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.

[delete this post]

Apostasus wrote:
Does/can a squadron of 'hounds occupy one "slot" in a maniple organization chart? For example if I have a Gryphonicus Axiom maniple of a Warlord, a regular Reaver and a Reaver subbed for a Warhound (to get the go fast wargear), can I get a squadron of Warhounds for the remaining (single) Warhound slot?

No. Maniples are formed when you build your Battlegroup (army list) but squadrons are declared just before deployment.

Apostasus wrote:
If not, can "reinforcement" Warhounds be combined with a Warhound that is part of a maniple in a squadron? (Since squadron designation happens during deployment, I would think this answer would be "yes").

No. Reinforcing Titans are specifically prevented from squadroning with Maniple units. See p.54, 1st column, last sentence.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Apostasus wrote:
If not, can "reinforcement" Warhounds be combined with a Warhound that is part of a maniple in a squadron? (Since squadron designation happens during deployment, I would think this answer would be "yes").

No. Reinforcing Titans are specifically prevented from squadroning with Maniple units. See p.54, 1st column, last sentence.
]

Thanks, I didn't think to look in that section

zerosignal wrote:
Anyone else think that 'merge void shields' is missing a paragraph?

The fluff description seems to suggest it risks both titan's void shields, but there is nothing in the rule which supports that.

Perhaps a burnout on one titan should drop the shields on both?

Seems pretty clear to me, at least how its written. But if you are suggesting a change or addition to it I cant really comment.
But if two titans is "touching base" and anyone of them is attacked, the defender gets to roll shield saves using the better target number of the two and any failed shield saves can be divided between the titans as the defender wishes.

Reading your comment again I suspect you arent wondering about the rules as much as wondering what the risk or disadvantage to merging shields would be. TBH, aside from needing the titans grouped up (leaving you less maneuverability) I also dont see much downsides. Though losing the positioning and maneuverability is perhaps big enough disadvantage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Played a game tonight and something happened that I dont know if im playing correctly.


3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!

Soulless wrote:
3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!

You played it right, mostly. However, as the attacks should all be rolled at once, you shouldn't have been able to do critical damage.
12 attacks, 2+, gives 10 hits.
No void saves.
Armour saves (stastically, ish) gives 3 superficial, 4 direct and 3 devastating. That's 10 pips of damage, applied to the main track and then the critical track.
10 pips of damage to the body is damage track in the red, critical track in the red. Any further damage is a roll on the catastrophic damage table if i'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, it's perfectly possible for knights in that very specific circumstance to kill a warlord.

How are folks interpreting the venator maniple rule that "the Reaver" can take bonus shots with the Legio Gryphonicus rule that allows you to sub a Reaver for a Warhound?

My read is that only one Reaver (the one not subbed if wargear distinguishes them but either way has to be designated on the roster - same may the princeps seniores is?) would be allowed to take any/all bonus shots when a Warhound drops an enemy's shields.

Thoughts?

Apostasus wrote:
How are folks interpreting the venator maniple rule that "the Reaver" can take bonus shots with the Legio Gryphonicus rule that allows you to sub a Reaver for a Warhound?

My read is that only one Reaver (the one not subbed if wargear distinguishes them but either way has to be designated on the roster - same may the princeps seniores is?) would be allowed to take any/all bonus shots when a Warhound drops an enemy's shields.

Thoughts?

For now just house rule it, designate one reaver before the game starts/or make it the senior princeps/battlegroup leader who benefits. Until GW says otherwise, I would treat it this way.

 Thargrim wrote:

For now just house rule it, designate one reaver before the game starts/or make it the senior princeps/battlegroup leader who benefits. Until GW says otherwise, I would treat it this way.

Related: is there anything that says the princeps seniores has to be in the biggest/ heaviest titan? I don't _think_ I'd run one in a 'hound, but I can see some benefits to running one in a Reaver (to put the bonus for command checks on a platform that might use/need it more, for example)

Apostasus wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:

For now just house rule it, designate one reaver before the game starts/or make it the senior princeps/battlegroup leader who benefits. Until GW says otherwise, I would treat it this way.

Related: is there anything that says the princeps seniores has to be in the biggest/ heaviest titan? I don't _think_ I'd run one in a 'hound, but I can see some benefits to running one in a Reaver (to put the bonus for command checks on a platform that might use/need it more, for example)

I don't think so an d a senior Princips is gonna be the one with more experiance, one might choose to remain with a smaller titan. A Princips who has a partiuclar talent for light quick agressive tactics would be wasted in a warlord, just for example

Apostasus wrote:
Related: is there anything that says the princeps seniores has to be in the biggest/ heaviest titan? I don't _think_ I'd run one in a 'hound, but I can see some benefits to running one in a Reaver (to put the bonus for command checks on a platform that might use/need it more, for example)

Not that I've seen.

Given the Reaver's versatility, there's potential reason to put them there, but keeping them on the most durable titan is likely a good thing.

Question we had from our game tonight. 3 Knights charged the rear of a Warlord. Melee weapons allow for a targeted attack. But, physically, the Knights could only reach the Warlords legs so it didn't feel right that they could target the head for example?

Are there any thoughts on this or have we missed something in the rules?

IIRC you can't target the head from behind, no matter what you are. Other than that, yes you can chainsaw off the carapace weapons, RAW. Feel free to come up with a justification.

When you reignite void shields, is the marker moved to the start of the track (i.e. all shields came back online) or just one space to the left (i.e. just 1 shield came back online)?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
When you reignite void shields, is the marker moved to the start of the track (i.e. all shields came back online) or just one space to the left (i.e. just 1 shield came back online)?

One. The action is the same (ie. move the marker one space to the left), it just gets a bit harder when you have to reignite the whole system.

Also, regarding the Venator maniple thing: James Hewitt has stated in Facebook that the intent is for any one Reaver from the same maniple to shoot, so if you have multiple (from Gryphonicus or similar effect) just pick one. This might get relevant in larger games, if you have several maniples.

Ecrivain wrote:

Soulless wrote:
3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!

You played it right, mostly. However, as the attacks should all be rolled at once, you shouldn't have been able to do critical damage.
12 attacks, 2+, gives 10 hits.
No void saves.
Armour saves (stastically, ish) gives 3 superficial, 4 direct and 3 devastating. That's 10 pips of damage, applied to the main track and then the critical track.
10 pips of damage to the body is damage track in the red, critical track in the red. Any further damage is a roll on the catastrophic damage table if i'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, it's perfectly possible for knights in that very specific circumstance to kill a warlord.

Possible, yes. But it doesn't feel it is meant to be like this. I bet, this will be errated soon.

Three knights killing a Warlord in one Turn. Why then not spaming Imperial Knights, instead of playing Titans?

The Attack Rules seem to be written for single Models, not for swadrons or banners. I hope this will be errated soon. A Bonus attack for one Titan or one Swadron or one Banner.

RAW it is also possible to attack a Head from behind without close combat range.

 Lysenis wrote:

How is this broken? As far as I can see, all it means is that there is LESS time of people wasting their turns by figuring out EVERY SINGLE possible iteration of a move. Its refreshing because I dont have to wait 15 minutes for a player to figure out their move. Especially when Warhound Squadrons are here.

Problem with premeasuring disallowed is that it 's basically newbie trap. Newbies have hard time. Experienced players know how to use terrain pieces, elbows, hands, board piece sizes(often boards are modular like 4'x2' pieces so it's easy to spot 24" gaps with those...) and basic trigonometry to "guess" spot on. "Guess" because it's almost "cheating" as it's just using basic trigonometry + above things to calculate it. No guessing whatsoever.

So newbies have hard time for fairly artificial rule. And ends up actually slowing thing as people spend up time doing mental calculations. So you actually end up waiting MORE time while opponent uses terrain pieces, elbows etc to calculate distances they could check within seconds.

Aexcaliber wrote:

Ecrivain wrote:

Soulless wrote:
3 knights was issued a charge order and each of them ran the full 10" to get within "2 of a warlords rear arc.

They attacked with their chainswords that acumulated a dice value of 4 due to the charge.(+1 dice per full 3" of movement)

This ended up with 12 unshieldable dice hitting on 2+ with a strength of 9 (7+2 for the rear arc) hitting the body. Direct hits starting at armor rolls of 3+ and getting easier after a few hits.


The Warlord was destroyed, one-shotted by these 3 knights and their chainsword. It took two of them with it in the ensuing catastrophic damage but it didnt quite make up for the loss


So did I play this correctly? Ive read and reread the rules, trying to find if I did anything wrong because it just feels weird that 3 knights could take down a warlord like that, even in unlikely and badly played situations. But I cant find anything indicating a rules error in this.

So educate me, please!

You played it right, mostly. However, as the attacks should all be rolled at once, you shouldn't have been able to do critical damage.
12 attacks, 2+, gives 10 hits.
No void saves.
Armour saves (stastically, ish) gives 3 superficial, 4 direct and 3 devastating. That's 10 pips of damage, applied to the main track and then the critical track.
10 pips of damage to the body is damage track in the red, critical track in the red. Any further damage is a roll on the catastrophic damage table if i'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, it's perfectly possible for knights in that very specific circumstance to kill a warlord.

Possible, yes. But it doesn't feel it is meant to be like this. I bet, this will be errated soon.

Three knights killing a Warlord in one Turn. Why then not spaming Imperial Knights, instead of playing Titans?

The Attack Rules seem to be written for single Models, not for swadrons or banners. I hope this will be errated soon. A Bonus attack for one Titan or one Swadron or one Banner.

RAW it is also possible to attack a Head from behind without close combat range.

Right, let's clear some things here. I don't think that is the correct way, exactly because it would accumulate bazillion dice too easily. So, rulebook to the rescue:

1) Knights are only ever activated as a unit.
2) Their attacking rules specify, that the knights attack as a unit and using the total of any one weapon as a single attack when they do (ie. a charging knight unit uses their melee weapon with N dice, N being their number as a base).
3) Charge order says that the unit gains extra dice for 3" increments moved. Thus, the knights attack N times plus the bonus, not N+N*bonus. Thus, 3 knights that run 10" get to attack as a unit with 3 + 3 = 6 dice, not 12.
4) This is futher strenghtened by the rulebook making a clear distinction between words "model" and "unit" for situations like this one.

Still dangerous, but not instantly crippling.

Another thing: no, the Head is not a viable target from behind RAW. On page 34-35 it says in determining the hit location, that you cannot hit a location you cannot see. This is indifferent to whether or not the attack is a shooting or melee attack. Just as you can't hit the left weapon from the right side, you cannot hit the Head from behind.

How does that work when one Knight moves 4", another moves 7" and the last moves 10"? We've been playing that the banner gets (1+1) + (1+2) + (1+3) attacks. How would you determine what the bonus number of dice is, if you only apply it once for the unit?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
How does that work when one Knight moves 4", another moves 7" and the last moves 10"? We've been playing that the banner gets (1+1) + (1+2) + (1+3) attacks. How would you determine what the bonus number of dice is, if you only apply it once for the unit?

Just use the longest distance run? Easy, elegant and still produces less dice. That is the distance that the unit moved.

Edit: Designer chimes in in Facebook:

"The Charge order gives a bonus to the unit, not the model. I get where RG is coming from - it's admittedly a bit ambiguous, when the Charge order refers to the distance the "model" moved. Obviously an official FAQ will have to come out at some point, but until then I'd recommend using the shortest distance moved by a model in the unit to determine how many extra attacks they get."

 Lysenis wrote:

zerosignal wrote:

Secondly, no pre-measuring... I have no idea what the designers are smoking, this is a terrible rule and so abusable, there is a reason we haven't seen awful mechanics like this in most tabletop wargames in the last 20 years.

How is this broken? As far as I can see, all it means is that there is LESS time of people wasting their turns by figuring out EVERY SINGLE possible iteration of a move. Its refreshing because I dont have to wait 15 minutes for a player to figure out their move. Especially when Warhound Squadrons are here.

I'm a mix of annoyed and thankful at the "no pre-measuring" rule. The vast majority of the game's I've played, people don't bother to measure obvious ranges, trust each other's guess, and only measure when they're not sure. However, on occasion I'll run into someone who measures like they're an engineer working on a schematic. Checks every firing angle, measures, checks LOS from there, on and on. Played a KillTeam game like this that dragged on for 2 hrs, when all of my other killteam games were maybe 1 hr max - except for my first when neither of us knew the rules.

anyway.. ACTUAL QUESTION:

When firing weapons from the rear/flank, (eg: Avenger Gattling Cannon) does it count as +2/+1 str vs voids, or only for purposes of the armor roll? In the rulebook, it is mentioned that they are +2/+1 str during the armor roll - so I assume that gatling cannons cannot get through void shields regardless of firing angle. However, I'm not sure about it.

edit: nevermind. answering my own question. I re-read the rules. The +2/+1 is not to the weapons strength. It's simply a modifier to the armor roll. So, no gatlings can't make it through voids.

First, thank you everyone for keeping to the intent of the thread.

Second, I came across a hypothetical combo (existing rules but nothing uses them together that I know of) that brought up a real issue I’d like to resolve:
What if a weapon has the Fustion and Rending traits?
Originally, I thought that, duh, RAW, at short range, the odds of getting the bonus damage from Rending actually drop (from 1/6 to 1/10) and that’s weird but liveable.

BUT, reading again, Rending just says Armour Roll and doesn’t say anything about modifiers. The Armour Roll is all of step 5b and includes modifiers for arc and damage. So are we looking at RAI they meant natural, unmodified sixes get the bonus damage?

Really, the question boils down to “how does Rending actually work?” Because as worded, a weapon with str. 6+ can’t trigger it at all…

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Really, the question boils down to “how does Rending actually work?” Because as worded, a weapon with str. 6+ can’t trigger it at all…

I'm pretty sure what the rule means is that if you roll a natural '6' on the die while making an Armor Roll, then the Rending trait kicks in and you roll an extra d3. It's not "I'm attacking with a Str 5 weapon, and I just rolled a '1', and 5+1=6, so Rending kicks in."

And if some unusual weapon combined both Fusion and Rending, then the rule could still apply (unless it's errataed, of course). Although in that case, rolling a 10 on the roll would be better than anything you could get with Rending...

Hello,
It happears that there is no melee proper in AT.

I mean, you can bring your titan in base to base contact with an enemy with the idea of having close combat in the combat phase, but if, he has not yet been activated, he can just walk out of close proximity.

These seems wierd to my friends that are used to 40k, where once in CC you fight or die.

What do you guys think?

Even 40k lets you break out of combat (almost) consequence free these days.
I’d say, it is what it is and not a typo, so it’d be rude not to play it as is at least a few times before “fixing” it.

Also, if you can, always charge Titans in the side. If they move forward or turn away, you will end up in their rear arc, and if they reverse they may not even get far enough away without pushing. Especially Warlords.

pronz72 wrote:
Hello,
It happears that there is no melee proper in AT.

I mean, you can bring your titan in base to base contact with an enemy with the idea of having close combat in the combat phase, but if, he has not yet been activated, he can just walk out of close proximity.

Yes, that's how it works. "melee" weapons are effectively just guns with very short ranges and can be used in charges. I think it's a good way to run it. Titans aren't a swirling brawl of chaos when they're using close combat weapons - which is the rationale they use to stop shooting into melee in 40k. They're single gigantic slow moving targets. Note though that if you are engaged in hand-to-hand, depending on the angle there could be a +1 or +2 to hit for titans firing into your 'melee' situation- so you can use that to your advantage and try to get that +2 to opponent's titans. Additionally, with the stray shots rule, shooting into melee could damage a friendly unit.

Warlords will have a harder time at walking out of close combat. If the opponent titan moves into base-to-base in the front arch, a warlord will not be able to move forward. It will need to move sideways or backwards - halving their move speed. If you do have an opponent who walks out of close combat, you can use the charge order next turn if you've got a straight line to them - so its not always going to be advantageous to move out of melee range. This will occur before they have a chance to move.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Even 40k lets you break out of combat (almost) consequence free these days.
I’d say, it is what it is and not a typo, so it’d be rude not to play it as is at least a few times before “fixing” it.

Also, if you can, always charge Titans in the side. If they move forward or turn away, you will end up in their rear arc, and if they reverse they may not even get far enough away without pushing. Especially Warlords.

I don't feel that is wrong. So, if it is not broken, don't fix it!
I'll better explain...
Yesterday evening I was the referee at our first game at the club. It happened just that, a warlord disengaged from close combat by backing away. One of the guys felt "broken" that giant robots don't have a ZOC . Yep, we are mostly an historycal wargaming club and that point of view could be expected

The opponent couldn't use its big power fist but shoot him point blank anyway. In the next move outflanked the enemy and close attacked from the side. So, back stepping was not so beneficial, after all!

I only wanted to be sure I was interpreting correctly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SirWeeble wrote:

pronz72 wrote:
Hello,
It happears that there is no melee proper in AT.

I mean, you can bring your titan in base to base contact with an enemy with the idea of having close combat in the combat phase, but if, he has not yet been activated, he can just walk out of close proximity.

Yes, that's how it works. "melee" weapons are effectively just guns with very short ranges and can be used in charges. I think it's a good way to run it. Titans aren't a swirling brawl of chaos when they're using close combat weapons - which is the rationale they use to stop shooting into melee in 40k. They're single gigantic slow moving targets. Note though that if you are engaged in hand-to-hand, depending on the angle there could be a +1 or +2 to hit for titans firing into your 'melee' situation- so you can use that to your advantage and try to get that +2 to opponent's titans. Additionally, with the stray shots rule, shooting into melee could damage a friendly unit.

Warlords will have a harder time at walking out of close combat. If the opponent titan moves into base-to-base in the front arch, a warlord will not be able to move forward. It will need to move sideways or backwards - halving their move speed. If you do have an opponent who walks out of close combat, you can use the charge order next turn if you've got a straight line to them - so its not always going to be advantageous to move out of melee range. This will occur before they have a chance to move.

Not sure to understand the +1/+2 to hit, which bonus it is?

by the +1/+2 i meant to the difficulty to hit the target.

Basically - titans can block los and provide cover. So in CC, if positioned correctly, you can make it harder for opponents to hit you. Add 'stray shots' rule, and it can be pretty risky to shoot into CC.

SirWeeble wrote:
by the +1/+2 i meant to the difficulty to hit the target.

Basically - titans can block los and provide cover. So in CC, if positioned correctly, you can make it harder for opponents to hit you. Add 'stray shots' rule, and it can be pretty risky to shoot into CC.

Ah! You mean the -1/-2 for partially obscured target!
Yes! I noticed that

Regarding melee and sidestepping out of such, it is a good strategic consideration to bring a couple of cheap Warhounds or Knight lances on the field to give you more activations. If you can bait the relevant activations out, you can then more easily charge the proper targets you want to when they can't flee anymore.

You know, tactics and maneuver

 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding melee and sidestepping out of such, it is a good strategic consideration to bring a couple of cheap Warhounds or Knight lances on the field to give you more activations. If you can bait the relevant activations out, you can then more easily charge the proper targets you want to when they can't flee anymore.

You know, tactics and maneuver

Similar issue btw with many alternative activation games. Something pretty much requires you to have more activation. Titan h2h weapons in AT, boresight weapons in call to arms(for those who don't know those were basically laser beams so they fired straight ahead. So if you moved and targeted enemy ship with that if the enemy moved then it was quaranteed to go out of firearc. Ergo if you didn't outactivate your enemy your boresight weapons were super unlikely to shoot at anything and even if you did it was target ENEMY wanted you to shoot at)