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'll start: 1 steeler with feeder tendrils in a big brood gives the whole squad re-roll to hit in HtH..
it costs 1 point -how can that be allowed, my friend uses it?
WHAT ELSE IS BAD CHEESE AND RULE ABUSE IN YOUR OPINION?

Illegal, since all stealers must have the same "equipment".
You can't give tendrils to a single stealer in a brood, it's all of them, or none of them.

the Guy 'interprets' the rules into that way..

Ive never done this, but by the letter of the rules:

When you weapon destroy a monolith, it gains a shot.

If You destroy a venerable dreadnought, your opponent ASKS you to reroll the dice. Just say no.

And the Genestealer example is against the rules, doesnt matter how the guy interprets them. My Examples are using the rules, the badly written ones ;p

Mad Larkin Uk wrote:If You destroy a venerable dreadnought, your opponent ASKS you to reroll the dice. Just say no.

Absolute genius. Should be used more often.....

Arleucs wrote:Illegal, since all stealers must have the same "equipment".
You can't give tendrils to a single stealer in a brood, it's all of them, or none of them.

True story, but I don't think there's anything to stop you from equipping a Broodlord with Feeder Tendrils and the rest of his Genestealer retinue with Acid Maw, so on the first round of a close combat, the whole unit re-rolls hits and the retinue re-rolls wounds, too.

My contender for worst rules abuse:

The Tyranid Venom Cannon, out of their codex, puts these words in this order:

TyranidCodex wrote:"A Venom Cannon can only achieve glancing hits against vehicles that do not have the open topped characteristic."

It's obviously intended to stop Venom Cannons from scoring penetrating hits on tanks and such, but if you squint and look at it just right, like one of those Magic Eye illusions, you can make it mean that a Venom Cannon operates like any other weapon against non-open-topped vehicles, but penetrates on every hit against an open-topped vehicle. If my dice+strength came up exactly equal to an open-topped vehicle's armor, then I would be illegally scoring a glancing hit against a vehicle with the open-topped characteristic.

Mad Larkin Uk wrote:Ive never done this, but by the letter of the rules:

When you weapon destroy a monolith, it gains a shot.

If You destroy a venerable dreadnought, your opponent ASKS you to reroll the dice. Just say no.

And the Genestealer example is against the rules, doesnt matter how the guy interprets them. My Examples are using the rules, the badly written ones ;p

dear god your right about the monolith, reducing by -1 is the same as -(-1) which means +1

I know a guy who claims that the blessed ammunition upgrade on his exorcists makes the exorcist missile launcher ignore cover saves.

Even though the codex clearly states blessed ammunition only applies to bolter-type weapons, he claims that the upgrade wouldn't be offered for an exorcist if it didn't apply to the exorcist launchers (ignoring the fact that it could apply to pintle-mounted storm bolters taken as addons for exorcists).

Mad Larkin Uk wrote:
If You destroy a venerable dreadnought, your opponent ASKS you to reroll the dice. Just say no.

That's why I never ask, I tell.

Cheater.

Reducing by -1 is the same as -1, due to the word "reducing."
Making it -(-1) will never EVER be "reducing" it. it will always be increasing it.

The selective reading on the Venom Cannon doesn't hold, either.
It talks about what it can do no NON open topped vehicles. Since it doesn't address how it handles open-yopped vehicles, you defer to the basic rules.

Both are cheating and not rules abuse, since neither interpretation is a rule.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:The selective reading on the Venom Cannon doesn't hold, either.
It talks about what it can do no NON open topped vehicles. Since it doesn't address how it handles open-yopped vehicles, you defer to the basic rules.

I haven't actually pulled the stunt with the Venom Cannon, since it's more than a little slowed, but the verbiage isn't clean. The way it's supposed to work, it could be more clearly rewritten thusly:

"A Venom Cannon may not score penetrating hits against vehicles unless they have the open-topped characteristic."

The way it's actually written, it could mean exactly the same thing, or could also be re-written thusly:

"A Venom Cannon counts all hits against open-topped vehicles as penetrating."

Like I said, it requires some mental gymnastics to see it, but there's nothing inherent in the wording of the Venom Cannon that makes it illegal - it could, as you say, address how you handle vehicles without the open-topped characteristic and default to the basic rules for closed-top vehicles. It could be intended to pump up the Cannon's lethality against open-topped vehicles by upgrading glances to penetrating hits (it's not, and I'm not about to argue otherwise, but that's a technically accurate if stupid interpretation of the wording.)

The Monolith shot-adder is glorious. I'm in awe of whoever came up with that

Royal wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:The selective reading on the Venom Cannon doesn't hold, either.
It talks about what it can do no NON open topped vehicles. Since it doesn't address how it handles open-yopped vehicles, you defer to the basic rules.

I haven't actually pulled the stunt with the Venom Cannon, since it's more than a little slowed, but the verbiage isn't clean. The way it's supposed to work, it could be more clearly rewritten thusly:

"A Venom Cannon may not score penetrating hits against vehicles unless they have the open-topped characteristic."

The way it's actually written, it could mean exactly the same thing, or could also be re-written thusly:

"A Venom Cannon counts all hits against open-topped vehicles as penetrating."

Like I said, it requires some mental gymnastics to see it, but there's nothing inherent in the wording of the Venom Cannon that makes it illegal - it could, as you say, address how you handle vehicles without the open-topped characteristic and default to the basic rules for closed-top vehicles. It could be intended to pump up the Cannon's lethality against open-topped vehicles by upgrading glances to penetrating hits (it's not, and I'm not about to argue otherwise, but that's a technically accurate if stupid interpretation of the wording.)

I see the dodgy wording which would have us believe that the rule is stating that venom cannons may not achieve glancing hits against open-topped vehicles but It's a massive leap of assumptions to say that this means a glance counts as a penetrating hit IMO, that bit I have never heard before and I don't think it is supported at all.

wow, i guess im lucky. I have yet to come across one of these "issues" on the gaming table.

Although as a nid player, I have to say that giving the broodlord the FTs is kinda cheap, since he gets them for 3 pts, and he has to have a retinue of at least 5 (im not complaining, just seems a bit strange...like the BL isnt powerful enough already).

And the VC...I think its obvious which rule interpretation is intended. Keep em coming...

Drunkspleen wrote:I see the dodgy wording which would have us believe that the rule is stating that venom cannons may not achieve glancing hits against open-topped vehicles but It's a massive leap of assumptions to say that this means a glance counts as a penetrating hit IMO, that bit I have never heard before and I don't think it is supported at all.

Hmm... you're right. It might be more reasonable to say that it just removes glance from the armor penetration table - you either penetrate completely or you fail completely...(well, as reasonable as you can get given the basic idiocy of the argued statement, anyway ) I'll keep that in mind the next time I raise the VC topic around the game table.

wow, i guess im lucky. I have yet to come across one of these "issues" on the gaming table.

I just took the game up in August or so, and my group has already been down a dozen of these roads - Grey Knights claiming Aegis against Psychic Scream because Aegis is neither a "psyker" nor "wargear" and hence not covered by the Hive Mind exclusions, an Inquisitor with his retinue joining a squad of Stormtroopers because we couldn't find anything that tied "henchmen" to "retinue", all kinds of stuff. We're (mostly) friendly players, but to a man we all love a good fight over rules, and 40K seems unusually well suited to provide us with those.

In the strictest reading of the rules a brood lord with retinue of genestealers gains their fleet of claw and scout of they are scuttlers.

This is because a Independent character with a retinue counts as an upgraded model until such point as the retinue is killed in which case he counts as a Independent character again.

This is very rules lawyering and cheese, and not in the spirit of the rules. Have a close look at the rules in question before you deem this to be incorrect. Tyranids pg 36 and pg 39. pgs 47-48 of the 5th ed rulebook. In particular the section on upgrade characters and retinues.

Just a note, I don't run my broodlord like this.

Lukus83 wrote:Although as a nid player, I have to say that giving the broodlord the FTs is kinda cheap, since he gets them for 3 pts, and he has to have a retinue of at least 5 (im not complaining, just seems a bit strange...like the BL isnt powerful enough already).

I'm somewhat surprised you feel this is cheap; my assumption is this is intentional, given that ordinarily a genestealer must choose between acid maw/feeder tendrils/flesh hooks, the only way a Broodlord's retinue can benefit from both FT and FH is for the Broodlord to have the FT and the retinue takes FH. Of course, this is in turn informed by my notion that FH are very important for a dedicated CC unit.

Cypher40k wrote:In the strictest reading of the rules a brood lord with retinue of genestealers gains their fleet of claw and scout of they are scuttlers.

This isn't strictly correct. The Scuttlers rule is "Tyranids with the Scuttlers biomorph may Scout as described..." page 33 Tyranid Codex. The Scout USR is one of the special rules that is explicitly stated to be lost by units joined by independent characters lacking the special rule. As you correctly point out, the Broodlord is not an independent character while his retinue lives, however, neither does he have scuttlers; the scuttlers rule does not confer the scout USR to the unit, only the models with the biomorph.

Interestingly no Tyranid biomorphs follow the rule paradigm of "the unit has USR X" as seen in more recent Codices, all biomorphs confer specific benefits to the models with them, with the exception of FT, which confer to everything withing a given radius of the model with the biomorph.

Buzzsaw wrote:This isn't strictly correct. The Scuttlers rule is "Tyranids with the Scuttlers biomorph may Scout as described..." page 33 Tyranid Codex. The Scout USR is one of the special rules that is explicitly stated to be lost by units joined by independent characters lacking the special rule. As you correctly point out, the Broodlord is not an independent character while his retinue lives, however, neither does he have scuttlers; the scuttlers rule does not confer the scout USR to the unit, only the models with the biomorph.

Interestingly no Tyranid biomorphs follow the rule paradigm of "the unit has USR X" as seen in more recent Codices, all biomorphs confer specific benefits to the models with them, with the exception of FT, which confer to everything withing a given radius of the model with the biomorph.

My understanding is that the issue here is the wording in the Genestealer codex entry, "The whole brood may be equipped with weapon-symbiotes or biomorph enhancements chosen from the following list at the points cost indicated per model."

And the Broodlord entry says "Brood: One Broodlord and a retinue of 5-11 Genestealers"

So as dodgy as it is the whole brood, which includes One Broodlord, can be given scuttlers at +3 points per model.

except that in the broodlords biomorphs, he cant take scuttlers. And if you look at the USR scouting is not passed onto ICs, so even if the brood takes it, its useless

Drunkspleen wrote:My understanding is that the issue here is the wording in the Genestealer codex entry, "The whole brood may be equipped with weapon-symbiotes or biomorph enhancements chosen from the following list at the points cost indicated per model."

And the Broodlord entry says "Brood: One Broodlord and a retinue of 5-11 Genestealers"

So as dodgy as it is the whole brood, which includes One Broodlord, can be given scuttlers at +3 points per model.

The problem is that in order to justify that interpretation you have to first establish that a Broodlord may take upgrades from the genestealer biomorph list, which is not justified under the general rules (and indeed would be unprecedented). More to the point, even if it were generally true that a character can take biomorphs from his retinue's list, the Broodlord's entry contains the following text;

The Broodlord may be equipped with weapon-symbiotes or biomorph enhancements chosen from the following list at the points cost indicated per model.

The Broodlord's list of available options is explicit and limited, there is no allowance for him to select options from the genestealer entry.

All great examples of public schooling. Who lets you pull this stuff on them? I dont know a single person who would even attempt to pull of any of these so called "rules" then again I dont play with anyone who is under 10 and most have college educations. But seriously Id really like to know what kind of people are trying to pull these things off, are they little kids (10,12,13 year olds) or are they just a bunch of douchetards.. And where do you play? if its a game store please tell me the name, that way I can make sure to never even entertain the idea of playing there. Really in over 14 years of playing Ive never seen this kind of stuff, never even heard of it. Only when I come on to Dakka Dakka do I see this stuff, its great entertainment. And why do you (by you I mean everyperson who comes on and says "This guy is a cheater") continue to play with them? I mean really, if anyone pulled this junk they would find that no-ome will play with them. Heck we have one guy who cant get games because he tries to interpret the rules his own way even after we explain them to him he pulls the same junk the very next game. So guess what...everyone laughs at him and he cant get games. Its simple just stop playing with these tards and we will weed them out of the game. Why even entertain these people, when they pull this junk just tell them you wont play them anymore (unless its a tourny and you have no choice then you just tell the judge the person is a tard, if they dont already know. And have him kicked out at the first sign of trouble and if the store lets him/her get away with this stuff go play somewhere else)

da gob smaka wrote:Who lets you pull this stuff on them?

No one. Our group sees the questions get raised, and there's a sort of unofficial competition going on for the worst possible rules abuse/exploit, but it's all in fun. Fighting over rules is sometimes every bit as entertaining as playing the game, and looking for the exploits in the rules is like a whole separate game in itself, but none of us have put these things on the table and stood on them.

da gob smaka wrote:Only when I come on to Dakka Dakka do I see this stuff, its great entertainment.

It's a lot more fun in person, when you can take shots back and forth in real time

yeah everyonce in a while someone comes up with the "hey! it says you have to ASK the opponent to re-roll, that means I can say NO!" kind of stuff. Usually they just looked at like they came in with a tinfoil hat on, told no, patted on the head, handed a lollypop and have there parents called to come pick them up. It is good to know you dont have to really deal with this kind of stuff. No trolling! [Edited by moderator.]

The template from the inferno cannon needs to be placed within range and the whole template within LOS. Every model UNDER a template is hit. If an enemy squad is hiding behind, say a building, this means that I can place the template far above the squad, as long as I see the entire template, and don't exceed the 45 degree elevation angle on the cannon, and everyone under the template will be hit, taken into account the BS-roll of course. Even if I don't have LOS to any model in the enemy unit!

I don't play it this way, but according to RAW it's possible.

Right, ive scored a peneratating hit with my venom cannon (kidding) on your dred..

I roll a 6!

Can you re-roll that please.

No.

What?


... < That made me laugh pretty hard. Thank you good sir.

Never seen it used, but technically a deep striking unit of Tau Gun Drones can move in the assault phase during the turn they arrive. The BRB states that deep strikers may not launch an assault in the turn they arrive, and it also states that Jet Packers are "always allowed to move 6" in the assault phase, even if they don't assault."

Since the Tau Codex doesn't specify that Gun Drones can't use their jet pack move in the turn they deep strike (it does for battlesuits and stealthsuits), you can move your GD's the turn they arrive. I would never pull such a move however

SURPRISING REALLY!
i mean, how many of these "issues" are with regards to nids..

My opponent insisting that my Plague Marines' feel no pain roll is just another sort of an invulnerable save and not a separate roll. Not that it helped me, I still got shot to pieces.

CSM player who claimed that lash just moved units wherever he wanted rather than having to actually move the affected units.

I'm a bit confused with all of you saying that you won't let your opponent reroll a wrecked or explodes result.

Isn't that the point of taking a ven. dread?