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.

Ah yes the tyranid Aloha strike, hope to sun lock

I dunno-- in a fixed turn, objective mission, I'd probably prefer second turn.

Then again, Orks aren't really renowned for their alpha strike capabilities-- even with koptas and lootas galore.

Right next to the Chaos Daemons "Hey, he has all of his guys out in the open. Deep strike flamers and Knu'gath right away!" Alpha Strike.

solkan wrote:Right next to the Chaos Daemons "Hey, he has all of his guys out in the open. Deep strike flamers and Knu'gath right away!" Alpha Strike.

Either that's an odd coincidence, or you've seen my Daemons in action...

Why cant we just dice off to see who wins each round? Would save 2 and half hours of arguing and rolling and rule clarifications.

I have proposed that same idea, haha. It never goes over.

CaptainChaos wrote: Why cant we just dice off to see who wins each round? Would save 2 and half hours of arguing and rolling and rule clarifications.

Sure, as long as its one of my dice, this one dice I keep in its own case to be specific....

Version #2 is up.

One thing is still not clear to me.

On mission #1 if a unit is partially in the fog and partially out of the fog are night fight rules used?

I ain't the scenario maker, but I figure you check line of sight from the firing model's head or gun mount to any part of the target model, if you don't draw a line through the fog you can see it fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With a 24" diameter circle in the middle it's gonna be tough to hide anything...

Krak_kirby wrote:I ain't the scenario maker, but I figure you check line of sight from the firing model's head or gun mount to any part of the target model, if you don't draw a line through the fog you can see it fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With a 24" diameter circle in the middle it's gonna be tough to hide anything...

I'm talking units, not individual models.

Say 30 ork boys/guardsmen/nids. Which model is the target model? This seems like an all or nothing to me. Either 1 model is out of the fog and there is clear los to the unit, or 1 model is in the fog and thus any shooting going into the unit is going into the fog.

schadenfreude wrote:I'm talking units, not individual models.

Say 30 ork boys/guardsmen/nids. Which model is the target model? This seems like an all or nothing to me. Either 1 model is out of the fog and there is clear los to the unit, or 1 model is in the fog and thus any shooting going into the unit is going into the fog.

I figure it's like normal night fight - if you can see one model, you can see the unit.

Seems to me it would either me be the closest two firing models or the majority rule a la cover save rules.

John could we get a clarification on that one next document too?

Hey again.

I'll add the following to Scenario 1:

Units must have the majority of their models in or hidden by the fog to benefit from the Night Fight rules. Vehicles partially in or hidden by the fog count as Obscured.

I think that tidies it up.

I'll also add the "no seize the initative" line and the other aforementioned edits.

Any other clarifications needed before I post the final versions?

John

John Shaffer wrote:Hey again.

I'll add the following to Scenario 1:

Units must have the majority of their models in or hidden by the fog to benefit from the Night Fight rules. Vehicles partially in or hidden by the fog count as Obscured.

I think that tidies it up.

I'll also add the "no seize the initative" line and the other aforementioned edits.

Any other clarifications needed before I post the final versions?

Wait, Obscured vehicles? Instead of using the Night Fight rules, or in addition to?

Yikes you may want to reword that one. Basically means that if you have a tip of a rhino in one of those fog zone it is getting a 4+ cover save at that point. That'd be a huge shift from the current scenario.... not opposed to it at all of course

Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

kartofelkopf wrote:Then again, Orks aren't really renowned for their alpha strike capabilities-- even with koptas and lootas galore.

We're not know for a SHOOTING alpha strike, but first turn charges or charging 26-27" out of reserves are not unheard of, lol.

frgsinwntr wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

They do use the large blast. Same with the BA whirlwinds.

Page 58 of the 40k rulebook...

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

Polonius wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

It could make sense - the BAs just load Sabot rounds, rather than HE.

But yeah - haven't encountered anyone quite that angry yet. Maybe on Saturday.

dereksatkinson wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

They do use the large blast. Same with the BA whirlwinds.

Page 58 of the 40k rulebook...

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

It's not an ordinance blast, it's just an Ordinance

Friendly games it may be ok, but in something like 'ard boyz I'd totally shoot that down without FAQ.

Polonius wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

You have a weird memory .. Yes I did argue that, but that also didnt have like 15 years of precedence behind it like a demolisher and whirlwind does heh. Id Imagine arguing that would get shot down by most judges.. GW has made huge inroads shutting down overly strict RAW arguments lately and the adepticon faq is pretty good about it too

Now now, we've played against each other BlueDagger, and you don't seem to be "that guy" by arguing things that are that obvious. It seems very much lower than your "in person" character would show.

Besides, you of all people should know that a single shot weapon is much more reliable at anti-tank than a blast weapon. How many shots from your Fire Prisms actually land where you want them to?

hehe my prism shots were actaully pretty good that day sadly. Usually it's a constant "11 scatter, TL... 12 inch...".

Typically I'm not very RAWistic, in fact if a player was smart they would just tell me it's a blast and I'd never even think to look lol. Whirlwind with the barrage rule makes a more convincing argument, but the Vindi it could be argued if they meant it to be a single shot ordinance or a large blast since that would make a huge difference.

But of course that is for YMTC to fight about


Definitely need to get that "obscured if partially in the fog" cleared up above though. I could see some people (like me) having a field day with that one.

Kirasu wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

You have a weird memory .. Yes I did argue that, but that also didnt have like 15 years of precedence behind it like a demolisher and whirlwind does heh. Id Imagine arguing that would get shot down by most judges.. GW has made huge inroads shutting down overly strict RAW arguments lately and the adepticon faq is pretty good about it too

How do I have a weird memory?

Where in the last 15 years could apothecaries do anything about a vehicle? There was a lot of history behind what apothecaries could do too. It was a pure RAW exploit then, just like arguing that vindies aren't blast is now.

I guess my point is, you liked strict RAW when it helped you, now you seem taken with the spirit of the game. That's fine, arguing for your best interests is smart. Let's not pretend you're above the game.

I'd really suggest as others have said, if you haven't already, explicitly stating that Seize the Initiative won't be used in each mission.

I know its a bit redundant and one would assume "just check the special rules" but I guarantee this will come up at every store running it just because of how used to people are of having it present. It doesn't feel to most people like a special rule, but more as a part of the game beginning sequence "ok, we roll off, i set up, you set up, you roll to seize, we start"

BlueDagger wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

They do use the large blast. Same with the BA whirlwinds.

Page 58 of the 40k rulebook...

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

It's not an ordinance blast, it's just an Ordinance

Friendly games it may be ok, but in something like 'ard boyz I'd totally shoot that down without FAQ.

And I'm sure the TO would shoot you down, as I've seen happen to every TFG that tries this nonsense.

Ah, Ard Boyz. Reminding me of everything that I hate about this hobby. Luckily I like more than I dislike or this sort of thing would drive me screaming from the gaming community entirely.

Reecius wrote:Jesus, why not just call it the assault army round? These missions suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An entire army can outflank in scenario 3, and scenario 1 is just asking for arguments with that fog of war, BS. Scenario 2 with the deep striking objectives? That is a little too much randomness for me.

These all hurt shooting armies a lot, I am not a fan of these missions at all.

Yes, isn't it ironic? The HARDBOI, only the best players and 'Ardest armies NO COMP! (Well... except for our missions that clearly handicap mech armies).

What a joke.