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.

I've started a miniature wargaming blog at:

http://www.ministrategery.com

The first posts are my Chicago GT battle report. 

Thanks, Centurian99. I've been curious about how you make your army work. I'll be checking back again later.

Must not have percolatged to my DNS server yet; I can't see you from here.

Nice, I really cant wait to see the rest of the battle reports.

Part 3 Posted.

Awesome stuff, I look forward to reading each part. Keep em coming.

Part 4 Posted.

Just FYI, MoCU does not help with pinning checks...Just Morale checks.

You know, I know that...it just slipped my mind.

Oh well, I still would have shot at the havocs anyways.

I was thinking about doing a stealer shock for the LA Gamesday RTT, but I am chicken.

The only thing you pretty much are screwed against is an Eldar/Tau air Cav.

What's the metagame like out there?

Hard to say since Gamesday Los Angeles draws from such a large area of the west coast.

Hey Bill, not for nothing, but the way that terrain was placed, the chaos list had little to no chance of winning. I can't see the whole table, but there were two HUGE area terrain pieces right in the middle of the table that you could theoretically hide your entire army from his guns and be close enough to control the centre of the battle field waiting for him to come close enough to contest it and then assault the hell out of him. Even if you planted your gunfexes in the terrain on the left and exchanged fire with his flank, I would say you had that game won before you rolled a single die. Maybe not a massacre, but definitely a win. The shooty chaos army was at a major disadvantage just from the battlefield configuration. Well played!

BTW~ do you always set up the terrain before playing? I have always just played the table the way it was set-up by the judges. Sometimes, if pieces were moved for showing off an army with huge moving "trays", we would just put the terrain back in the empty spaces. Just curious.

Round three rawked!!!

- G

Explain this:

"Good saves on my part meant that only three wounds were inflicted, which gave me enough to pull the broodlord as a casualty."

That doesn't seem legal to me. Explain what I'm missing.

And did the rules specifically allow for terrain replacement? Obviously your army needs this to work, but I've never seem a GW GT that didn't have fixed terrain.

I wondered the same thing. Did you arrange for your BL to be terrain sniped or something? My understanding is that you cannot assign a second wound to a single model until all other eligible models have had a wound assigned to them?

First, part 5 is up.

Second - On Terrain:
It's in the GW Rules packet - says to place terrain before each game, rolling a die to see who places first (it's on p2 of the rules packet).

Third - On removing the broodlord:
Re-read the casualty removal rules. The first part only deals with removing casualties from a squad comprised entirely of single wound models. The second part deals with removing casualties from a squad with multiple multi-wound models. There's actually no rules that deal specifically with removing casualties from a squad with a single multi-wound model.

So the only rule that applies when removing casualties is that casualties are removed at the owning player's discretion, and that you have to inflict enough wounds to equal the wound characteric of a multi-wound model.

To be specific:

"This means that the owning player gets to choose who is removed by the enemy's firing.  Assuming that all the models in the unit have one wound each..."  (Emphasis mine).

 

It's interesting...for all the threads out there talking about how 40k lacks any sort of tactics, your tournament report shows a great deal of tactical judgment. Some of it might be more along the lines of "playing the rules" (ie, charging just to engage 1 space marine in the earlier battle), but you're certainly doing more than just charging forward and rolling dice.

Posted By Centurian99 on 08/09/2007 1:47 PM

First, part 5 is up.

Second - On Terrain:
It's in the GW Rules packet - says to place terrain before each game, rolling a die to see who places first (it's on p2 of the rules packet).

Third - On removing the broodlord:
Re-read the casualty removal rules. The first part only deals with removing casualties from a squad comprised entirely of single wound models. The second part deals with removing casualties from a squad with multiple multi-wound models. There's actually no rules that deal specifically with removing casualties from a squad with a single multi-wound model.

So the only rule that applies when removing casualties is that casualties are removed at the owning player's discretion, and that you have to inflict enough wounds to equal the wound characteric of a multi-wound model.

To be specific:

"This means that the owning player gets to choose who is removed by the enemy's firing.  Assuming that all the models in the unit have one wound each..."  (Emphasis mine).

 

You were incorrect on your casualty removal of the broodlord.

Top of page 26...."When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model-you cannot claim that all the hits strike a single model."

On page 27 under Armour Saves and Multiple Wounds :" Creatures with multiple Wounds take their Armour Saves just like ordinary troops with only one Wound."

In other words, a multi wound model in a unit with single wound models is treated like a single wound model, you just don't remove him until all his wounds are gone. Since the top of page 26 makes it clear that all the hits cannot be placed onto a single model, then the Broodlord should not have been pulled, unless he was the only viable target.

Also, in Battle #3 you attacked a strung out squad at both ends and claimed this blocked LoS. Don't only engaged models block LoS? Couldn't he still shoot through the center?

Sometimes terrain was moved when people setup of their armies for display. Often people will place terrain again on the tables the following games.

- G

Bill, I call shinanigans. First, you're wrong on that interp of the rule, and second, even if you weren't, you're taking the most advantageous interp, a clear ethical issue.

No offense, but I never would have let you do that, and if you'd have won the D6 for it, I'd have zeroed your sports.

It doesn't sound like it would have affected your placing, but it's still some shady stuff Bill. But you're up front about it, so I'm sure it's how you legitimately think it works.

Stu-Rat, you're mistaken. Pg. 20: "Models engaged or locked in close combat block lime of sight through them up to the height of the participating models."

mauleed, I'm constantly stunned by how quick you are to suggest zeroing people's sportsmanship scores. I still do not see how it is ever justifiable to chipmunk someone just because he's convinced that a rule works in a way advantageous to him.

Tegeus - I'm not taking offense to anything Ed writes. After all, he's primarily responsible for the "how to have an intelligent rules debate" thing, which I heartedly agree with.

But you're right about blocking LOS.

Hobbs - you're incorrect in your last point. Just because multiple wound models take armor saves like single wound models, it does not logically follow that they remove casualties like single wound models.

Here's the detailed summary of my position on this issue:

P1 - Specific rules exist for removing casualties from squads consisting of entirely one model. (Everything on page 26 after the "Assuming that the models in the unit have one wound each..." clause applies only to squads that have only one-wound models.)
P2 - Specific rules exist for removing casualties from squads consisting of multiple one-wound models (Everything in the "creatures with more than one wound" section of the rules, which say that you must remove whole multi-wound models from the unit as casualties when possibles and wounds may not be spread around to avoid taking casualties.)
P3 - Multiple wound models take armor saves just like single-wound models, and take a single wound for each failed save (page 27, under "Armor Saves and Multiple Wounds"). Nothing in that section mentions anything about removing casualties, which is a separate step from making armor saves.
C1 - Since a squad with a single multi-wound model is not a squad where everyone has a single wound, the "remove model for each wound" and "each affect a different model"' clauses do not apply.
C2 - Since a squad with single multi-wound model is not a squad with multiple multi-wound models, the rules for casualty removal from such a squad do not apply.
C3 - The only rules that apply to removing casualties from squad with a single multi-wound model is the first part of the rules, namely:
"Once the number of hits and wounds has been determined, the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties. This means that the owning player gets to choose who is removd by the enemy's firing." - and the first part of the multi-wound model rules, namely "When a creature like this suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound..."

Although not specifically required by the rules (since the situation of a squad with one multi-wound model is not covered specifically in the rules) I do follow the not spreading wounds around principle, so once I start assigning wounds to the broodlord I keep assigning wounds to the broodlord.

However, it is important to note that concentrating wounds is in fact the exact opposite of not spreading wounds around. Is it specifically allowed by the rules - no. But it is generally allowed, since the rules allow the owning players to remove casualties at their discretion.

Thanks. That's all tactics is - setting up engagements so that you have an advantage. It's the real world principle of winning before a single shot is fired.

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 08/10/2007 7:14 AM
mauleed, I'm constantly stunned by how quick you are to suggest zeroing people's sportsmanship scores. I still do not see how it is ever justifiable to chipmunk someone just because he's convinced that a rule works in a way advantageous to him.

Chimpmunking is giving someone an undervedly low soft score to hurt their overall placement.

I'd feel completely justified giving a low score to someone that intentionally broke a rule or played an ambiguous rule to their advantage. It just happens that I give only perfects and zeros for sports, so a zero it would be.

Posted By Centurian99 on 08/10/2007 7:49 AM

It's interesting...for all the threads out there talking about how 40k lacks any sort of tactics, your tournament report shows a great deal of tactical judgment. Some of it might be more along the lines of "playing the rules" (ie, charging just to engage 1 space marine in the earlier battle), but you're certainly doing more than just charging forward and rolling dice.

Thanks. That's all tactics is - setting up engagements so that you have an advantage. It's the real world principle of winning before a single shot is fired.

I forgot to mention, bravo on your play. I've been using that little trick for years, and it really seems to drive people nuts. Which only encourages me.

40k has lots of tactical flexibility, if only you've got the nuggets to use it all.

Posted By Centurian99 on 08/10/2007 7:45 AM


P1 - Specific rules exist for removing casualties from squads consisting of entirely one model. (Everything on page 26 after the "Assuming that the models in the unit have one wound each..." clause applies only to squads that have only one-wound models.)
P2 - Specific rules exist for removing casualties from squads consisting of multiple one-wound models (Everything in the "creatures with more than one wound" section of the rules, which say that you must remove whole multi-wound models from the unit as casualties when possibles and wounds may not be spread around to avoid taking casualties.)
P3 - Multiple wound models take armor saves just like single-wound models, and take a single wound for each failed save (page 27, under "Armor Saves and Multiple Wounds" . Nothing in that section mentions anything about removing casualties, which is a separate step from making armor saves.
C1 - Since a squad with a single multi-wound model is not a squad where everyone has a single wound, the "remove model for each wound" and "each affect a different model"' clauses do not apply.
C2 - Since a squad with single multi-wound model is not a squad with multiple multi-wound models, the rules for casualty removal from such a squad do not apply.
C3 - The only rules that apply to removing casualties from squad with a single multi-wound model is the first part of the rules, namely:
"Once the number of hits and wounds has been determined, the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties. This means that the owning player gets to choose who is removd by the enemy's firing." - and the first part of the multi-wound model rules, namely "When a creature like this suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound..."

Although not specifically required by the rules (since the situation of a squad with one multi-wound model is not covered specifically in the rules) I do follow the not spreading wounds around principle, so once I start assigning wounds to the broodlord I keep assigning wounds to the broodlord.

However, it is important to note that concentrating wounds is in fact the exact opposite of not spreading wounds around. Is it specifically allowed by the rules - no. But it is generally allowed, since the rules allow the owning players to remove casualties at their discretion.

I do not agree with P1. You can not know that the context is 'the entire page'. The context, when read most literally, applies to nothing but that single sentence.

Without that premise, your entire argument is invalid.

And in fact, without that premise, the text that says (the text that is NOT in that paragraph) "When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model - you can not claim that all of the hit strike a single model." clearly shows that pulling the broodlord is illegal.

What we have here Bill is an independent paragraph that clearly says that it's not legal, and your claim is that a phrase in an earlier one somehow applies to the entire page, despite no verbage to say so.

And again, even if it is ambiguous what the context of the phrase is, you can't pick the context that suits your position and then just claim it true.

All the wounding hits...Not all the failed saves.

 

Your position is  wrong

A. You treat multi wound models as single wound models....page 27.

B. You can only assign ONE wound to a model in a unit that has taken multiple hits (barring lap around)

C. Yes you can pull casualties as you see fit. The Broodlord was not a casualty. As per the rules, he is treated as a 1 wound model, and so can only be assigned 1 hit. Two other genestealers would have to be pulled. As per the rule on the top of page 27, you CANNOT assign that model more then 1 wound when there are other models in the unit that can have wounds assigned to it.

C1 - Since a squad with a single multi-wound model is not a squad where everyone has a single wound, the "remove model for each wound" and "each affect a different model"' clauses do not apply.

Incorrect assumption. As per the rule on page 27, he is treated as a single wound model and those clauses do apply to him.

C2 - Since a squad with single multi-wound model is not a squad with multiple multi-wound models, the rules for casualty removal from such a squad do not apply.

Correct. You do not apply those rules to this situation.

C3 - The only rules that apply to removing casualties from squad with a single multi-wound model is the first part of the rules, namely:
"Once the number of hits and wounds has been determined, the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties. This means that the owning player gets to choose who is removd by the enemy's firing." - and the first part of the multi-wound model rules, namely "When a creature like this suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound..."

Incorrect. See above.  As you have pointed out, there are no express rules for a multiwound model in a unit of single wound models. There does not need to be. As per the rule on page 27, you treat the model as if it were a single wound model. As per the rule on page 26, you can only assign a model 1 wound. Note the language they use...model. It ignores any designation as to the number of wounds said model has.