Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Played my first game against dark eldar yesterday.  On turn three two raiders full of wytches popped out of a webway that was placed 18inches from his board edge.  The raiders then moved 12 inches, the wytches jumped out, fleeted, then assaulted. Am i right in thinking that these units can potentially assault 26 inches from the webway portal on the turn they come in.  12 inch move, +2inch disembark, +possible 6 inch fleet, +6 inch charge.   Like I said first time to play against them, just curious.

I thought things couldn't assualt the turn they disembarked?

Posted By Railguns on 10/20/2006 9:46 AM
I thought things couldn't assualt the turn they disembarked?

They can if they assault from a Land Raider or open-topped vehicle, as long as it moved no more than 12" this turn.  So yes, DE can do that.

There is also the joy of wytches that get the charge 12' they can get on you pretty fast.

Edit:  I'm no longer worried about fleet.

Wyches are absoloutely scary and even with normal 12" deployment if they get 12" charge your looking at wyches that can assault you almost on the other side of the board if its a 4x6 even.

Posted By ATI on 10/20/2006 11:22 AM
The problem I would argue is with fleet

There's no problem.  Don't worry.

you can actually get another inch or two out of this.

Remember that a Raider is rectagular shaped. If your opponent deploys the raider sideways, then turns it at the end of his move it gives it extra movement in a way.

Posted By cuda1179 on 10/20/2006 9:04 PM

you can actually get another inch or two out of this.

Remember that a Raider is rectagular shaped. If your opponent deploys the raider sideways, then turns it at the end of his move it gives it extra movement in a way.

And right at that point is where I would stop playing. It is bad rule writing and people who take advantage of things like that is exactly why I stopped playing 40k. If something moves 12inches you just should not be able to turn it to effectively get 14 or 15. That is just cheating in my book, and if not cheating by RAW at least very unethical.

Unethical? Cheating?

I dont see why, its a fragile army who has very little chances in general to be competitive. Its also within every ounce of the rules for this to occur. This is just one of those chances to make it even. Its not like the squad has power weapons.

Wow, that is very weak, In my game a maneuver like that is called the Johnson Maneuver. Bad form.

I dont understand how it relates to being a Richard.

If you were to model the raider with 4" long spike and such, then I could see the reason to cry abuse, but...whining over somebody coming at you with a raider is ridiculous.
Wow, people complaining that DE are a power gaming, rules twisting army because people use the rules to play their army in a competitive manner. I never thought I would see the day...

I am starting to see the reasoning behind alot of what Mauleed wrote. Next time, play better.

Daemonhunters gets the same bad rap because of all the special rules. People are idiots.

Its not the raider itself thats a problem, its the maneuveringto get it to move 14 inches because of a swivel (or at least moving 12 inches while deploying at 14 inches) It seems fishy to me. Its nothing like GK, and I certaintly don't think its powergaming. I mean with such fragile ships, it seems easy to just blast the things out of the air before they get to you, if you can't manage that then its entirely your own fault for what happens to your guys.

Forgive my stupid question, but how is the move measured?
If measured from the vehicle's side, even if it got turned during the move, at the end of the move, the front of the prow should not exceed 12" from the first measurment.
Is the vehicle being moved sideways the whole time only to be turned front forward at the end of the 12" measurment to get this bonus? I play Wych Elves on raiders and I'd call foul on that one if it's the case.
If measured from the base, I could see the problem.

Posted By Hellfury on 10/21/2006 1:43 PM
Unethical? Cheating?

I dont see why, its a fragile army who has very little chances in general to be competitive. Its also within every ounce of the rules for this to occur. This is just one of those chances to make it even. Its not like the squad has power weapons.

Why is it that the online community always sees DE as uncompetative? Especialy when the facts support otherwise? A Wytche Cult army has won a GT in 4th edition. To me that says competative.

...or lucky.
Either way, it still doesnt mean it is beardy.

If measured from the vehicle's side, even if it got turned during the move, at the end of the move, the front of the prow should not exceed 12" from the first measurment.

Thats correct. It doesnt have to exceed its original movement, which is why I dont see the reason for people complaining about the tactic. its legal.

Is the vehicle being moved sideways the whole time only to be turned front forward at the end of the 12" measurment to get this bonus?

You have a point there. One which I didnt think of that could possibly be used. I dont think thats legal though, as it exceeds the alloted movememnt to allow assault from the vehicle. If thats what people are refering to in previous posts, then yes, it is not only unethical, but it is downright cheating.

If measured from the base, I could see the problem.

If I recall correctlly, walkers are the only vehicle whose base means any thing ruleswise. All other vehicles ignore the bases, they are simple there for aesthetic value.

Posted By Hellfury on 10/21/2006 1:43 PM
Unethical? Cheating?

I dont see why, its a fragile army who has very little chances in general to be competitive.

  I have to agree with that statement in part, because even the designers have said in the past that all the DE armies that did well in tourneys were practically the same type of  cookie cutter lists with little variety.  According to what I've read, that's the reason they put forward for the codex update, to try to get some variety in DE armies.

  While some of the units in the updated codex still seem to be little more than filler materiel, Wyches got a big shot in the arm.

  I've been running a Wych army for a few  games now in a store campaign and have yet to lose with it.  It's a campaign against Chaos where anyone against Chaos is limited to a 1250 pt army while the Chaos players have 1500 pt armies.

  One of my first opponents is a player who took 2nd at a GT using Deathguard, and the Wyches pretty much rolled over his army and eliminated his Lord and retinue by turn three.

  I'd say Wyches are definatly competitive in 4rth.

somebody mentioned Mauleed a while back, where is he? have not seen or heard from him on this forum for a while? Is he still around or has he been abducted by aliens for rectal examinations.

Posted By Hellfury on 10/21/2006 1:43 PM
Unethical? Cheating?

I dont see why, its a fragile army who has very little chances in general to be competitive. Its also within every ounce of the rules for this to occur. This is just one of those chances to make it even. Its not like the squad has power weapons.

It isn't in reference to DE, it is in reference to all armies. DE is a fragile but powerful army - that bit isn't in debate, what I am saying is a vehicle moves 12 inches. Using sideways movements to get and extra couple of inches through turning is cheating. 12 inch's ..... not 14. Anything else is just cheating plain and simple.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 10/22/2006 5:55 PM
 what I am saying is a vehicle moves 12 inches. Using sideways movements to get and extra couple of inches through turning is cheating. 12 inch's ..... not 14. Anything else is just cheating plain and simple.

  That act wouldn't play here very well.  Anyone that moved their vehicles that way and turned it at the end of the move trying to get extra distance would be told to set whatever part that stuck beyond it  back to the 12" mark.

  Like you say, 12" is 12" and no cheat attempt should allow a vehicle to go beyond that point if the person moving it is trying to disembark troops.

Rotating a vehicle around it's center does not count towards movement distance. So yes, you can get a little extra movement that way.

Posted By skyth on 10/22/2006 6:37 PM
Rotating a vehicle around it's center does not count towards movement distance. So yes, you can get a little extra movement that way.

I am sorry but in my book you are nothing but a cheat. Swivelling a vehicle so that its disembarking point has moved 14 inches instead of 12 so you can gain an advantage is a cheap rule abuse.

The fact that people think setting up a vehicle sideways, moving it sideways and then swivelling it to gain an advantage is a legimate tactic speaks volumes to the direction this game has been moving i.e cheap shady tactics as people strive to gain every advantage they can by skirting as close as possible to breaking the rules whilst losing any aspect of fair play.

How can allowing a vehicle to be position so that troops can in effect disembark 14 inchs from where they were before movement started be anything but unethical at best, cheating at worst.

 

It's not cheating if it's within the rules. You don't like the rules, so you try to intimidate your opponent into not following them. That's extremely unsportsmanlike behavior.

This is the same issue as turning a Rhino 180 at the end of a move to face the rear towards the enemy to disembark where the whole squad can rapid fire.

I think marriage is the name of the game for Ed right now. I remember him talking about it a while ago, and now he's MIA. Sounds reasonable to me.

This conversation reminds me of a guy I played once that was using assault marines with thunder hammers and shields in 2nd edition. Back then, a shield gave a 4plus invulnerable save to attacks coming from the front.
As a consequence, whenever this guy moved his marines across my lanes of fire, he tried to say they where jumping sideways as they moved.
It presented as ridiculous a picture as a raider moving sideways does.

Posted By skyth on 10/22/2006 7:15 PM
It's not cheating if it's within the rules. You don't like the rules, so you try to intimidate your opponent into not following them. That's extremely unsportsmanlike behavior.

This is the same issue as turning a Rhino 180 at the end of a move to face the rear towards the enemy to disembark where the whole squad can rapid fire.

Bad  example you have used that proves nothing to discussion. The troops disembarking have not effectively gained an extra couple of inch's. If you move the rhino forward 12 inch's and spin it round how many inch's in effect have the troops moved on the table top? Answer 12.

Carrying on with the example though, start the rhino on its side, move it 12 inch's on its side then spin it, how many inch's have the troops in effect moved to disembark? Approx 14 or 15. In effect you have either cheated or bent the rules as far as you can to get an unfair advantage of being by in effect being 14 or 15 inch's from where they started. When they disembark - they by getting an extra 2 or 3 inch's range on you rapid fire shoting range.

Troops in a vehicle should only be a maximum of 12 inchs + 2 from they starting point after disembarking. You are bending the rules so that after they disembark they  are 16/17 inch's away from where they started. So I call cheating.

Also your first sentence is BS and I hate that type of argument, usually used by people trying to take advantage IMHO.

It is possible to not like a rule but still agree to follow it because it is a rule. For example, I don't like the rule that allows re-rolling 1's on a master crafted plasma pistol. I think it is silly. But I follow it with no complaints because it is a rule. Moving a rhino sides and pivoting to gain an unfair advantage of a couple of inch's I don't like because I feel it is cheating. Plain and simple.

Big difference, and I won't play against people who cheat but I would however happily play against some-one who rerolls a 1 on a master crafted plasma pistol.

Even if you don't  "cheat" with the movement of your vehicles you can still get 15 inches after disembarking. As the rulebook shows you mesure the two-inch disembark from the BACK of a model's base.

So, you have your transport move 12 inches, disembark 2 inches, and you have one inch for your base (more if you have a larger base).

If you have already moved the vehicle 12" from point A to point B, how can you then seemingly turn the vehicle a certain direction, thus putting the total distance from point A to point B 14-15". Turning the vehicle or it's facing has nothing to do with the distance a vehicle moves. If you want the vehicle to look like it's moving backwards, sideways or whatever direction, the 12" is still 12" for max move and being able to disembark in this case.

It's not a matter of play better next time, it's a matter that 12" doesn't equal 14".

Posted By fullheadofhair on 10/22/2006 10:46 PM

Troops in a vehicle should only be a maximum of 12 inchs + 2 from they starting point after disembarking. You are bending the rules so that after they disembark they  are 16/17 inch's away from where they started. So I call cheating.

Start sideways.  Turn Raider facing forwards towards direction of travel.  This counts as 0" movement.  Move 12", disembark from nose 2.9", fleet 1d6", assault 6".

100% Legal.  Exactly how the rules say to do it.  No bending required.  This is in no way cheating.  Unless you can come up with a rules quote that says otherwise.