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.

Alot of people still having trouble getting through the basics of 5th edition... you see any of that? For instance, one of the Nid players was on a top table telling an opponent that his Barbstrangler ignored cover saves because its a "template" weapon?!?!?!?! The poor guy facing it was like... "huh?" I can only imagine that he worked it that way his first two games as well.

I keep my 5th ed. book handy and its full of colored tabs ... ready at a moments notice for that sort of shananigans... I guess his opponents just took it at face value.

With 2.5 hours rounds there is so little time to mess with opening up books... but sometimes you have to.

Anyone else?

Honestly, I had virtually no rules disputes or disagreements come up in all three of my games. I was quite surprised.

Yeah, I had to take 10 minutes in the game to explain to an opponent that the rules for wound allocation had dramatically changed. He scored 4 power weapon wounds against a unit including a HT (which in shield wall becomes an upgraded character) with 3 wounds left and a Tyrant Guard with one and he couldn't beleave that the HT was still sticking around (2 wounds allocated to TG and 2 wounds to the HT). His friend next to him wasn't aware either either as he took 5 minutes out of his game to argue with me.

I don't play at the FLGS because they don't really support playing with painted models so I don't really know any of their conceived 'house rules'.

But, I was rolling a landraider over one of the GW old plastic flock covered hills which in most circles one would cound as gentle hill. My opponent tells me I need to make a difficult ground check. How so I ask, and he replies that hills are difficult ground. Not so I say, as we didn't clarify than any hills were difficult at the beginning of the game and another table I played on previous which I pointed out to him had 4" tall hills that were counted as difficult.

Thus, I break out the book and show him that gentle hills don't count as difficult. Later the following turn, he's got genestealers on top of the hill and is claiming a cover save. Not so again as I give him a crash course on what a hill crest and a hill top is. I said and showed him that if he was behind the hill, I'd certainly agree with the cover save, but not on top.

I had a few rules issues come up with my round three opponent. He had obviously played a lot of fourth edition and still hadn't quite picked up some of the more subtle 5th edition changes. Thankfully though he was a very reasonable fellow and we were able to sort through all of the rules issues without problem. Other than that I really didn't run into any problems at the tournament which I think really says something positive about the people playing at the event since none of them were my regular opponents or even people that I had met before.

I had a guy playing tank company that was cheating like a mother. He had given his tanks camo-netting and then was trying to use "hidden set-up" rules from 4th edition scenarios. After 20 minutes of him claiming the book didn't say anything (but him not having the codex) we finally tracked an IG codex down. But this was the second game to that meant his first turn opponent had to set up blind against him(since he was "hidden") and the tank company went first.

He claimed he didn't have to roll to see with his lemans on the first turn of night fighting because he couldn't read the rule book.

My favorite, he claimed that his basilisks could direct fire directly left. Which made his opponent just look at him and basically tell him to f-off.

Luckily i didn't have to play him (just next to him) but this was "that guy" at the tournement. Who cheated to win and then was the loudest person there crowing his own greatness to the world.

A daemon player pasted him last round but he still got 2nd.

Very few rules questions. Some of the ones we came up with were fairly basic, but there were few questions overall. Mostly the people htere had been in the game since last edition at least. NONE of the questions took much time. Were were all there, with a couple notable exceptions, to rock and roll throuh the turns.

theblklotus wrote: For instance, one of the Nid players was on a top table telling an opponent that his Barbstrangler ignored cover saves because its a "template" weapon?!?!?!?!

That's not specifically a 5th edition issue... it cropped up quite a lot during 4th as well, since blast markers were commonly referred to as 'templates' by players during 2nd and 3rd edition. When 4th edition introduced 'Template Weapons' as a weapon type, a lot of players got a little confused as to the difference between a Blast Marker and a Template, and it seems to be an ongoing problem, as many people aren't aware that they're playing it wrong until someone points it out to them.

Hulksmash wrote:But this was the second game to that meant his first turn opponent had to set up blind against him(since he was "hidden") and the tank company went first.

He claimed he didn't have to roll to see with his lemans on the first turn of night fighting because he couldn't read the rule book

And his 1st opponent didn't have him disqualified

True nuff.

The only debate I saw was basically my fault, as the Tau opponent was making Targeting Priority rolls.

This was solved by the moderator by saying they all auto pass, as they no longer existed.

shrug

In no particular order:

1) "Monstrous creatures don't have to make difficult/dangerous terrain checks!"

2) "Vehicles/monstrous creatures in area terrain get covers saves!"

3) "You only have to block half of the MC's *base* to get a cover save."

4) "What do you mean, I can't assault after rapid-firing?"

5) "My army builder printout says smoke launchers make all hits glancing; what's this about a cover save?"

Plus some (fairly understandable) confusion about the difference between hits for passengers of an exploding vehicle vs. bystanders.

Lots more fights than normal IMHO due to the lack of sportsmanship points.

Some were flat out cheating by pushing versions of rules they *KNEW* were wrong in hopes for a roll-off from players who are still unsure about 5th or other armies codexes.

The less painted models an army had the worse the argument seemed to be.

My favorite arguement: Genestealer brood X1 is combat with Dreadnought Y1 and Dreadnought Y2. Next turn Genestealer brood X2 joins combat by getting into base with Y1 only. Y1 goes pop. My opponent says that X2 can't consolidate into Y2 as X2 wan't in base to base...he argued over it for 10 minutes...couldn't find my rulebook so I had to roll off...of course I lose...WTF...oh well, I wish more people would have read the 5th ed rules prior to the Tourney.

I actually had no real rules disputes. A couple things needed clarifications (Dedicated transports CAN contest objectives), but overall, I think it went pretty well.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

@wyomingfox

The guy he beat in the first round left to take his girlfriend home at the break and never came back. that said i probably wouldn't either since she was hot and he'd been massacred.

The second guy played him, gave him a run while questioning him the whole time.

The game store messed it up to, not placing the highest scores against the highest scores till the third round so i played a guard player that had scored 23 points first round while i'd scored only 16. I still beat him but it's the principle of the thing...hehe

Oh, all that said all of my opponents were awesome and if we didn't know a rule we calmly looked it up quickly and moved on (weren't a lot of issues, maybe 2 a game). The opponents made the ard boyz for me by all being cool, laid back, and just wanting to hit things with little toy soldiers.

"Oh, all that said all of my opponents were awesome and if we didn't know a rule we calmly looked it up quickly and moved on (weren't a lot of issues, maybe 2 a game). The opponents made the ard boyz for me by all being cool, laid back, and just wanting to hit things with little toy soldiers. "

Must be nice, my opponents were pretty impatient :S

Well i paid for it in a retardley run event that probably cost me qualifying since i drew a guard player in round 2 (the KP scenario) when i should have played chaos player with something like 24 available KP's instead of 11. Oh well, at least the guard player played and didn't hide most of his units and force a tie.

One of my opponents thought that you could choose to have templates scatter to the max (ignoring the shooters ballistic skill) I called him on it. Another opponent claimed that my monstrous creatures didn't benefit from area terrain because the trees that showed the edges of the forest weren't directly blocking line of sight.

Otherwise it all worked out pretty well. Wound rolling was quick and everyone seemed to understand how it and the cover system worked.

ShumaGorath wrote:Another opponent claimed that my monstrous creatures didn't benefit from area terrain because the trees that showed the edges of the forest weren't directly blocking line of sight.

He was right. See the Monstrous Creature rules - for vehicles and MCs, area terrain does nothing, unless it also happens to block TLOS to 50%+ of the model.

Janthkin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Another opponent claimed that my monstrous creatures didn't benefit from area terrain because the trees that showed the edges of the forest weren't directly blocking line of sight.

He was right. See the Monstrous Creature rules - for vehicles and MCs, area terrain does nothing, unless it also happens to block TLOS to 50%+ of the model.

We read through the rulebook a few times on that one. It was ruled in my favor but I don't have the passage here. I believe the ruling for wooded terrain counteracts the MC vehicle rule by being an abstraction or something. Fifth edition forest rules are horrible and unclear.

The terrain piece in question was three small trees marking a triangle forest with about 9 inches between each tree.

Is fairly straight forward though...

Area Terrain and TLOS are not mutually exclusive.

Hence, I have an Assassin (single model unit) standing in a Wood, behind a Tree. If you can draw LoS to him, you can shoot him, but I get a cover save. If you cannot draw LoS to him, you can't shoot him.

This, to my mind, is a far simpler than the previous 6" rule, as it is more realistic.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Another opponent claimed that my monstrous creatures didn't benefit from area terrain because the trees that showed the edges of the forest weren't directly blocking line of sight.

He was right. See the Monstrous Creature rules - for vehicles and MCs, area terrain does nothing, unless it also happens to block TLOS to 50%+ of the model.

We read through the rulebook a few times on that one. It was ruled in my favor but I don't have the passage here. I believe the ruling for wooded terrain counteracts the MC vehicle rule by being an abstraction or something. Fifth edition forest rules are horrible and unclear.

The terrain piece in question was three small trees marking a triangle forest with about 9 inches between each tree.

We'll have to hash it out later - I didn't bring my book to work, either.

(I'd be thrilled if you were right; I just don't remember there being any ambiguity at all there.)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is fairly straight forward though...

Area Terrain and TLOS are not mutually exclusive.

Hence, I have an Assassin (single model unit) standing in a Wood, behind a Tree. If you can draw LoS to him, you can shoot him, but I get a cover save. If you cannot draw LoS to him, you can't shoot him.

This, to my mind, is a far simpler than the previous 6" rule, as it is more realistic.

But the MC and vehicle ruling says that you HAVE to be 50% concealed to gain a cover save from area terrain. Supposedly meaning that you could in theory shoot through a mile of forest which is conceptualized with the three trees and hit a carnifex as if nothing were intervening at all. Its bizarre that they would use real world line of sight for terrain pieces that only exist in concept. Not everyone has hundreds of those trees you put in fishtanks. Some people use green velvet and a terrarium plastic tree or two for effect and use that. In such a case do thick forests do NOTHING for creatures and vehicles except incapacitate them? Its an unclear ruling in regards to everything that isn't a basic troop model and it's pretty convoluted and non sensical.

Actually in the front of the book there is some info that kinda supports this ruling (terrain has to cover 50% of model). In defining movement through area terrain they explain moving a tree to the side to allow moving through, but instruct to replace it after wards as it may be needed there for LOS purposes. If the tree did not matter to LOS it would not need to be placed back were it was.

It's covered, more or less, in the Rulebook.

It suggests discussing the battlefield with your opponent.

With wood in particular, a certain amount of abstraction is required in order to strike the balance between 'realism' and practicality. Most woods are modelled fairly open so that models can get inside them.

The 50% rule mainly alludes to obstacles like Walls and Hedges, which are not area terrain in themselves.

So just talk to your opponent whether, in terms of density, the particular piece of area terrain is big enough to cover Mr MC, or not. Same goes with vehicles I'm afraid.