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.

Is being unable to fight things you didn't charge something in the FAQ?

 privateer4hire wrote:
Is being unable to fight things you didn't charge something in the FAQ?

No, it's in the main rulebook ('Choose Targets', pg. 182).

Haven't played 40k in months, moved to Killteam but I played a game today and kept rolling over wounds from multi damage weapons on multi wound models... But I started the game that way and didn't want to correct it midway through at that point... Could have saved a few casualties if I played correctly.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Haven't played 40k in months, moved to Killteam but I played a game today and kept rolling over wounds from multi damage weapons on multi wound models... But I started the game that way and didn't want to correct it midway through at that point... Could have saved a few casualties if I played correctly.

To muddy the waters a little more, afaik there's only 2 weapons in the game that do actually do that. My opponent the other day got real pissed when he had this pulled on him as he thought I was cheating.

Yeah I charge a lot, so I end up explaining these most games.

1. Pile in and consolidations don't need to be movement DIRECTLY to the nearest model, they can side step a little so long as they end closer.

2. Tripointing a model does indeed prevent it from falling back.

3. Units shoot model by model when determining the closest target.

People don't remember the 'can only attack units you've charged rule because it is so unintuitive.

For me, the character targeting rules are hardest to remember. I remember the by thinking "they work in the way that makes no sense".

Pile in/Consolidate being worked out model by model... and you must end closer to the nearest model, but stay in coherency. People trying to pile in 2 "arms" of a big assault unit around a building or object... but half the squad needs to stay where it is because its closest unit is something else nearby.

Since I'm back to playing 3rd Ed. this one bears bringing up. People screwing up consolidation moves. Somewhere someone got it in their head that you can consolidate 2D6". That was never a thing.

for sure the deep striking more than 9 inches, then saying they need an 8 inch charge, often measuring and being like "i am 8.75 inches away " "then you dropped too close, more than 9 inches and needing to be within 1 inch means you need to be 9.something inches away an 8 would make you 1.something away

 G00fySmiley wrote:
for sure the deep striking more than 9 inches, then saying they need an 8 inch charge, often measuring and being like "i am 8.75 inches away " "then you dropped too close, more than 9 inches and needing to be within 1 inch means you need to be 9.something inches away an 8 would make you 1.something away

That one has even been covered in the main rulebook FAQ:

Q: A number of abilities allow a unit to arrive during the battle and be set up more than 9" from any enemy models. If I use such an ability to set up as close as allowed towards an enemy unit and then select it as the target of the charge, what is the minimum charge distance I need to roll to make a successful charge (assuming no modifiers)?

A: 9.

 Ghaz wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
for sure the deep striking more than 9 inches, then saying they need an 8 inch charge, often measuring and being like "i am 8.75 inches away " "then you dropped too close, more than 9 inches and needing to be within 1 inch means you need to be 9.something inches away an 8 would make you 1.something away

That one has even been covered in the main rulebook FAQ:

Q: A number of abilities allow a unit to arrive during the battle and be set up more than 9" from any enemy models. If I use such an ability to set up as close as allowed towards an enemy unit and then select it as the target of the charge, what is the minimum charge distance I need to roll to make a successful charge (assuming no modifiers)?

A: 9.

the above was terrain aside, like putting a model 9 inches away on planet bowling ball. minimal terrain and all terrain present full of units.

I frequently see people doing re-rolls wrong. When you have a -1 penalty to hit (or worse), and you have an ability that "re-rolls misses", you can't re-roll any dice that would normally be a hit. It's very unintuitive, so I get the confusion, but it's necessary in order to keep "reroll 1's" abilities

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

You can only declare a charge against units that are within 12" of your unit.

It might have been declaring against all units within 12", even if some are beyond your actual charge roll... I don't remember the details, I just recall it being a bit weird.

If a unit declares a charge against every enemy unit within 12", then each of those units may have the opportunity to fire overwatch against that unit. What you read was probably just a bit of hyperbole someone was using to make a point and not actually a tactic they would employ.

Perhaps not every unit in range for every encounter, but multi-charges are common even if you have no intention of immediately fighting every unit you've declared on. You have no idea what your charge roll is going to be right from the start, so you should play the odds if you can. Say you have an enemy unit 4'' from you, and another unit 9'' from you, and you really want to get at the one 9'' from you. That's not a sure thing, so it's smart to declare a charge on both units unless the overwatch isn't something you can weather safely. That way you are relatively more likely to get your unit into combat. If you roll low you'll still reach the closer unit - not ideal, but it's extra movement from the charge and pile in. If you kill it, you can also consolidate closer to the second unit. Roll high and you now have a choice between the two.

Saying you declare on everything within 12 gives you a ton of options on who you eventually charge.

 Yarium wrote:
I frequently see people doing re-rolls wrong. When you have a -1 penalty to hit (or worse), and you have an ability that "re-rolls misses", you can't re-roll any dice that would normally be a hit. It's very unintuitive, so I get the confusion, but it's necessary in order to keep "reroll 1's" abilities

Just have reroll ones be NATURAL ones.

 Just Tony wrote:
Since I'm back to playing 3rd Ed. this one bears bringing up. People screwing up consolidation moves. Somewhere someone got it in their head that you can consolidate 2D6". That was never a thing.

You could sweeping advance 2D6" or consolidate 3". Each had their own advantages and disadvantages.

I'm aware, but you had people on the boards going on about how you could consolidate into unengaged units, which was true, which made assault armies unbeatable. I mentioned keeping your units at least 6" apart, and was greeted with multiple people claiming consolidation was 2D6".

It's one of the many misconceptions that get touted about 3rd, right up there with a BUNCH of misconceptions and falsehoods about 6th WFB, which was running concurrent with 3rd 40K.

I was completely missing that. "Models that charged this turn can only target enemy unit that they charged in the previous phase." So a Heroic Intervention lets you get free licks with your Character, then?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Haven't played 40k in months, moved to Killteam but I played a game today and kept rolling over wounds from multi damage weapons on multi wound models... But I started the game that way and didn't want to correct it midway through at that point... Could have saved a few casualties if I played correctly.

To muddy the waters a little more, afaik there's only 2 weapons in the game that do actually do that. My opponent the other day got real pissed when he had this pulled on him as he thought I was cheating.

Ah good old Flails of Corruption, a must have for any unit that can take them

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm aware, but you had people on the boards going on about how you could consolidate into unengaged units, which was true, which made assault armies unbeatable. I mentioned keeping your units at least 6" apart, and was greeted with multiple people claiming consolidation was 2D6".

It's one of the many misconceptions that get touted about 3rd, right up there with a BUNCH of misconceptions and falsehoods about 6th WFB, which was running concurrent with 3rd 40K.

Haha, good ol' 3rd. You could contact new units with the Sweeping Advance though, which is where the confusion comes from. But then you got to shoot the advancing unit with the newly contacted unit, iirc.

Man I remember a couple times when a Bloodthirster just rampaged through another army that way.

But the funny thing was that the WHOLE ARMY could target that Sweeping unit. If you can't shoot down a Bloodthirster with your entire army, that speaks volumes of your build.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Haven't played 40k in months, moved to Killteam but I played a game today and kept rolling over wounds from multi damage weapons on multi wound models... But I started the game that way and didn't want to correct it midway through at that point... Could have saved a few casualties if I played correctly.

To muddy the waters a little more, afaik there's only 2 weapons in the game that do actually do that. My opponent the other day got real pissed when he had this pulled on him as he thought I was cheating.

Ah good old Flails of Corruption, a must have for any unit that can take them

Yup, a single Blightlord wiped out an entire unit of 10 Hellions in one sweep.

 Yarium wrote:
I frequently see people doing re-rolls wrong. When you have a -1 penalty to hit (or worse), and you have an ability that "re-rolls misses", you can't re-roll any dice that would normally be a hit. It's very unintuitive, so I get the confusion, but it's necessary in order to keep "reroll 1's" abilities

Actually no. There's no need either way. You can have reroll 1's anyway. Or if not please tell how there were those before 8th ed before rerolls and modifier order was changed...

JNAProductions wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I frequently see people doing re-rolls wrong. When you have a -1 penalty to hit (or worse), and you have an ability that "re-rolls misses", you can't re-roll any dice that would normally be a hit. It's very unintuitive, so I get the confusion, but it's necessary in order to keep "reroll 1's" abilities

Just have reroll ones be NATURAL ones.

tneva82 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I frequently see people doing re-rolls wrong. When you have a -1 penalty to hit (or worse), and you have an ability that "re-rolls misses", you can't re-roll any dice that would normally be a hit. It's very unintuitive, so I get the confusion, but it's necessary in order to keep "reroll 1's" abilities

Actually no. There's no need either way. You can have reroll 1's anyway. Or if not please tell how there were those before 8th ed before rerolls and modifier order was changed...

Okay, in order to satisfy my curiosity, I spent WAY too much time and examined both ways of resolving things by each possible roll and reroll. I looked at a model with a BS 3+, overcharging a Plasma, and suffering from either a +1 or a -1 modifier. I examined how many would hit, miss, or be slain depending on whether you applied the +1/-1 before or after the reroll. I compared this to each possible pair of dice rolls; a 1 followed by another 1, or a 1 followed by a 2, or 2 followed by a 1, or a 2 followed by a 2, etc. all the way up to a 6 followed by another 6. Remember, in the case of rerolling AFTER modifiers have been applied, you do not modify the rerolled result!

+1/-1 After Reroll (aka; current method)
Hits: 114
Misses: 18
Slain: 12

+1/-1 Before Reroll (aka; proposed method)
Hits: 116
Misses: 18
Slain: 10

So, there IS a difference, but it's a very small one. Of course, this analysis means diddly squat if they throw in "unmodified rolls of 1" for reroll abilities.

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

You can only declare a charge against units that are within 12" of your unit.

It might have been declaring against all units within 12", even if some are beyond your actual charge roll... I don't remember the details, I just recall it being a bit weird.

If a unit declares a charge against every enemy unit within 12", then each of those units may have the opportunity to fire overwatch against that unit. What you read was probably just a bit of hyperbole someone was using to make a point and not actually a tactic they would employ.

Back in an era at the start of 8th when warp talons where just a little bit playable because of warp time, I made a point of always declaring EVERYONE as a charge target. No if's or but's! Even allied units where fair game! DECLARE EVERY TARGET, AND TAG, YOU'RE IT!

now that warptime doesn't work with the warptalons special rules, I unfortunately can't do it anymore, but it was always funny to deny all overwatch!

VoidSempai wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to say I'm not totally up on these rules myself, but I'm sure I've seen people on dakka who have basically said "ok so I'm declaring a charge against all of your units" even when they're only charging one unit, because of... I think it's because of being able to pile in / consolidate or whatever into other units...

I dunno, it sounded like poor rules / cheesy play to me, and it's never come up in a game i've played as we tend to play the sensible interpretation of rules.

You can only declare a charge against units that are within 12" of your unit.

It might have been declaring against all units within 12", even if some are beyond your actual charge roll... I don't remember the details, I just recall it being a bit weird.

If a unit declares a charge against every enemy unit within 12", then each of those units may have the opportunity to fire overwatch against that unit. What you read was probably just a bit of hyperbole someone was using to make a point and not actually a tactic they would employ.

Back in an era at the start of 8th when warp talons where just a little bit playable because of warp time, I made a point of always declaring EVERYONE as a charge target. No if's or but's! Even allied units where fair game! DECLARE EVERY TARGET, AND TAG, YOU'RE IT!

now that warptime doesn't work with the warptalons special rules, I unfortunately can't do it anymore, but it was always funny to deny all overwatch!

"I declare a charge against everyone"
"everyone?"
"EVERYONE!!!"

Indirect fire weapons do not ignore cover natively. If you have a vehicle in cover, or ruins, and a mortar team does not have line of sight, you get a cover save against their shots. Because doesn't need line of sight to shoot is entirely different than determining obscurity.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Ok I find this pretty funny.
Also now that Elbow has mentioned it I'll start checking 6" grenades on overwatch because I've had that happen to me a few times.

Niiru wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just a comic someone made about me (edited to remove a slightly un-PC word):

Disclaimer for the mods: This is self-deprecating humour. I do not find it insulting or rude in any way, nor should anyone else since ya'll hate me anyway.

For me the most common one has to be firing assault weapons after advancing.

Ok, serious mode, the biggest one people get wrong is when they insist that the "Rule of 3" is a "Beta Matched Play rule", when it's never been Beta and never been a Matched Play rule. Also a lot of people still seem to think being obscured alone still grants cover.

Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

Nope. Non-infantry only receive cover if they are on the terrain AND obscured, not just if they're obscured.

Of course, it varies by terrain type, and 99% of players seem too lazy to actually designate terrain as types that function like it says to do in the rulebook, call everything a "ruin" and moan about how their large impassable structures can't grant cover even though there is a terrain type designed specifically for structures like that.

the_scotsman wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just a comic someone made about me (edited to remove a slightly un-PC word):

Disclaimer for the mods: This is self-deprecating humour. I do not find it insulting or rude in any way, nor should anyone else since ya'll hate me anyway.

For me the most common one has to be firing assault weapons after advancing.

Ok, serious mode, the biggest one people get wrong is when they insist that the "Rule of 3" is a "Beta Matched Play rule", when it's never been Beta and never been a Matched Play rule. Also a lot of people still seem to think being obscured alone still grants cover.

Had to try and find the rules on how cover works... best I could find was the descriptions of the different kinds of cover. But they seem to say that <infantry> only receive cover if they are on the terrain, and not if they are *behind* the terrain. Which seems... wrong.

Non-infantry units get cover if they are 50% obscured by the terrain, which means they could be behind it and get cover saves. But infantry can't. Seems weird, I'm sure there's a rule somewhere I'm missing.

Nope. Non-infantry only receive cover if they are on the terrain AND obscured, not just if they're obscured.

Of course, it varies by terrain type, and 99% of players seem too lazy to actually designate terrain as types that function like it says to do in the rulebook, call everything a "ruin" and moan about how their large impassable structures can't grant cover even though there is a terrain type designed specifically for structures like that.

Honestly they could have added an extra page to define terrain in more detail because what he have is very bare bones compared to what we used to have.

Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.