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 been reading the new codex and I've got a question about the Hydra Autocannon. I've seen some people reference the weapon as being twin-linked, but its stat line doesn't support that:

72'' STR 7 AP 4 Heavy 2 (Auto-targeting System)

In the description of the vehicle there is no mention of being twin-linked either. All it has is the Auto-targeting System (removes cover saves for skimmers going flat out). As far as the discussions around this go, either I'm missing something or these folks were working off some older rumors. May seem like a dumb question (especially in light of the fact that I've got a copy of the codex), but am I missing something here?

-Yad

Yad wrote:I've been reading the new codex and I've got a question about the Hydra Autocannon. I've seen some people reference the weapon as being twin-linked, but its stat line doesn't support that:

72'' STR 7 AP 4 Heavy 2 (Auto-targeting System)

In the description of the vehicle there is no mention of being twin-linked either. All it has is the Auto-targeting System (removes cover saves for skimmers going flat out). As far as the discussions around this go, either I'm missing something or these folks were working off some older rumors. May seem like a dumb question (especially in light of the fact that I've got a copy of the codex), but am I missing something here?

-Yad

You may look at page 51, under the statline is a small text .

there you find the 2 x TL hydra autocannons mentioned.

or try page 102, hydra, => 2x TL hydra autocannons.

Ahh found it. It wasn't on page 51 (Hydra Flak entry, right after the Hellhound and variants). Nor was it in the IG Summary page. I finally found it in the FOC/points Heavy Support section just past the entry for Knight Commander Pask. The wargear lists it as having Two twin-linked Hydra autocannons. what a pain in the butt trying to nail that one down. I looked in the two most logical places (at least for me). The very first entry, and then the summary. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out for me 1hadhq, appreciate it!

-Yad

Well actually you should check it in the order of Unit Entry, Army List Entry, Crystal Ball, Scrying Pool, Sheep Entrails, then the Summery. I assure you 99% of the time you will find the answer in the Crystal Ball before the Summery (and will probably be more correct ;p)

A "hydra autocannon" is a longbarreled autocannon with 72" range.

A "Hydra Flaktank" is armed with 2 twinlinked 'hydra autocannons'. Along with special tracking systems, yada yada.

I love how its difficult to actually read a units Codex listing to check their weaponry.

InquisitorFabius wrote:I love how its difficult to actually read a units Codex listing to check their weaponry.

Might be people's reading level, the codex is pretty well written). For some time now, I've noticed they make the distinction between a weapon, and a weapons system on a vehicle. Autocannon vs twin linked autocannon, hydra autocannon vs two twinlinked hydra autocannon. etc

Gwar! wrote:Well actually you should check it in the order of Unit Entry, Army List Entry, Crystal Ball, Scrying Pool, Sheep Entrails, then the Summery. I assure you 99% of the time you will find the answer in the Crystal Ball before the Summery (and will probably be more correct ;p)

I thought that you flipped the first two. So the Army List Entry (in the back), with costs, was sort of the primary description. The reason I say that is the Unit Entry (in the front) only lists rules unique to the unit. The summary is just short of throwing dice.

Homer

No, read the unit entry to learn the special rules, then read the list entry to find costs and full equipment lists.

InquisitorFabius wrote:No, read the unit entry to learn the special rules, then read the list entry to find costs and full equipment lists.

Coming from the Tau codex, I dislike the way they layout these new books. It gets old having to flip between the special rules and point costs constantly, as both are important to gameplay.

When I get my new Guard codex, I'm going to write in all the point costs on the unit entry pages. With pen. *gasp*

So tell me, why do you need to reference special rules when costing your army list, and why do you need to check for points when playing the game?

There is a reason why the format is like it is, and that is why. You don't ever need both Points and Special Rules at once.

Gwar! wrote:So tell me, why do you need to reference special rules when costing your army list, and why do you need to check for points when playing the game?

There is a reason why the format is like it is, and that is why. You don't ever need both Points and Special Rules at once.

Except when the "twin-linked" part appears with the point costs, and the "hydra autocannon" part appears with the special rules.

Um, because twin linked is not a Special rule unique to the Hydra? The Army List tells you what wargear a thing has. Which is a twin Linked Hydra Cannon. Just because it doesn't mention twin linked in the special rules (which doen's list the specific wargear of any model)., and you forget it, that's your problem, not the codex's.

Gwar! wrote:Um, because twin linked is not a Special rule unique to the Hydra? The Army List tells you what wargear a thing has. Which is a twin Linked Hydra Cannon. Just because it doesn't mention twin linked in the special rules (which doen's list the specific wargear of any model)., and you forget it, that's your problem, not the codex's.

See, I disagree with you here - a properly-written reference should NOT spread special rules and vehicle armament/wargear across two entries. Either entry could be complete in itself, with the other given over entirely to fluff/point costs. (And the problem is almost never the owning player - it's the other guy, who wants to see what a particular unit *does* who ends up misled.)

Just because you can find a twisted way in which the current layout makes some kind of sense, doesn't mean that it is done well.

Well we could always go back the the lovely 3rd edition Codex format where you need 74 codex's and a whole bunch of errata along with the other more recent codex's to use the most recent rules for Weapons and wargear if you wish.

I'll stick with the halfway Decent system we have now thank you.

Gwar! wrote:So tell me, why do you need to reference special rules when costing your army list, and why do you need to check for points when playing the game?

There is a reason why the format is like it is, and that is why. You don't ever need both Points and Special Rules at once.

I don't know about you, but when choosing how to spend my points I often have to look up what the units do, which means I have to flip back and forth. It gets to be less of a problem once I have played a codex for a year or more (I can write Tau lists in my sleep, for example).

Now, the Tau codex has fewer unit entries than a SM or IG codex, so I can understand why they consolidated the point costs in their own section; for fewer pages. However, I say again it's a royal pain in the arse to flip back and forth when you don't have the rules memorized. Plus I like looking at the pretty pictures...

System isn't decent. Just weird and confusing.

I am still looking in my dex and find some lines in italics under the weapons statline saying Hydra-autocannon are 2 twinlinked weapon-systems.

Maybe to use a non-english codex isn't so bad then.

Gwar! wrote:Well we could always go back the the lovely 3rd edition Codex format where you need 74 codex's and a whole bunch of errata along with the other more recent codex's to use the most recent rules for Weapons and wargear if you wish.

I'll stick with the halfway Decent system we have now thank you.

That's a false dilemma. 3rd Ed. had problems, but putting abilities next to point costs was not one of those problems. The current Codex format makes it really easy to mess up rules, by spreading things out in such a way that double-checking a rule slows the game to a crawl.

I can accept the reliance on flipping back to the main rulebook (it's annoying, but helps "future proof" lists) but forcing you to flip back and forth within the same book serves no useful function. There's no harm in printing a rule more than once within a Codex; modern document preparation software should prevent any possibility of error by "linking" all instances of a rule.

I have no problem with the way it is. I also do not mix up rules. If I plan to play an army I learn all its special rules. I study the codex for days before I even think about making a list.

Maybe I am just weird, but I also learn every other codex so when I play I am not blind sided by a rule or ability.

*** Pop quiz. If you have a SM codex handy, try and quickly find where it mentions that SM bikes are armed with twin linked bolters***






Space marine bikes are another fun listing in their latest codex as well. A friend was convinced that they had removed the twin linked bolters from his beloved bikes when he first read the codex, since neither the army list nor the forces list mentions the bolters. When I pointed him to the Other Equipment list that is the only spot the armament of the bikes is mentioned he was so relieved. Its not a problem if one is familiar with the codex and use it often, but things like this get annoying for infrequesnt users.

This system saves space, but it does at times make it very slow to actually find the data you need at times.



Sliggoth

GW has been doing this a lot lately. The rules and upgrades aren't the same in both the rules entry section and the army list section.

Like the soul grinder. I had to play a game before I realized he had 2xDreadnought weapons. It's a big "duh" afterwards but they aren't listed in the two page rules section.

1hadhq wrote:You may look at page 51, under the statline is a small text .

there you find the 2 x TL hydra autocannons mentioned.

or try page 102, hydra, => 2x TL hydra autocannons.

The way the vehicle is set up is actually rather annoying, as when the Hydra moves, it can only fire one pair of autocannons. The same with Weapon Destroyed. I expect to have a lot of inadvertent rule violations

Agamemnon2 wrote:

1hadhq wrote:You may look at page 51, under the statline is a small text .

there you find the 2 x TL hydra autocannons mentioned.

or try page 102, hydra, => 2x TL hydra autocannons.

The way the vehicle is set up is actually rather annoying, as when the Hydra moves, it can only fire one pair of autocannons. The same with Weapon Destroyed. I expect to have a lot of inadvertent rule violations

Well that is hardly GW's fault. It is very clear that it is 2 sets of twin linked weapons. If people don't bother to read the rules, that's their Problem

Agamemnon2 wrote:

1hadhq wrote:You may look at page 51, under the statline is a small text .

there you find the 2 x TL hydra autocannons mentioned.

or try page 102, hydra, => 2x TL hydra autocannons.

The way the vehicle is set up is actually rather annoying, as when the Hydra moves, it can only fire one pair of autocannons. The same with Weapon Destroyed. I expect to have a lot of inadvertent rule violations

The Hydra isn't meant to move....

But you could always buy those heavy flamer as upgrade if you believe in advancing artillery

1hadhq wrote:
The Hydra isn't meant to move....

But you could always buy those heavy flamer as upgrade if you believe in advancing artillery

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! ( Captain ) What`s that sergeant? ( Sergeant ) Oh that Sir? It´s just the boys of the Artillery Company doing recon. ( Captain ) Recon? ( Sergeant ) Yes, Sir. There was a report that the forest might contain hostiles. So they drove their pieces on that ridge facing the forest and started eliminating the trees to see if there was any truth to the report. ( Captain )...

Agamemnon2 wrote:

1hadhq wrote:You may look at page 51, under the statline is a small text .

there you find the 2 x TL hydra autocannons mentioned.

or try page 102, hydra, => 2x TL hydra autocannons.

The way the vehicle is set up is actually rather annoying, as when the Hydra moves, it can only fire one pair of autocannons. The same with Weapon Destroyed. I expect to have a lot of inadvertent rule violations

I do rather like that its targeting system bonus (such as it is) applies to its heavy bolter as well once they get close enough, and to HK missiles and Stubber if you get those as well (I can actually see getting some HKs on them to help bring down those pesky skimmers too).

Jack

Gwar! wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:The way the vehicle is set up is actually rather annoying, as when the Hydra moves, it can only fire one pair of autocannons. The same with Weapon Destroyed. I expect to have a lot of inadvertent rule violations

Well that is hardly GW's fault. It is very clear that it is 2 sets of twin linked weapons. If people don't bother to read the rules, that's their Problem

I'm not looking to ascertain blame, I just find it rather annoying, that's all. What we have here is failure to communicate.