Appearing in various indexes, sharing all stats except for faction keywords. So, if you're playing Thousand Sons, you probably want to be putting down Thousand Sons keyword spawn, while if you're playing Legionario Copyrighticum you probably want that keyword.

Huh, I never thought of it that way. I guess you can select any datasheet with the CHAOS SPAWN keyword. Scratch that one then (though an FAQ entry would be nice).

Right, the two requirements are "CHAOS SPAWN" keyword and "one model" unit size.

Otherwise, I don't see how the wording differs from other summoning type abilities like the "Daemonic pact" card.

I will say for my own part here that the issue of "Character has a lower LD than many units" does seem to be FAR more common in the Guard and Ork codexes respectively than most others. There are some examples like Kroot Shapers typically not being able to command Tau units, Spiritseers and Warlocks not being able to command high-LD eldar units, and non-Patriarchs in the GSC codex not being able to command Purestrains, but it's definitely the most common with Orks and Guard.

In some instances such as Drukhari, what I thought were minor characters actually have no CHARACTER keyword, meaning they can never be a Warlord. The Court of the Archon and Beastmasters work like this.

In terms of movement trays you can remove models from them at any point and should do so when the positioning could matter like combat or garrisoning terrain (where it doesn't so much matter the positioning but squeezing everyone inside a terrain piece).

When using movement trays, the models the,selves don't really matter, the trays would be the base footprint of the unit. So base to base contact would be touching trays.

 Blndmage wrote:
When using movement trays, the models the,selves don't really matter, the trays would be the base footprint of the unit. So base to base contact would be touching trays.

Can I get a page reference for that?

 Blndmage wrote:
When using movement trays, the models the,selves don't really matter, the trays would be the base footprint of the unit. So base to base contact would be touching trays.

Incorrect. Movement trays are just that, trays to help move models faster. They have 0 impact rules wise in the game and do not count as any kind of "footprint" for a unit. Once you are in a position that no longer requires fast movement but more precise maneuvers, like garrisoning or getting into melee, you simply remove them.

BomBomHotdog wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
When using movement trays, the models the,selves don't really matter, the trays would be the base footprint of the unit. So base to base contact would be touching trays.

Incorrect. Movement trays are just that, trays to help move models faster. They have 0 impact rules wise in the game and do not count as any kind of "footprint" for a unit. Once you are in a position that no longer requires fast movement but more precise maneuvers, like garrisoning or getting into melee, you simply remove them.

What if you glue your models to the movement trays? The tray would be their base then, wouldn't it?

Then you'd have one model, not the five that you needed.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Then you'd have one model, not the five that you needed.

Just for devils advocate. What if you glued 1 model then set the other 4 in the tray but could remove them?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Then you'd have one model, not the five that you needed.

Just for devils advocate. What if you glued 1 model then set the other 4 in the tray but could remove them?

You can't put models on top of other models.

When using an Asset such as Magical Boon, which lets you take specific cards from your deck into your hand, do you have to reveal what card you are drawing? And if not, because hands may be kept secret there is no way to prevent the opponent from cheating.

I mean, yeah, but at a certain level you gotta trust you are playing someone who isn't an donkey-cave

Tyranid Gargoyles: 1 attack at 10 models, 2 attacks at 20 models, 6 attacks at 30 models?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tyranid Gargoyles: 1 attack at 10 models, 2 attacks at 20 models, 6 attacks at 30 models?

Now that's a hell of a value add!

A couple I noticed from my ork deep dive:

-in forge world ork units there is often a weapon option called a rattla kannon which is worse in every way to any other weapons you can have in its place for the same cost. There is no unit it is balanced around unlike other head-scratcher choices like scatter lasers.

-the battle fortress is a hot mess. It has 2 pages with 2 different pl costs and one of its weapon swap options refers to a weapon it doesn't have by default and says you can swap it out.

-Shock jump Dragstas are worse at everything than all other buggies. In 40k they have bs3+. In apoc they forgot that so they're a dedicated antitank buggy that does less vs vehicles that n the generalist buggy and has 2 ways to explode itself.

-gretchin are damage dealing machines at 20+ models, and out damage boyz pound for pound by far. This is balanced by their pitiful defense but still hilarious.

the_scotsman wrote:

-gretchin are damage dealing machines at 20+ models, and out damage boyz pound for pound by far. This is balanced by their pitiful defense but still hilarious.

They're defense is amazing actually.

6 wounds for 3 power is probably the best unit in the game for toughness.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

-gretchin are damage dealing machines at 20+ models, and out damage boyz pound for pound by far. This is balanced by their pitiful defense but still hilarious.

They're defense is amazing actually.

6 wounds for 3 power is probably the best unit in the game for toughness.

Damn, pointing them out, you're actually right. Pound for pound compared to something like Cultists, the only thing the cultists gain for double the power level is the ability to shoot at 24" (which does mean they will likely attack turn 1, so it's not nothing but still) and 1" of movement. I guess they have access to a bit more in terms of aura buffs, gretchins really only get the KFF, but still.

Versus something like plaguebearers, even though they have ignore damage 6+ and -1 to hit on a 30-man squad and the daemon ability to take 1 save on a D12, it takes a lot more concentrated fire to outright one-round the gretchins vs the plaguebearers.

It is way easier to try and kill them piecemeal, though. One small blast on a gretchin squad is a very solid chance at dealing 2 wounds, but the plaguebearer squad has a much lower chance of taking the initial wound or failing the morale.

It's interesting the extra layers to a units durability in this.

2 successful wounds only ever deals 1 damage. Additional wounds is very powerful. The way that meshes with saves, cards, and protector units makes a lot of things that were complete crap in regular 40k very worthy of consideration in apoc.

There is a lot more to think about here.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's interesting the extra layers to a units durability in this.

2 successful wounds only ever deals 1 damage. Additional wounds is very powerful. The way that meshes with saves, cards, and protector units makes a lot of things that were complete crap in regular 40k very worthy of consideration in apoc.

There is a lot more to think about here.

Well, the protector cards are the one area where gretchins don't really work at all. Unlike Boyz or some other units, they get very little mileage out of Go to Ground, Armor of Contempt, Telekine Dome etc. But that's still assuming you actually have those cards in your hand/deck.

The biggest counterplay to gretchins is the fact that they do pretty crappy damage in melee and have only 12" range and 5" move. If you're 18" away from gretchins at the start of an action phase, they aren't attacking you and they don't really want to Assault at you because then you can just melee them. They kind of rely on a mathhammer-y sort of napoleonic war scenario where everyone lines up in orderly ranks, closes to 12" of each other and starts firing away.

In order to make their dream scenario of advance 5" shoot at 12" work, they have to put themselves in the threat range of any melee unit with 9" move or more.

Yeah but I wasn't just talking about Gretchens. I am saying in general, apocalypses damage and durability have an interesting dynamic completely lacking in base 40k. There is more to think about and more going on despite having less actual mechanic in play (no strength v toughness or AP or invulnerable saves etc etc...).

Comparing the gargoyle statline to term/hormagants, gargoyles get 1/2/6A whereas the others get 2/4/6A. I’d assume the gargoyles are meant to mirror the gants statline but there was a copy/paste error

the_scotsman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's interesting the extra layers to a units durability in this.

2 successful wounds only ever deals 1 damage. Additional wounds is very powerful. The way that meshes with saves, cards, and protector units makes a lot of things that were complete crap in regular 40k very worthy of consideration in apoc.

There is a lot more to think about here.

Well, the protector cards are the one area where gretchins don't really work at all. Unlike Boyz or some other units, they get very little mileage out of Go to Ground, Armor of Contempt, Telekine Dome etc. But that's still assuming you actually have those cards in your hand/deck.

The biggest counterplay to gretchins is the fact that they do pretty crappy damage in melee and have only 12" range and 5" move. If you're 18" away from gretchins at the start of an action phase, they aren't attacking you and they don't really want to Assault at you because then you can just melee them. They kind of rely on a mathhammer-y sort of napoleonic war scenario where everyone lines up in orderly ranks, closes to 12" of each other and starts firing away.

In order to make their dream scenario of advance 5" shoot at 12" work, they have to put themselves in the threat range of any melee unit with 9" move or more.

Best way to use them is probably as the troop choice in a patrol detachment with two characters. This gives you a detachment that produces a command asset (remember, large boyz mobs won't get you command assets) and can continue to do so once one of the characters bites it.
The grots simply surround your character to stop the enemy from assaulting it so that you can always use your own assault or advance order to get the character into combat, because the grots can fall back when moving and there aren't many units out there that can (or would want to) surround a mob of 30 grots.
I think swamping the table in a green tide has become an absolutely viable strategy.

On topic, though! Two's company, three's a crowd: Chaos Spawn are 1" slower when taken in units of three. But add another one or two and you're OK again. One of their random mutation abilities also grants them a re-roll they get anyway if they're taken in a detachment that gets the Heretic Astartes faction power. To be fair, though, they can turn up mid-battle by transforming enemy characters, so it might be useful then.

The Relic Contemptor's Plasma Blastgun is totally wrong.

40k: 18" Range, Assault 2, Plasma.
Apoc: 96" Range, 4 attacks 6+/5+ Supercharge.

So for 10 PL you can currently get 8 shots at 96" that easily wound any unit in the game.

Yeah, I think that's some Titan's weapon.

The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

2 wounds is more than twice as good as 1 wound.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

Thats due to save stat. Models with 6+ or better get discounts usually because of the risk of morale losses. Models with 7+ or worse and good ld pay the most for extra wounds.

the_scotsman wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

Thats due to save stat. Models with 6+ or better get discounts usually because of the risk of morale losses. Models with 7+ or worse and good ld pay the most for extra wounds.

That makes sense, but both flavors of guardians have a 10+ save and identical leadership. It does explain the banshees vs fire dragons difference though. Thanks for clarifying, the pl costs seemed quite random to me.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

Thats due to save stat. Models with 6+ or better get discounts usually because of the risk of morale losses. Models with 7+ or worse and good ld pay the most for extra wounds.

That makes sense, but both flavors of guardians have a 10+ save and identical leadership. It does explain the banshees vs fire dragons difference though. Thanks for clarifying, the pl costs seemed quite random to me.

Yeah, paging thru it it does seem a bit more random. A lot of the time it seems like a shift of 1 between 1 unit size and the other. Maybe fire dragons for example are worth about 4.5 but since there's a slight advantage to less wounds vs more wounds they rounded one way or another.

Some things from today's game:

If a Warlord/Warmaster and other units are in Defensible Terrain, are the Warlord/Warmaster considered "the closest unit" when shooting at it if the terrain feature is closer than any other unit?

Can units move into Defensible terrain but not garrison it (e.g. Can I put a Wave Serpent in a ruin without garrisoning it?)

Wave Serpents have the same issue as 40k. How do I get into base contact with it if you always measure to the hull?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Some things from today's game:

If a Warlord/Warmaster and other units are in Defensible Terrain, are the Warlord/Warmaster considered "the closest unit" when shooting at it if the terrain feature is closer than any other unit?

A unit occupying defensible terrain is considered to have the footprint of the defensible terrain. So if the terrain is the closest then the character is the closest. Not that that would mean anything mechanically. If they were not the closest they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. Being in defensible terrain also means they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. You can't be obscured twice, and so closest or not the unit has -1 to hit.

Can units move into Defensible terrain but not garrison it (e.g. Can I put a Wave Serpent in a ruin without garrisoning it?)

pg 29. Moving over terrain features. No. If you cannot finish your move on the other side of the terrain feature then you cannot move into the terrain feature. You can't end mid climb You have to move entirely up over and down the terrain feature.

Wave Serpents have the same issue as 40k. How do I get into base contact with it if you always measure to the hull?

Sure. But more than 40k apoc seems to not factor in vertical thinking (except in moving up and over things). So while the hull is the base, like terrain features I think that base is more it's footprint and getting your base within it's footprint is base to base contact. No direct quote for rules, simply stating what I believe to be RAI considering the rest of the rule book and the obvious implications of float stand bases.

 Lance845 wrote:
A unit occupying defensible terrain is considered to have the footprint of the defensible terrain. So if the terrain is the closest then the character is the closest. Not that that would mean anything mechanically. If they were not the closest they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. Being in defensible terrain also means they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. You can't be obscured twice, and so closest or not the unit has -1 to hit.

It came up because my Warmaster Farseer had the "Stealth Adept" Warmaster trait and was in a ruin with some Dark Reapers, so we were wondering if they could shoot her since they are equidistant.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A unit occupying defensible terrain is considered to have the footprint of the defensible terrain. So if the terrain is the closest then the character is the closest. Not that that would mean anything mechanically. If they were not the closest they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. Being in defensible terrain also means they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. You can't be obscured twice, and so closest or not the unit has -1 to hit.

It came up because my Warmaster Farseer had the "Stealth Adept" Warmaster trait and was in a ruin with some Dark Reapers, so we were wondering if they could shoot her since they are equidistant.

I would say being equidistant means they are both equally closest. One cannot be said to be closer so it is a valid target.

When exactly do you make your command asset deck? Before the game or after deployment?

It must be shuffled after selecting commanders. It can be assembled whenever. Presumably when you put your list together, but honestly it can be assembled after selecting commanders as long as it is then shuffled and placed face down.

How long does it normally take for GW to answer question emails? I asked them about the Ta'unar's Cluster Launcher that goes with the Heavy Rail Cannon. No rules for it.

 Rolsheen wrote:
How long does it normally take for GW to answer question emails? I asked them about the Ta'unar's Cluster Launcher that goes with the Heavy Rail Cannon. No rules for it.

They don't.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
How long does it normally take for GW to answer question emails? I asked them about the Ta'unar's Cluster Launcher that goes with the Heavy Rail Cannon. No rules for it.

They don't.

Yeah, not unless it's asked frequently enough, and they put out a FAQ.

Which I would be surprised if we didn't see for Apoc, since they've put out FAQs for Necromunda and Kill Team. They will at least fix "Contemptor Plasma Blastgun" level errors, if not just outright editing the PDFs and documenting the changes in an errata document.

Which I don't know why they haven't done that in other fully electronic rulesets....anyone know if they do that with like Sigmar?

How does Entropic Plague (halve the result of all saving throws) interact with with Go to Ground (double the result of saving throws)? The result of a saving throw is not a characteristic, so it's not rounded as per the rule on page 43. Does that mean it remains as a fraction so it cancels out regardless of the order applied?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How does Entropic Plague (halve the result of all saving throws) interact with with Go to Ground (double the result of saving throws)? The result of a saving throw is not a characteristic, so it's not rounded as per the rule on page 43. Does that mean it remains as a fraction so it cancels out regardless of the order applied?

Nobody can use a second card until the effects of the first card are completed entirely.

So lets say I useEntropic Plague and you halve your save results. Even if you rolled 5s a 2.5 is not a 3+ so the fraction does not get rounded and is a failure (as you say it's not a characteristic so it doesn't get rounded). But now that the effects of my card are complete you can use Go to Ground (unless it says you have to use it before you roll saves, in which case you are incapable of using it) where it would double that 2.5 back up to 5.

I hoped to be able to field Tau Tidewalls as viable choices in Apocalypse, because I like games with fortifications on the table and I really like the model design of Tau Tidewalls. Sadly in standard 40k they are pretty useless.

When reading the rules I noticed that following RAW you are not able to move Tidewalls in Apocalypse.

All Tidewalls have a movement characteristic of 6.

All Tidewalls have the Mobile Defense Platform rule, which states that the unit can only make a Move action if any models are embarked aboard it.

All Tidewalls are fortifications.

Fortifications can only be fielded as part of a fortification network.

Fortification networks can't get orders which include a movement action.

I've send an email about it to 40kfaq@gwplc.com and hope the issue will be corrected soon.
All other fortifications have a movement characteristic of "-" and therefore could not move no matter what order they were assigned. Perhaps it would be the easiest solution to remove the order restriction on fortification networks.

myUserName wrote:
I hoped to be able to field Tau Tidewalls as viable choices in Apocalypse, because I like games with fortifications on the table and I really like the model design of Tau Tidewalls. Sadly in standard 40k they are pretty useless.

When reading the rules I noticed that following RAW you are not able to move Tidewalls in Apocalypse.

All Tidewalls have a movement characteristic of 6.

All Tidewalls have the Mobile Defense Platform rule, which states that the unit can only make a Move action if any models are embarked aboard it.

All Tidewalls are fortifications.

Fortifications can only be fielded as part of a fortification network.

Fortification networks can't get orders which include a movement action.

I've send an email about it to 40kfaq@gwplc.com and hope the issue will be corrected soon.
All other fortifications have a movement characteristic of "-" and therefore could not move no matter what order they were assigned. Perhaps it would be the easiest solution to remove the order restriction on fortification networks.

You can't even use a Command Asset like Signal the Advance that replaces a detachments order. Classic GW! You can use Priority Orders Revived to change its order however, so it's clearly intentional.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

myUserName wrote:
I hoped to be able to field Tau Tidewalls as viable choices in Apocalypse, because I like games with fortifications on the table and I really like the model design of Tau Tidewalls. Sadly in standard 40k they are pretty useless.

When reading the rules I noticed that following RAW you are not able to move Tidewalls in Apocalypse.

All Tidewalls have a movement characteristic of 6.

All Tidewalls have the Mobile Defense Platform rule, which states that the unit can only make a Move action if any models are embarked aboard it.

All Tidewalls are fortifications.

Fortifications can only be fielded as part of a fortification network.

Fortification networks can't get orders which include a movement action.

I've send an email about it to 40kfaq@gwplc.com and hope the issue will be corrected soon.
All other fortifications have a movement characteristic of "-" and therefore could not move no matter what order they were assigned. Perhaps it would be the easiest solution to remove the order restriction on fortification networks.

You can't even use a Command Asset like Signal the Advance that replaces a detachments order. Classic GW! You can use Priority Orders Revived to change its order however, so it's clearly intentional.

Does the game then explode if you voxnet a fortification network?

the_scotsman wrote:
Does the game then explode if you voxnet a fortification network?

Yes, because that is cheating.

stratigo wrote:
I mean, yeah, but at a certain level you gotta trust you are playing someone who isn't an donkey-cave

When you're paying this much for a ruleset product, it ought to get at least a check via a technical writer/editor for internal consistency. GW charges luxury good prices, they should put the effort in.

Or rhey could probably pay a few dozen players in models (which is peanuts in plastic) to do it for them and avoid all these issues.

Understrength Units, what profile do you use? All it says is you "can field a single unit of that type in your army, with as many models as you have available" and that "you must halve the Attacks and Wounds characteristics" and "subtract 1 from hit rolls for any attacks they make with Heavy weapons".

It doesn't state you need to use the smallest model count profile, so I could theoretically take a single Khorne Berserker model and use the 20 model profile. Yes, it's not worth ever doing because of the half wounds and attacks, but it's still something to consider, especially since that single model can fit into spaces 20 models could not.

So, each Kastelan Robot must either be equipped with 2 Heavy Phosphor Blasters or 1 Kastelan Fists.

Kastelan Fists are Attacks: User.

So if I take a unit of 6 Kastelan Robots and they have an attack stat of 6... and I equip them with 6 kastelan fists....

...do I make 36 attacks with that unit?

The unfortunate thing about this is that I don't actually know what the intended rule is supposed to be here - i.e., whether each robot is supposed to grant 1 attack, or 2. Mathwise I think it's more likely that each robot is supposed to make 1 attack, given their offensive output. But it is definitely a strange little setup they've got going on.

the_scotsman wrote:
So, each Kastelan Robot must either be equipped with 2 Heavy Phosphor Blasters or 1 Kastelan Fists.

Kastelan Fists are Attacks: User.

So if I take a unit of 6 Kastelan Robots and they have an attack stat of 6... and I equip them with 6 kastelan fists....

...do I make 36 attacks with that unit?

The unfortunate thing about this is that I don't actually know what the intended rule is supposed to be here - i.e., whether each robot is supposed to grant 1 attack, or 2. Mathwise I think it's more likely that each robot is supposed to make 1 attack, given their offensive output. But it is definitely a strange little setup they've got going on.

I would say yes, you get to make 36 attacks. They have Six weapons that have A: User and their A is 6. As to whether it's an oversight I cannot say.

incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

You are correct in that you get A:User attacks. However, you get to use each Melee weapon you have. Since the unit has a Fist "For each model this unit contains", you have 6 fists, so get to use all 6, each weapon making 6 attacks.

Furthermore, the unit never loses the single Armoured Feet weapon, so they get to use that weapon too!

If you need further proof beyond the RaW and want a "This unit doesn't make sense otherwise" argument, consider the Stone Crusher Carnifex. It has two Wrecker Claws by default, each with A:User (which is 2). You can swap 1 Claw for a Flail, which has A:x2. It also has a Tail weapon which is also A:User

Thus, you can either get 4 Claw Attacks and 2 Tail Attacks, or 2 Claw Attacks, 4 Flail attacks and 2 Tail Attacks.

Another example is the Death Company Dreadnought. You can either have 2 Fists with A:1, or 1 Talons with A:User.

 Lance845 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Dawg you respond to basically every post on this thread like this. This thread is for finding rules quirks and making them known for a laugh and for pointing mistakes out to gw. Apoc is a specialist game, it probably gets 1 FAQ if we're lucky.

Punching the numbers for kastelans, it seems pretty clear they're intended to be Attacks:1 weapons, as their damage is in line with other melee units without guaranteed turn 1 charge.

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Or you can just read the rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Or you can just read the rules.

Is there some rule that says units can only use one weapon with Attacks: User?

if so, there are a lot of units that just don't work as they appear to be intended. Wraithknights and Wraithlords both have 2 of the same Attacks:user weapons (Wraithbone Fists) and it's clear that they're supposed to be able to use both, because they can swap out one fist for a different option and keep the other fist. BCB also brought up carnifexes.

It's pretty clear to me that the Kastelan Fist thing was just a mistake - Kastelan Fists were supposed to be an A1 weapon like Bullgryn Mauls, Grotesque Cleavers, and all other cases where you can have either a melee option or a ranged option on a model-by-model basis.

In fact, looking at Sydonian Dragoons they've made the same mistake: Taser Lances are a model-by-model weapon, and they're "Attacks:X2" But EACH MODEL gets one and the unit's attacks go up by the number of models. So, RAW, 6 Sydonian Dragoons should make 72 taser lance attacks.

Whoever wrote the Admech rules just fethed up the math on these two particular units.

The stat profile is for the whole unit combined. You don't get 6 models all with 6 attacks, you get one unit which has an attack stat of '6'. Therefore the you get 6 attacks with the fists.

The wargear options below do seem to be a typo, though - but an obvious one.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
The stat profile is for the whole unit combined. You don't get 6 models all with 6 attacks, you get one unit which has an attack stat of '6'. Therefore the you get 6 attacks with the fists.

It's not really that difficult.

Did you not read the rest of the thread? You get to use every single melee weapon the unit has. If the unit has 6 melee weapons, it gets to make attacks with all 6. So you do make 6 attacks with the fists, but you have 6 fists, which each get to make "User" attacks, so the unit gets to make 36 attacks. I have already laid out the RaW arguments, with citations. Could you do the same for your assertion?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Or you can just read the rules.

Is there some rule that says units can only use one weapon with Attacks: User?

if so, there are a lot of units that just don't work as they appear to be intended. Wraithknights and Wraithlords both have 2 of the same Attacks:user weapons (Wraithbone Fists) and it's clear that they're supposed to be able to use both, because they can swap out one fist for a different option and keep the other fist. BCB also brought up carnifexes.

It's pretty clear to me that the Kastelan Fist thing was just a mistake - Kastelan Fists were supposed to be an A1 weapon like Bullgryn Mauls, Grotesque Cleavers, and all other cases where you can have either a melee option or a ranged option on a model-by-model basis.

In fact, looking at Sydonian Dragoons they've made the same mistake: Taser Lances are a model-by-model weapon, and they're "Attacks:X2" But EACH MODEL gets one and the unit's attacks go up by the number of models. So, RAW, 6 Sydonian Dragoons should make 72 taser lance attacks.

Whoever wrote the Admech rules just fethed up the math on these two particular units.

I agree that it is a mistake and that these weapons are probably meant to be A: 1 instead of A: User. But my guess at RAI doesn't change the current RAW.

the_scotsman wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Dawg you respond to basically every post on this thread like this. This thread is for finding rules quirks and making them known for a laugh and for pointing mistakes out to gw. Apoc is a specialist game, it probably gets 1 FAQ if we're lucky.

Punching the numbers for kastelans, it seems pretty clear they're intended to be Attacks:1 weapons, as their damage is in line with other melee units without guaranteed turn 1 charge.

Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

Yeah man. This isnt a thread where people are trying to gain advantage. This is where you find the logic errors so they can be sent in and addressed. Clearly no one unit in apoc should be rolling 36 dice (or 72) base on a single no pl increase weapon choice.

Problem identified. Now we can submit the problem and hopefully gw updates the datasheets to fix it.

stratigo wrote:


Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

What's ambiguous in this example?

You'd rather just stick your head in the sand and pretend the rules aren't broken while telling everyone that doesn't agree with how you think it was supposed to work (regardless of what it actually says) to "feth off"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

So, how does it work? If I have 3 robots with gunhands and 3 robots with fists, how many attacks do I get out of the unit?

If the answer is "6" then do I still get 6 even if I have 6 robots with fists? how about if I have 1?

If the answer is "3" where are you getting that from a weapon with Attacks:User?

If the answer is "18" then the unit just happens to be 3-4x stronger than every other melee-focused unit in the game when it comes to damage.

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

How is it ambiguous? Myself and others have explained multiple times what the rules say and how they work. If you didn't understand it at first, fair enough. That doesn't make it ambiguous.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

How is it ambiguous? Myself and others have explained multiple times what the rules say and how they work. If you didn't understand it at first, fair enough. That doesn't make it ambiguous.

You're making an inference that isn't necessarily true and goes against common sense. The wording isn't iron clad, and your interpretation violates the most logical way for it to work, and thus ambiguous. Reading attacks:user for a weapon can be seen as applying to the unit as a whole and not each individual example of that weapon. No other weapon in the game I can think of has this particular wording.

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

How is it ambiguous? Myself and others have explained multiple times what the rules say and how they work. If you didn't understand it at first, fair enough. That doesn't make it ambiguous.

You're making an inference that isn't necessarily true and goes against common sense. The wording isn't iron clad, and your interpretation violates the most logical way for it to work, and thus ambiguous. Reading attacks:user for a weapon can be seen as applying to the unit as a whole and not each individual example of that weapon. No other weapon in the game I can think of has this particular wording.

Many many many many weapons in the game have this particular wording.

Off the top of my head, units that can have multiple S:User melee weapons:

Deff dreads, furious dreads, carnifexes, knights, wraithlords, striking scoroions, hive tyrants.

The only reason this reading is illogical is because it creates an extremely powerful unit. The most logical reading is to give them a fixed attack value but then you're judging whether castellan are intended to be a decent unit or a very good unit when built with the melee profile. A fixed attack value of 2 or of 1 both give you a result that, mathematically, makes some sense.

My money is on 1. But this is most definitely a very strange ambiguity. And it is one that has already shown up on the Apoc reddit, with someone asking if they just need to give fists to one robot to get all 6 attacks.

stratigo wrote:
Reading attacks:user for a weapon can be seen as applying to the unit as a whole and not each individual example of that weapon.

No it can't. There is no such thing as "applying to the unit as a whole". You do not attack with a unit, you attack with a weapon. And each instance of a weapon has its own stat line and is resolved separately from any other weapons. A LRBT with three heavy bolters does not consider "the unit as a whole", it has three individual A:1 weapons. A unit with three A:User weapons does not consider "the unit as a whole", it has three individual A:User weapons and can use all of them. The ONLY reason your suggested interpretation exists is that certain people feel that specific units are overpowered if you play by RAW.

Having thought on it, and reading some other unit dataslates, I do now believe if you were to take 6 robots all with fists you would have 36 attacks in melee. You would also have an additional 6 with their feet attack for a total of 42 attacks.

If I had to guess, the fists are supposed to only be A:1, but unless it gets FAQ/Errata'd that's what it is.

Here is an oddity. The Carnifex melee bio weapon (read, scy tal) are A: User (2) and with 2 sets they have 4 melee attacks, plus their jaw (also A: User) for 6 attacks total when speced for melee.

The Screamer Killer (the melee specialist Fex) is 1Pl more expensive and has a single set of their scytal which are A: x2 with the screamer killer being A:1. It has no jaws.

So... 6 attacks on a melee built fex or 2 attacks on the screamer killer for +1 PL.

Either it should have 2 sets of the scytal or it's A: should be 2 like the other fex datasheets. Or both. Otherwise, why the feth would anyone take the Screamer Killer?

Screamer is a one gun/one melee arm carnifex with terror troops.

You take him when you want one of your carnifexes to have terror troops.

the_scotsman wrote:
Screamer is a one gun/one melee arm carnifex with terror troops.

You take him when you want one of your carnifexes to have terror troops.

Screamers have 2 pairs of scytal and a face that spits bioplasma.

The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

That was quick lol.

Yep, doesn't work by RAW.

Another couple of oddities I've noticed:

-Several of the units in the Forgeworld unit catalog actually have no melee weapons, which is something almost nothing has in the base catalog. Most notably, if you arm a Leviathan dreadnought with no melee arms, it has absolutely zero melee (It is the only dreadnought that does not get Feet when it has 2 guns)

-The tyranid Maleceptor from FW can be taken 1 to a HQ slot, or 3 to a Heavy Support slot. I'm guessing that it was originally intended to be Heavy Support. Still functional, just weird.

Not maleceptor. Malanthrope.

Its a carry over rule from base 40k. I can be taken as a hq or a heavy. As a hq its a singular model. As a heavy its like a carnifex in that they can come in a unit of 3 but become individual units on the field.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

Well, I suppose if you set up the infiltrators wholly within 24" of every unit in their detachment, you're honoring the rules because one of them will have to be the commander. But yeah, it does look like 2-am-Friday-night-rules-writing.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

Well, I suppose if you set up the infiltrators wholly within 24" of every unit in their detachment, you're honoring the rules because one of them will have to be the commander. But yeah, it does look like 2-am-Friday-night-rules-writing.

Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

This is true. Just have to houserule the Commander Nomination to happen before, rather than after deployment I guess.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

What I meant was YOU will know what units are available for you to pick as your commanders when you make your list and you should know which unit you will actually pick by the time you are deploying. Declaring to the opponent which unit that is doesn't matter.

The commander portion of that rule only really impacts deploying outside of your deployment zone. Which yes, is an issue. But it's only an issue because they mention the commanders at all. It should simply be that a Infiltrator unit can be deployed anywhere that is wholly within 24" of their deployment zone as long as it is more than 9" away from enemy units. If you deploy out of command at that point it's just your problem. Any other unit has no restriction on distance. They can deploy 100" away from their "commander" as long as it is within your deployment zone.

To summarize, the actual simple fix is to remove the commander portion of the infiltrator rule so that they get deployed with the same flexibility and risks as any other unit.

 Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

What I meant was YOU will know what units are available for you to pick as your commanders when you make your list and you should know which unit you will actually pick by the time you are deploying. Declaring to the opponent which unit that is doesn't matter.

The commander portion of that rule only really impacts deploying outside of your deployment zone. Which yes, is an issue. But it's only an issue because they mention the commanders at all. It should simply be that a Infiltrator unit can be deployed anywhere that is wholly within 24" of their deployment zone as long as it is more than 9" away from enemy units. If you deploy out of command at that point it's just your problem. Any other unit has no restriction on distance. They can deploy 100" away from their "commander" as long as it is within your deployment zone.

To summarize, the actual simple fix is to remove the commander portion of the infiltrator rule so that they get deployed with the same flexibility and risks as any other unit.

Yeah, this is basically only going to negatively impact one person who tries to play this game.

Unnecessary. While some for sure think BCB is annoyingly persistent in treating each flaw as the same degree of broken he often is right in that they are flaws and they are way more common then they should be. As easy as it is for us to correct the infiltrator flaw, it IS a flaw and should have never been one.

I have a question: the rules say that auras from a model garrisoning a Defensible Terrain feature do not extend beyond the footprint of the Terrain feature. But what about auras from models outside the Terrain feature? I mean, can models in the Terrain feature be affected by auras models from outside? I'm guessing no, but I don't think it's stated anywhere.

OrkPlayer137 wrote:
I have a question: the rules say that auras from a model garrisoning a Defensible Terrain feature do not extend beyond the footprint of the Terrain feature. But what about auras from models outside the Terrain feature? I mean, can models in the Terrain feature be affected by auras models from outside? I'm guessing no, but I don't think it's stated anywhere.

As far as I remember, this is not addressed specifically. However, once a unit is garrisoning the terrain feature, all ranges to and from that unit are measured to and from the nearest edge of the terrain feature. A such, if the terrain feature is in aura range, so is the unit inside.

To be frank, that character must be pretty inspiring to their troops if all the troops are hunkering down in bunkers but the hero dude is right there in the open screaming abuse at the opposing gunline...

Snugiraffe wrote:

OrkPlayer137 wrote:
I have a question: the rules say that auras from a model garrisoning a Defensible Terrain feature do not extend beyond the footprint of the Terrain feature. But what about auras from models outside the Terrain feature? I mean, can models in the Terrain feature be affected by auras models from outside? I'm guessing no, but I don't think it's stated anywhere.

As far as I remember, this is not addressed specifically. However, once a unit is garrisoning the terrain feature, all ranges to and from that unit are measured to and from the nearest edge of the terrain feature. A such, if the terrain feature is in aura range, so is the unit inside.

To be frank, that character must be pretty inspiring to their troops if all the troops are hunkering down in bunkers but the hero dude is right there in the open screaming abuse at the opposing gunline...

Thanks, that's an interesting take on it - probably that is the correct interpretation.

There is neither rule nor reason to treat the range of an aura applied from outside of defensible terrain differently from other ranges, just as @Snugiraffe already stated.

The rule for handling auras from inside Defensible Terrain is needed, because you would otherwise extend the area of effect immensely. If the model would be within an 8x8 inch building a 6" aura would be blown up to 14"x14".

brumbaer wrote:
There is neither rule nor reason to treat the range of an aura applied from outside of defensible terrain differently from other ranges, just as @Snugiraffe already stated.

The rule for handling auras from inside Defensible Terrain is needed, because you would otherwise extend the area of effect immensely. If the model would be within an 8x8 inch building a 6" aura would be blown up to 14"x14".

To a 20" diameter, actually, but yeah

I'm about to host a game of Apocalypse for the first time with a group of players who have not played it before either. I've just read the rules and they seem pretty straightforward. I'll probably assemble random strategic asset decks beforehand to save time on the night of the game. Any further advice for a first-timer?

I also have a question: the section on damage resolution only talks about units, and damaging/crippling/removing them as a whole. However, the datacards for infantry units are obviously written with the idea that one statline = one model. Am I right in thinking that I should be removing individual models from infantry units as the damage eats up their wounds?

 General Helstrom wrote:
I'm about to host a game of Apocalypse for the first time with a group of players who have not played it before either. I've just read the rules and they seem pretty straightforward. I'll probably assemble random strategic asset decks beforehand to save time on the night of the game. Any further advice for a first-timer?

I also have a question: the section on damage resolution only talks about units, and damaging/crippling/removing them as a whole. However, the datacards for infantry units are obviously written with the idea that one statline = one model. Am I right in thinking that I should be removing individual models from infantry units as the damage eats up their wounds?

The literal opposite is true. The statline is the for unit as a whole. Models do not have statlines in Apoc.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The literal opposite is true. The statline is the for unit as a whole. Models do not have statlines in Apoc.

Oh OK, wow! So just one unsaved hit takes out a tactical squad? This is going to be bloody

 General Helstrom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The literal opposite is true. The statline is the for unit as a whole. Models do not have statlines in Apoc.

Oh OK, wow! So just one unsaved hit takes out a tactical squad? This is going to be bloody

If it's a 5 model squad, yes. A 10 model squad has 2 wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Oh OK, wow! So just one unsaved hit takes out a tactical squad? This is going to be bloody

If it's a 5 model squad, yes. A 10 model squad has 2 wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 General Helstrom wrote:
Oh OK, wow! So just one unsaved hit takes out a tactical squad? This is going to be bloody

If it's a 5 model squad, yes. A 10 model squad has 2 wounds.

Yup. Apoc is a much more manageable and much better game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 General Helstrom wrote:
Oh OK, wow! So just one unsaved hit takes out a tactical squad? This is going to be bloody

If it's a 5 model squad, yes. A 10 model squad has 2 wounds.

Things are clicking in my head now, thanks This ought to be good. It's like Epic with 28mm figures.