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.

calypso2ts wrote: It is the Witch Hunter players responsibility to resolve damage appropriately against his own army.

I disagree. It is the responsibility of the firing player to correctly apply relevant modifiers to HIS dice roll. HE is the one rolling the die.
He can ask (or already know) whether the target is open-topped, He can ask (or already know) the armour value of the target. He is the one that can determine whether a glancing or a penetrating hit has been achieved. He is the one that knows whether his weapon is AP 1 or -. He is the one rolling on the damage table. He is the one informing his opponent of the result of the hit. Although most opponents like to keep an eye on the procedure as it happens, it is all done by the firing player.

Of course it is a shared responsibility by both players to follow the rules.

Just a not Rending and AP1 are quite different.

Rending wounds regardless of toughness S4 rolling a 6 will become AP1 but still not wound toughness 8 or higher.

Rending against vehicles allows you to roll and extra d3 penetration. So that 6 means 11-13 against Armour Value. For AP1 it means you can only glance AV10 but then get +1 on the damage table.

Sop rending in a number of ways is better than AP1, though granted firing at normal infantry it makes no difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

calypso2ts wrote: It is the Witch Hunter players responsibility to resolve damage appropriately against his own army.



I disagree. It is the responsibility of the firing player to correctly apply relevant modifiers to HIS dice roll. HE is the one rolling the die.
He can ask (or already know) whether the target is open-topped, He can ask (or already know) the armour value of the target. He is the one that can determine whether a glancing or a penetrating hit has been achieved. He is the one that knows whether his weapon is AP 1 or -. He is the one rolling on the damage table. He is the one informing his opponent of the result of the hit. Although most opponents like to keep an eye on the procedure as it happens, it is all done by the firing player.

Of course it is a shared responsibility by both players to follow the rules.

A newbie can't be expected to always know to remember to ask if something is open topped. I always point out vehicles that are open topped (before my opponent rolls the dice) along with telling them the AV (which they usually ask for if they don't know off the top of their head).

He also didn't just not say anything he lied and told his opponent that it had no effect. Sorry but your attitude seems well out for playing 40K or in fact living life. Be honest about how your army works and how the dice rolls effect you, rather than hide behind "he never asked me".

Well the guy sounds like a douche in a can, so I'd honestly refuse to play the guy. whenever I play a friend, or a newer guy, whos never faced one of my armies; like IG, very few people here play em, I take care to explain the rules of whatever I'm doing (like orders). It not only makes the game less confusing for your opponent, but more fair (like knowing why they rolled that leadership, etc.). If the guy didn't care to explain the rules in full, and then cheated by moving things off the board and ignoring rolls and things, thats pretty much fail. I'd either refuse to play the guy or play him and come armed for bear and know his rules pretty throughly. That way when he uses his faith points or takes pens and things you can see what hes trying to do and make sure hes doing it right.

calypso2ts wrote:I have played Penitent Engines before and they are a bit of an obscure unit in general. It is the Witch Hunter players responsibility to resolve damage appropriately against his own army. While FlightMek is also responsible to keep an eye out as well, it is really unfair to blame him for not knowing the details of a rarely fielded unit in an ancient (and fairly obscure) Codex.

In the same way I am sure his opponent was sure to mention that when he did yield a weapon destroyed result, Flight is not allowed to pick which weapon the engine loses and its DCCW stayed intact for at least one result.

If he did say that on a weapon destroyed result, he wuld be wrong, since Flight does indeed get to pick which weapon is destroyed. Page 61: "One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed". I have no idea where people keep getting the idea that the defender gets to choose which weapon is destroyed, but it seems to pop up on a regular basis.

FlingitNow wrote: Sorry but your attitude seems well out for playing 40K or in fact living life. Be honest about how your army works and how the dice rolls effect you, rather than hide behind "he never asked me".

Im sorry, did you just accuse me of A) cheating and B) being a bad person in real life?

Tell you what, friend. GTFO.

If you're playing against Witch Hunters, always ask to see the codex and double check the acts of faith they are ause horribly.

I tend to catch other WH players out because I pull them up for it when I'm playing my other armies

Flingitnow - S4 rending WILL wound T8, as you do not compare toughness at that point. In addition close combat rending is not AP1, it is "ignores armour" - and is AP2 at range.

S4 rending WILL wound T8, as you do not compare toughness at that point. In addition close combat rending is not AP1, it is "ignores armour" - and is AP2 at range.

I think you miss read what i said the act of faith bestows AP1 not rending I was pointing out the difference. I.e. for giving the weapon AP you can't wound T8, but with rending you can.

Likewise with AP1 you get +1 damage, but rending you get an additional d3 armour pen (which in general is far more useful). To be honest the way the wording counts I doubt it can effect close combat as AP is irrelevant in close combat or am I wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Im sorry, did you just accuse me of A) cheating and B) being a bad person in real life?

A) No, but you did just condome cheating which I stated was a poor attitude to have. If he rolled a 2 on the damage table the player should acknowledge that it is a 3 because of the open topped whether or not the attacking player knows/realises that this is the case. To knowingly not do so is cheating.

B) Well given your attitude that cheat is OK I siad that is not a good attitude to have in life. Whether that makes youu a bad person or I'll let you decide as you have to live with yourself.

AP has no effect in close combat - and yes I couldnt quite get what you were saying, I thought you were talking about Rending when mentioning the S4 vs S8

Steelmage99 wrote:Thats not his point.

FlightMek forgot to add the +1 for the target being open-topped. Now he blames his opponent for his oversight.

I love this approach. "I can beat you because you haven't fully read my codex or played my army." That's the way a punk plays a game - pure and simple. Use the rules to your advantage, but don't use someone elses lack of knowledge concerning your list as a strategy.

I did not have an "oversight" because I was never told it was open-topped. Could I ask to see his codex? Sure thing, but am I supposed to study his codex (and each unit in it) for an hour before we play? Don't even say, "yes" becuase we all know that when you're getting a pick-up game, that can't happen. And don't claim that you can do it in 5 minutes, either. Each codex is different and takes some mulling about to figure out its aspects.

If my vehicle is open-topped, I should be more aware of that than my opponent, since it is MY codex. If he rolls a "2", I shouldn't pretend I forgot and utilize the "too bad, so sad" attitude to get a win. That's breaking the rules. Not an oversight. Especially when you're playing someone who has never played your army before and is relatively new to pick-up games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zid wrote:Well the guy sounds like a douche in a can, so I'd honestly refuse to play the guy. whenever I play a friend, or a newer guy, whos never faced one of my armies; like IG, very few people here play em, I take care to explain the rules of whatever I'm doing (like orders). It not only makes the game less confusing for your opponent, but more fair (like knowing why they rolled that leadership, etc.). If the guy didn't care to explain the rules in full, and then cheated by moving things off the board and ignoring rolls and things, thats pretty much fail. I'd either refuse to play the guy or play him and come armed for bear and know his rules pretty throughly. That way when he uses his faith points or takes pens and things you can see what hes trying to do and make sure hes doing it right.

I totally agree on all counts. When I deploy my army, I tell my opponents exactly what each unit is and what types of weapons/special rules they have. When teaching/playing my brothers how to play, I wouild say things like, "This is a melta gun. It is close range, but destroys vehicles and elites. Keep away from it with units like x,y, and z." Granted - I do not expect a pick up player to tell me how to beat his army, but I would have handled the situation a whole lot differently. It is blatantly clear that the opponent I had either A.) doesn't know rules that are harmful to his game, or B.) Cheated to get a win from a person he KNEW was new to the game. Either way you look at it - the guy sucks at not only 40K, but at being a human being. I still don't understand why people rape rules to win. So disappointing...

To be fair, a relatively new player wouldn't automatically assume that a Penitent Engine is open-topped. It kind of looks like a dreadnought...

Hell, I just found out it was open-topped! Although, looking at the model it DOES make sense. As has been stated Codex: Witch-hunters is very old and fairly obscure...

Steelmage99 wrote:It is the responsibility of the firing player to correctly apply relevant modifiers to HIS dice roll. HE is the one rolling the die.
He can ask (or already know) whether the target is open-topped, He can ask (or already know) the armour value of the target. He is the one that can determine whether a glancing or a penetrating hit has been achieved. He is the one that knows whether his weapon is AP 1 or -. He is the one rolling on the damage table. He is the one informing his opponent of the result of the hit. Although most opponents like to keep an eye on the procedure as it happens, it is all done by the firing player.

Of course it is a shared responsibility by both players to follow the rules.

See there you just contradicted yourself.

If its both player's responsibility to follow the rules, and you knowingly allow you opponent to not add the modifier for your open-topped vehicle, then you are not fulfilling your responsibility in order to gain an in-game advantage. I don't know another word for that other than cheating.

don_mondo wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:I have played Penitent Engines before and they are a bit of an obscure unit in general. It is the Witch Hunter players responsibility to resolve damage appropriately against his own army. While FlightMek is also responsible to keep an eye out as well, it is really unfair to blame him for not knowing the details of a rarely fielded unit in an ancient (and fairly obscure) Codex.

In the same way I am sure his opponent was sure to mention that when he did yield a weapon destroyed result, Flight is not allowed to pick which weapon the engine loses and its DCCW stayed intact for at least one result.

If he did say that on a weapon destroyed result, he wuld be wrong, since Flight does indeed get to pick which weapon is destroyed. Page 61: "One of the vehicle's weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed". I have no idea where people keep getting the idea that the defender gets to choose which weapon is destroyed, but it seems to pop up on a regular basis.

I quoted both to provide context for the comment, and this is exactly what I meant by the Codex being obscure and the units in it being obscure. For a Penitent Engine the first 'Weapon Destroyed' automatically reduces the Penitents Engines attacks by 1 (to a minimum of 1) and reduces the Heavy Flamer to a Normal Flamer (as stated in the codex). The second 'Weapon Destroyed' result causes it to lose an additional attack (to a minimum of 1) , halves its strength, removes the flamer and it no longer ignores armor saves. Additional results count towards 'Immobilized' and finally 'Destroyed.' That said I have never seen someone roll so poorly as to take more than 2 weapons off this thing before blowing it to pieces.

Ah, gotcha, special rules for the weapons destroyed results on the PE, that replace the normal ability of the attacker to choose what is destroyed.
Very good example of rules changes that the majority of players wouldn't be aware of and that would really confuse a newer player.

calypso2ts wrote:
Additional results count towards 'Immobilized' and finally 'Destroyed.' That said I have never seen someone roll so poorly as to take more than 2 weapons off this thing before blowing it to pieces.

Then I am your man. My CC unit was tied up with this engine from turn 2-5. This is - of course - with my opponent neglecting to take +1 damage per hit. I roll that badly, though. That's 9 marines with krak grenades and a powerfist champion. Sometimes I wonder why I waste the 40 points on a champ if he never works anyway.

I had a squad of 8 chosen (3 armed with Plasmas) that shot at one of his transports in the first turn. I actually rolled zero hits and two 1's. I also failed a save with an immediate 1. These, btw, were with dice I had just purchased. I figured my old ones were cursed!

Sorry, to highjack this thread a little but I had a somewhat related question.

Can "Word in your Ear" be used on an opponent vehicle to change facing (as in to put it to your advantage of exposing weaker rear armor)? Does it matter that the vehicle you are moving with "Word in your Ear" has to have a unit in the vehicle or not?

I was told that facing couldn't be changed, but not sure.

Facing is determined by the owner of the model you are using "A Word In Your Ear" on.

Yeah, I thought so, the other way felt way too cheesy with almost a guaranteed dead vehicle and possible unit inside. Thx. :3

In fact, calypso posted the Word In Your Ear text earlier that specifically covers vehicle facing.................. It's on the first page of this thread.

There is ONLY 1 way to deal with folks like this.
Don't play them. Some people just need to win.

If you have to play him (tournement, etc.) your only defence is to memorize sketchy rules and make sure he never pulls the same gak twice. Live and learn. And find the friendly rules lawyer of the east to help you defeat the wicked rules lawyer of the west. =)

Sister Stern wrote:Sorry, to highjack this thread a little but I had a somewhat related question.

Can "Word in your Ear" be used on an opponent vehicle to change facing (as in to put it to your advantage of exposing weaker rear armor)? Does it matter that the vehicle you are moving with "Word in your Ear" has to have a unit in the vehicle or not?

I was told that facing couldn't be changed, but not sure.

Word in Your Ear moves a unit but the owner still chooses facing, it's written in the rule.

To be back on topic... wow.
Talk about about giving the Inquisition a bad name. >.>

For Divine Guidance, I usually say it's essentially Rending instead of explaining in details, just because it's very similar. If 6 wouldn't be enough to wound though, I don't count it as wound. And frankly, I don't shoot at stuff I can't wound either.

For Open-topped stuff... yeah. New players have no way to know. I've even played against experienced players who never played against WH and thought my Exorcist was open-topped because of how it looks. Things can be misleading and WYSIWYG is sometimes not respected by official GW models themselves. >.>

So yeah.. never play against him again and expose his vile lies!
Or just confront him on him, codex in hand, maybe he's just genuinely dense. Depends if you want to give him a chance or not.
Oh and make sure your wife never meets him if she's gonna try playing the same army. >.>

Agreeing with Inquisitor bob here: Go and ask the guy to clarify a few things for you next time you're in the store.

I wouldn't accuse him of cheating or being WAAC though; he was using Penitent Engines. They look great on the tabletop but are possibly the worst unit in the codex (I trust your opponent remembered to take a priest in order to field his PE?).

P.s. I've been playing SoB for about 6 months now and i still have to look through the codex from time to time to make sure of things. Do not be afraid to ask your opponent if you think they might be wrong!

J.Black wrote:Agreeing with Inquisitor bob here: Go and ask the guy to clarify a few things for you next time you're in the store.

I wouldn't accuse him of cheating or being WAAC though; he was using Penitent Engines. They look great on the tabletop but are possibly the worst unit in the codex (I trust your opponent remembered to take a priest in order to field his PE?).

Priest - Funny you should mention this as it was something I completely overlooked. In the very beginning he asked if he could pay for a 40pt model, but not field it. I was astonished and suspected foul play, but now I see what he was talking about. I believe he did this to take advantage of the Holy Rage ability (+1d6 movement / must move towards nearest enemy unit.) possesed by the PEs.

...yet another rules breech. I am pretty sure my Chosen squad was closer to the PEs than the Defiler he had attacked and destroyed with them. Also - if I had known that rule, I may have put my chosen closer to them and utilized the Defiler to take out transports and their cargo.

Holy Rage is a weird rule anyway. Did GW neglect to make exceptions for the priest, or is the idea that you need to take a hit before the squad is unleashed at full capacity? As it enables them to be brutally fast, I would imagine that the idea is that you're moving slowly towards a specific unit that has the ability to "take you along for the ride" until that priest is killed. If this is the case - which I believe it is - he ignored yet another rule and took advantage of another situation to gain better position and eventually win the game.

J.Black wrote:P.S. I've been playing SoB for about 6 months now and i still have to look through the codex from time to time to make sure of things. Do not be afraid to ask your opponent if you think they might be wrong!

This is completely understandable, but the more I find out about this opponent (like I just did with the priest/holy rage) the more I realize that the entire game was an intentional rules adjustment.

On a peronal note: I don't take any rage out on SoB. I have read most of their codex by this point and believe them to be a colorful, characterful, and interesting army. The models look great! Their selections are cool and contain a lot of fluff. How much more in depth is a SoB unit with a Sister Superior and a Priest than a Marine unit with a Sergeant?

Also...I will not be playing this guy again and I will make sure he doesn't use his dirty tricks on others if I can. The more I consider this, the more I am disgusted. Keep in mind, that I am relatively new to the game and it was only my 4th game with Chaos (my 2nd at 1500pts.) I make armies based mostly off of what I like in the list and less off of WAAC mentality, but I do try to modify and tweek for effectivness. I also design my forces with a "fight anyone" mentality (I don't know who/what I will be facing and my list is final!) My list was designed long before I knew I was going to play him and it was meant to be a competitive / anti-transports (which he used a lot of) infantry army. It failed miserably because of bad dice rolls and blatant cheating. If I knew less about the rules and didn't use Dakka, I would have come home and rewritten my list thinking there was something terribly worng with it. There still may be, but now I have to try it again to find out.

Thanks, Zio, Jblack, and Inquisitorbob for your advice. And I am once again glad that so many of you detest this sort of play.

InquisitorBob wrote:
Talk about about giving the Inquisition a bad name.

No one expects the Imperial Inquisition!.... to cheat!

On topic, the guy mader some serious errors, deliberate or not. You said it's one of your first times (if not THE first time) in the store, you maybe think the other guy was new too, or maybe even just new to the army?

I could be well off the mark here, but deliberately cheating with what is simply toy soldiers with a hint of crack (why else do you keep buying them? ) is quite simply abhorrant. I've just started collecting Daemonhunters, and I'm fairly new to 40k, so while I'm waiting for glues etc to set or cure, out with the rulebook or codex!

I mean... it's not like we're Chaos

To clarify on the Priest. In order to take Arcoflagellants or Penitent Engines a 'Representative of the ecclesiastiary must be present.' This means you need to buy at least one 'Priest' and then attach him to a squad of Celestians, Dominions, Sisters of Battle, Sisters Repentia or Inquisitorial Storm Troopers. He does not, however, confer the 'Rage' USR to the unit he joins. Instead he has the 'Fanatical' and 'Righteous Fury' rules. Fanatical means the squad always counts as having moved and must charge into close combat if possible. This means they cannot rapid fire if they are within 6" since it would preclude them from charging. The 'Righteous Fury' rule allows them to reroll all misses when they charge into combat for the first round. (this is actually quite fun when you throw an Eviscerator on the Priest, the Superior and an attached Cannoness).

I'll buy the 20 point elite inq and not field him from time to time just to bring out a Assassin.

Also remember that as you kill his squads (specifically his VSS's) your regenerating his faith points, so its very possible to be at 6 then down to 4 then back to 6.

I bought a wheel thing made for counting magic life points, but it works well for faith points. Just so there is never any confusion about how many are left.

Well, regarding the buying but not fielding bit. Are you going to give me that KP or those VPs since you never put it on the table?