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.

are you ready for what the dope fiends at gw have released

needless to say you need to read the new rulebook faq

 

my one pet peeve  on the new faq is

weapon ranges on vehicles are now measured from the tip of the barrel

can you say 12 inch las cannon barrel ?or my new favorite im making 8 inch extensions for my assault cannons i can shoot into your deployment zone now on turn 1 without moving

i might even make the 12" dark lance so i can shoot all the way across the board wihtout moving.. hmmm a ravager with 3 12" dark lances they shoot 48" so a 24" extension makes them sohot 72" woo hoo move over tau your days are numbered!

 

idiots are writing junk they dont have a clue about

So... one pet peeve = a crap FAQ?

I personally think it's one of GW's better FAQs. They explained their rulings, gave page references for RAW references and gave reasons for deviating from RAW when they had to.

Then there are the actual rulings themselves. In my mind, a lot of stuff has been cleared up, which is an excellent thing. There are some questions that remain unanswered, but this is a definate step forward IMHO.

As for your problem, it's no secret that modelling can be used to abuse the rules. The Pirate Marines with huge sails on their Rhinos to block lines of sight to everything behind springs to mind, or maybe the crouching Wraithlord. There's never been anything to prevent you from doing these sorts of things, unless you actually value being viewed as a fair sportsman. But if you don't, then go ahead and make your 12" dark lances and lascannons and see how much fun you will have. Undoubtedly you will feel vastly superior to everyone else knowing that it was your sheer skillz that won you your games.

They are the rules, you'll get over it I'm sure.

A lot of stuff has been cleared up but at the same time it's obvious that more problems have been created.

You can now vary the range from a Tau Hammerhead by 8 inches by turning the turret.

Go ahead and make the extra long barrels. Then explain why you are doing and how it is now legal. Finally, see how many folks want to play a game with you.

Is it an exploitable rule, but there are a great number of folks who just want to play a game and have a good time, even in a tourney setting.

Overall, I think the FAQ was pretty well thought out. They even admitted when they screwed up and are trying to fix it. It's a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

It's just as bad as the (legal) putting one of your models that are in a rhino on a 12" long base so they can get a first turn charge out of the Rhino...

People are always going to abuse modeling.  The gun barrel ruling is a good ruling if you didn't have people wishing to exploit that area, which alas you do (albeit a very small amount).  It really should be measuring LOS from the barrel and distance from the base just to stream line the game mechanics and prevent modeling abuse. 

One thing you could do is call out someone on is WYSIWYG if they play such a model during a tournamnet.  The reason being is it doesn't look like the stock model or clearly represent what is intented.  All tournaments are WYSIWYG so if someone wants to go over the edge, call them out on it. 

If the judge allows 12" barrels, then kindly inform your opponent that  you will be checking every rule, every measurement and nothing will be left for slack for the entire game.  You have the right to check everything and you may get zeroed in sportsmanship/comp, but alas I would have already put the score sheet on the board and marked them as such anyway.

Posted on the other 40k FAW thread, as well.:

They kind of dropped the ball on the whole Hit and Run vs Non-Ws vehicles however.  I don't care too much either way about whether they allowed it, but in the process of explaining why they didn't allow it, they categorically said that non-locked combatants are NOT engaged, either.  Which is kind of a problem, for 2 reasons:

1. If they aren't engaged, what how exactly did the assualters manage to assault the vehicle?  They can ONLY do this by becoming engaged in the start of the assault phase, otherwise they can't come within an 1" of the enemy model.  By the RAW, Locked is a sub-set of Engaged, not the other way around.

2.  I really dislike the bizarre explanation/suuggestion to move the vehicle and/or assaulting infantry units apart 1" at the end of the combat.  Since when do we get free movement that doesn't take place in the actual rules (either in the movement phase or consolidation)?  It's like they couldn't acknowledge the RAW leaves the assaulters in a real combat (by definition in the rules on assault as well as the rules for vehicles assaults), so they fudged it by adding in the new "move an inch away" post combat phase.

On another note, I don't play Tau, but man, how lame is the Pathfinder situation? Not too crazy about forcing independent characters to place all of their attacks on a single unit, either.

As for the new uber gun barrels of doom... uggh.  Why can't they actually follow the rules they printed in the 4th edition book.  Seriously, they spent plenty of time and money on the thing, only to fundamentally change the way they play this.  Why didn't they do this BEFORE the book caem out, instead of over a year later?  So, by their reading, if I go through the trouble of creating an actual base for my vehicles now, I'll legally be able to mount my land raider crusader guns in the back and measure from the BASE instead of the gun barrel. 

12" gun barrel = a model that cannot be deployed as it won't fit inside a 12" deployment zone. Problem fixed.

If you are going to measure range from the muzzle, then you need to deploy that vehicle so its muzzle is inside your deployment zone.

The problem isn't a few people trying to take advantage of the FAQ, it's the anomalies and problems it throws up in normal play.

For instance, a Tau Hammerhead's Railgun is four inches long from the mount to the muzzle. As it's turret mounted, the range of that weapon can vary by 8 inches depending on how the player swings the turret around. It also varies the range compared to the wing-mounted cannons or SMS by about 0 to 8 inches. That doesn't seem acceptable when the burst cannon only has 18 inch range to start with.

People on EoT are already suggesting that all ranges should be measured to/from the gun muzzle. Look at the problems that will cause. Which gun muzzle and when? What about weapons with two widely separate muzzles (Tau SMS)?

What was wrong with the old rule of measuring from the edge of the model?

Tau Hammerhead Railguns also have a range of, more or less, the board. Doesn't really matter much.

No, but it does matter for SMS. There have to be something like 3" between each weapon, from where do you measure the range ? I will be measuring from the nearest, simply because it makes sense that the nearest rockets of a multiple-rocket system will fire.

Posted By Golf33 on 09/30/2006 10:38 PM
12" gun barrel = a model that cannot be deployed as it won't fit inside a 12" deployment zone. Problem fixed.

If you are going to measure range from the muzzle, then you need to deploy that vehicle so its muzzle is inside your deployment zone.

The model can always be deployed sideways.

another point that was strange to me and ties into Yakfaces previous poll about rolling for reserves and when you place them.

they do not explicitly state so in a rules statement, but they imply in the section about IC coming in with squads in transposrts that all reserves rolls are made BEFORE any models are placed. Tht is drawing a conclusion through assumption but since the rules are unclear on the matter i thinkt hat is fairly strong evidence that the game designers intended it to be played that way.

and as for IC's not being able to split attacks? I have always played it the way the FAQ laid it out, as has everyone i know. Acutally, nearly every rulling in there was how i have always seen the game played.

One question the didnt answer that iw ould have liked to see was the issue regarind pile in movements.

Posted By Golf33 on 09/30/2006 10:38 PM
12" gun barrel = a model that cannot be deployed as it won't fit inside a 12" deployment zone. Problem fixed.

If you are going to measure range from the muzzle, then you need to deploy that vehicle so its muzzle is inside your deployment zone.

sorry doesnt work like that you measure all distance for moving and actual location of vehicle by its base not its muzzle

now you measure distance from the muzzle for range how nice of gw to make a loophole for everyone to exploit now

I think you guys are over-reacting about the gun muzzle thing. How many people are actually going to attempt the ridiculous modeling options you are suggesting? My guess is that maybe one or two people in the entire planet would even try such a thing. In all likelihood, none of us will ever in our lifetimes play against someone who has tried it.

You guys really need to have more faith in the wargaming community. Most players are really great guys. You can't live your life in fear of that one guy out there who may do something ridiculous like that.

yes, if you were so inclined, you could make a demolisher with a longer barrel, have the tank lined up at your 12" deployment zone line in cover for the hull down roll with the barrel turned to the side, turn one you rotate it forward to fire and now it reaches into the enemy deployment zone.

although that would be pretty pathetic if someone actually did that, however it is now totally legal.

as for hammerheads, who cares, they arleady shot accorss the board as it was and the ion cannon is much shorter.

I'm not sure if I read the FAQ correctly:

When they say that Independent Characters cannot split their attacks between units, do they mean that the IC must roll all of its attacks against a single enemy model that is in base to base, or against a single squad (they use the word unit.)?

I'm assuming it is the former, but I wanted to make sure.

CK

The whole gun barrel thing specifically messes with Eldar tanks and the already nearly extinct Razorback. This is why I always tried to play hull to hull. Its how the 4th Ed RB was written and it results in less arguments. Now I expect more slowed arguments that I will need to measure my nightfighting from the cockpit of the tank, instead of the hull. Joy.

The rest of the changes are basically fine, except for the now powers before you are out of your transport thing. I guess I have even less reason to take a farseer as an add on for a mechanized unit now, since he cannot fortune himself even on the turn he intends to leave his transport. I expect that little ruling to be clarified the first time a SM player complains that he cannot use his hood inside his ride. The people who made this FAQ seem to have forgotten the entire philosphy behind 4th, which was to reduce room for arguments and lower the influence of characters.

Am I readin the FAQ correctly that IC's may join units, PRIOR to entering the board (aka old school 3rd edition style)?

Based on all this uproar on gun barrels, would people object to my modifications?

http://groups.msn.com/TheImperialGuardDebriefingRoom/3dblackcompany10thcadian.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=171

I made these long barreled tanks years ago.  I thought they looked cool, but I guess I get some sort of unfair advantage now?

CE

Posted By CadianEversor on 10/11/2006 12:41 PM

Based on all this uproar on gun barrels, would people object to my modifications?

http://groups.msn.com/TheImperialGuardDebriefingRoom/3dblackcompany10thcadian.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=171

I made these long barreled tanks years ago.  I thought they looked cool, but I guess I get some sort of unfair advantage now?

CE

1) Awesome.  they look just lslightly shorter then Vanquisher cannon-perfect.

2) If you are concerned play you distance from the end of the 2nd segment.  That should approximate the length of a standard barrel.  With the range of a Leman its not really an issue though. I personally will continue measuring distances from the mount of the weapon myself (where LOS is taken from).  To me that is a cleaner way to handle things.

How typical...GW releases a FAQ and all the resonable people say..." good god that enters all kinds of explotation possibilties, Im going to ignore it and pretend they were never released it all, " and everyone else says "horray a rules sanctioned way to make everyone I game with hate me and not want to play anymore, horray for not having the good sense to ignore obviously goofy rules expliots"


Im saying this because I know the next time I walk into a place to play im gonna see or hear someone telling a 12 year old how to dominate the game with just a little peice of plastic pipe.

Question?: could they fix this ( in anoter FAQ) by making certain gun barrals standard on vehicles or by making certain vehicles only have access to certain barrel lengths?

No. IMO a modling FAQ won't help things because abuses always exist from a modeling standpoint... such as huge drop pods, pirate-ship ork trucks etc. Personally, while I am a die-hard RAW kind of guy, The local group has always played the "from the barrel" and not had any trouble. Modelling abusers would get roundly heckled out of the store...