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.

Ok, I think I misunderstood the purpose of the Apoc + YMDC sticky. I'm sick and was tired when I posted there, so sue me. Anyway, last Apoc game I played I took several Apoc vehicle formations, namely the Basilisk Battery and a tank company. Now it was argued by my opponents that I had to buy the vehicles for the formations as whole complete squadrons of 3 whatever. With 5th edition vehicle squadron rules how they are, this is bad. I argued that since this is Apoc and the FOC doesn't matter, I could have 9 separate vehicle squadrons of 1 tank, each taking up its own FOC slot and say nuts to the 5th edition squadron vehicle rules and just follow the Apoc formation rules. My opponents said I could not do this and that I was trying to play under 4th Edition rules. They further went on to say that if I wanted to do what I said, and thought was perfectly legal to do under 5th edition rules, then I would have to play my vehicles under 4th edition rules, IE my basilisks would go back to being guess range and my Russes wouldn't have Lumbering Behemoth. I called BS on that stuff and was almost ready to pack up and leave. So you, the Dakka community, make the call, is it legal following the 5th edition Rulebook, the Apoc Rulebook, and the 5th edition IG codex to have 9 separate (or however many needed for a particular Apoc formation) vehicle squadrons of 1 vehicle each to meet the requirements for an Apoc formation, thus "bypassing" the 5th edition squadron rules and following the Apoc formation rules?

The Apocalypse rules ENTIRELY removes the concept of a FOC.

THerefore, when you have the option of purchasing something as a single model, or as part of a squadron, you are perfectly free to do so - as you are only constrained (usually) by points in apocalypse.

So yes, you coudl have bought 9 individual basilisks. There is no rule, in the IG or Apoc books, forcing you to buy multiple vehicles as a squadron.

For their information: basiilisks were NOT guess ranges in 4th ed, Guess Range was already gone. All "G" meant was it was barrage

There were completely wrong.

The only reason every to purchase vehicles in squadrons is because of FOC restrictions. If you weren't imposing your own FOC restrictions then they wouldn't be in squadrons.

Purchasing vehicles in squadrons is optional in 40K and it's optional in Apoc.

Now that you can buy some vehicles in squadrons you have the choice of buying those vehicles in squadrons or not for Apoc. (don't know why you ever would)

It was just to further show their silliness in how they wanted me to play.

Edit:

Scott-S6 wrote:There were completely wrong.

The only reason every to purchase vehicles in squadrons is because of FOC restrictions. If you weren't imposing your own FOC restrictions then they wouldn't be in squadrons.

Purchasing vehicles in squadrons is optional in 40K and it's optional in Apoc.

Now that you can buy some vehicles in squadrons you have the choice of buying those vehicles in squadrons or not for Apoc. (don't know why you ever would)

They were insisting I HAD to buy them in squadrons of 3.

For things like this in future put the onus on them to prove it.

Your codex says you can buy them in squadrons of 1.

Unless they can show something that revokes that permission then there's no debate.

And don't let them pull the "I read it in a FAQ but I don't have it with me" crap either.

Follow that up with a rulebook to the jaw!

This is why, I think anyway, that despite what GW says or intends with their own products, they NEED to make rules more clear and update/errata/FAQ Apoc with 5th edition, especially with all the new codices that have come out since Apoc. I'm sorry to say this, but I think WotC should buy out GW and then maybe we'll get some clear and concise rules all around that can handle the differences between rule sets, codices, ect.

God no! WotC will change it so that models 12months old are now invalid and must be replaced for tournament play!!

The rules here are 100% clear - you just had opponents that wussed out at the sight of all your basilisks and tried to nerf you by being dicks.

ETA, the word filter prevents me from fulling expressing my displeasure at what they did. They were not confused by the rules - there's nothing that even remotely suggests what they were trying to enforce.

ETA2 - my avatar shows what should have been your response.

Scott-S6 wrote:God no! WotC will change it so that models 12months old are now invalid and must be replaced for tournament play!!

The rules here are 100% clear - you just had opponents that wussed out at the sight of all your basilisks and tried to nerf you by being dicks.

ETA, the word filter prevents me from fulling expressing my displeasure at what they did. They were not confused by the rules - there's nothing that even remotely suggests what they were trying to enforce.

That made me LOL. If not buy out, then perhaps advise GW on how to write a better set of rules.

Doesn't the apoc formation require you to buy 3 squads of 3 tanks?

Thereby meaning you have to have them in squads of 3 anyway (rather than 9 individual tanks)?

I may be mistaken and thinking of a different apoc formation though.

Yes and no.

A battery consists of three tanks.
A company consists of three batteries and a command vehicle.

However, these are not squadrons - they can shoot, move and be targeted separately. The only restriction is that in order to benefit from the special rules then they must be within 6" of another member of the battery or within 24" of the company command vehicle.

ETA - Reading the special rule again, if the tanks in a battery were a squadron then the battery's special rule "Spotting Rounds" would have no effect as they would be firing simultaneously. Another reason why the OPs opponents were completely wrong.

Whoever it was needs to chill out and not take it so seriously.

Slap him.

Scott-S6 wrote:
ETA - Reading the special rule again, if the tanks in a battery were a squadron then the battery's special rule "Spotting Rounds" would have no effect as they would be firing simultaneously. Another reason why the OPs opponents were completely wrong.

Another point that came up in the same game by the same opponent was about spotting rounds. I fired my first Basilisk at his Stompa with a KFF inside. I rolled a Hit with my spotting round. When I went to fire my next Basilisk (they were still all intact and in the requirements for the formation) he claimed his KFF allowed a "cover save" for the spotting round and that it essentially negated the spotting round rules and each Basilisk would have to roll to hit. Again I wanted to scream BS at him. Yes he would get cover saves for the RESULTS of the successful hits, but nowhere does he get a save for the spotting round to not work. That was honestly my worst game of Apoc to date.

The moral of this story is don't play fun games with gits.

To be fair, it was only the one guy on their team that was purposing these absurd points; his teammates just weren't going anything about stopping him or disagreeing with him. Having talked with one of my opponents afterward and since then, most of them aren't TFG. Just the one. Unfortunately for me, I didn't find this out until the game was already underway.

Every gaming group has that guy - you just need to identify them.

POint the guy to the FACT that saves only affect *wounds*, and nothiugn else.

FAQ for chaos confirms this, see the Lash entry.

nosferatu1001 wrote:POint the guy to the FACT that saves only affect *wounds*, and nothiugn else.

FAQ for chaos confirms this, see the Lash entry.

I just looked at both the FAQ's for C:SM and C: D and I couldn't find that listed under the lash information, do you have a better link to that then Nos?

Well the first thing is to look at how saves are defined, pages 21/22 i believe. This states they are used to save Wounds - and vehicles are only allowed to save Hits (page 62 possibly)

Sorry, i thought it was in there - however the rulebook stating that saves are for wounds and, if obscured, for hits should be sufficient I would hope...

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:POint the guy to the FACT that saves only affect *wounds*, and nothiugn else.

FAQ for chaos confirms this, see the Lash entry.

I just looked at both the FAQ's for C:SM and C and I couldn't find that listed under the lash information, do you have a better link to that then Nos?

FAQs

Also... they seem to have removed the question about cover and LoS...

I didnt think i was hallucinating - glad someoen else remembers it