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.
p5freak wrote: I would never combine an expensive weapon with a SS.
I agree. which is why I am moving away from SS/LC. But a 4ppm Power Axe is expensive? I'll have to disagree with that. 4ppm seems well worth the +1S AP-2. It would suck to lose them, but it would suck worse to bounce off a unit because they don't have enough punch.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/15 16:51:47
p5freak wrote: I would never combine an expensive weapon with a SS.
I agree. which is why I am moving away from SS/LC.
But a 4ppm Power Axe is expensive? I'll have to disagree with that. 4ppm seems well worth the +1S AP-2. It would suck to lose them, but it would suck worse to bounce off a unit because they don't have enough punch.
-
Honestly I'm okay with the Power Weapon with a Storm Shield still if you're looking for a slight offensive bite on the charge (generally you can say the S5 AP-2 is better than an extra attack) but you gotta remember these dudes are gonna die before your supposed LC duo dudes and the Sergeant. The question is how much do you think it's worth it?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Initially we are just using PLs, so cost is less of a concern. But I do want the models to be somewhat viable if they decided to start playing with points. Axes seem like the best compromise choice as they are *roughly* similar to a LC, but half the cost. Power Axes/Swords/Mauls are also the cheapest options that aren't "I don't care if this Chainsword guy dies because Chainswords don't cause wounds anyway"
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/15 19:22:35
p5freak wrote: Remember that UM vanguard vets with JP get -1 to hit in their shooting phase when they fallback, because their chapter tactic says so. Dont want to give them plasma pistols, only melee weapons.
The ability to re-roll one hit roll makes it pretty safe to overcharge one or two plasma pistols, also helps the sarge with his PF in melee. SS help against high AP weapons.
Why do you assume the chapter tactics over rides the fly key word?
p5freak wrote: Remember that UM vanguard vets with JP get -1 to hit in their shooting phase when they fallback, because their chapter tactic says so. Dont want to give them plasma pistols, only melee weapons.
The ability to re-roll one hit roll makes it pretty safe to overcharge one or two plasma pistols, also helps the sarge with his PF in melee. SS help against high AP weapons.
Why do you assume the chapter tactics over rides the fly key word?
Specific overrules general is how it works.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Yep, it would appear that the UM Chapter tactic would indeed trump the Fly rule. Just more fodder for us not to get Inceptors and to only take 1 Gunslinger model for the drop and first no-AP casualty.
p5freak wrote: Remember that UM vanguard vets with JP get -1 to hit in their shooting phase when they fallback, because their chapter tactic says so. Dont want to give them plasma pistols, only melee weapons.
The ability to re-roll one hit roll makes it pretty safe to overcharge one or two plasma pistols, also helps the sarge with his PF in melee. SS help against high AP weapons.
Why do you assume the chapter tactics over rides the fly key word?
So let's ignore the prior edition wording of "Specific overrules general" and just look at the rules themselves: Movement states: "A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly." There is NOTHING in that statement noting they can shoot at full BS. So since the UM Chapter Tactic DOES inflict a -1 to hit, both rules actually apply (i.e. they do not contradict each other in anyway)
-
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/01/16 17:41:27
What's ridiculous is that any other SM chapter FLY units don't get that -1 to hit when falling back. A chapter tactic is supposed to help you, not make it harder for you.
p5freak wrote: What's ridiculous is that any other SM chapter FLY units don't get that -1 to hit when falling back. A chapter tactic is supposed to help you, not make it harder for you.
That's why I would love for the core rules to inflict a -1 penalty to the BS of Fly units when they use that ability, Ultramarines can still suffer a -1 penalty, and then their Fly units don't get hit. Not sure how busted that would be but that's my idea floating around.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
p5freak wrote: What's ridiculous is that any other SM chapter FLY units don't get that -1 to hit when falling back. A chapter tactic is supposed to help you, not make it harder for you.
That's why I would love for the core rules to inflict a -1 penalty to the BS of Fly units when they use that ability, Ultramarines can still suffer a -1 penalty, and then their Fly units don't get hit. Not sure how busted that would be but that's my idea floating around.
I actually think this would be a good thing for the game, and I say that as an Eldar player with like...90% Fly units in my lists.
It makes charging unit worth while again and anything that makes melee options slgihtly better is good for the game
Yeah, -1 BS for all Fly based fall back shooting across the board would be very reasonable and add an interesting aspect to the game, and that comes from somebody taking advantage of fall back shooting in DW vet teams.
So let's ignore the prior edition wording of "Specific overrules general" and just look at the rules themselves:
Movement states: "A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly." There is NOTHING in that statement noting they can shoot at full BS. So since the UM Chapter Tactic DOES inflict a -1 to hit, both rules actually apply (i.e. they do not contradict each other in anyway)
-
why would prior editions matter at all? 8th was a deliberate break in the continuity of 3rd to 7th. It was a conscious choice to break from that.
there is also nothing in that statement that says "You must use these rules and not these other rules". EG, I choose to use the fly rules and not the UM rules. Tell me where it says I cannot do that. Point specifically.
there is also nothing in that statement that says "You must use these rules and not these other rules". EG, I choose to use the fly rules and not the UM rules. Tell me where it says I cannot do that. Point specifically.
Tell me where it says you can choose what rule to follow, and what not. You must follow all rules.
To think people wonder why dakka is accused of being the most biased rules lawyering site, when people go and post this kinda of stuff.
Because you know marines are totally dominant and not allowing any other cidex to place in events and clearly definataly need to be nerfed into oblivion just so any other codex can have a chance.
GW clearly agrees as they increased the points of all marine codex entries in CA2018 didn't they?
p5freak wrote: It's not dakkadakkas fault that GW decided to nerf UM, they didn't fix it in two FAQ rounds, and not in CA17 or CA18. So, it must be intended.
Nah their just flat out answering the important questions of if you concede do your opponent also loose?
Like seriously who is actually to think that is a valid interpretation of the rule?
stratigo wrote: why would prior editions matter at all? 8th was a deliberate break in the continuity of 3rd to 7th. It was a conscious choice to break from that.
Agreed. That's exactly why I said "let's ignore prior editions" and look at what the 8E rules ACTUALLY say. I was also referring to a previous comment about "specific vs general", which I didn't see in the 8E rules
stratigo wrote: there is also nothing in that statement that says "You must use these rules and not these other rules". EG, I choose to use the fly rules and not the UM rules. Tell me where it says I cannot do that. Point specifically.
I did not say we weren't using either rule, I specifically said we use both. ALL rules must apply. There is ZERO need to have this in writing anywhere. Because if anyone was allowed to do this, you could also ignore literally any rule you didn't like. And that's technically cheating "I don't like that your army gives me a -1 to hit, so I'm not gonna use that rule, OK?" Um no, that's not how it works
Fly allows a unit to Fallback and shoot, but makes NO indication as to what BS to use (i.e. it doesn't specifically allow you to use full BS, so any mods would still apply) The UM chapter trait also allows a unit to Fallback and shoot, but then also adds a -1 to hit mod. That's a rule and nothing gives you permission to ignore it.
So in that case, FLY does not contradict UM and is merely redundant. But you apply BOTH rules and thus receive -1 to hit. Again, FLY does NOT permit you to ignore the UM tactic rules.
Is it dumb? You bet, but thems the rules.
-
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/01/17 14:50:42
Martel732 wrote: Maybe. It might be possible for a UM flying unit to invoke the fly rule and not utilize the UM rule.
I certainly think that is how it SHOULD be played, but unfortunately we have not been given permission to ignore the UM chapter tactic. In fact, it explicitly says that if the unit Falls back a shoots, it MUST subtract 1 from to hit rolls.
So I can certainly see how a unit could use Fly instead of UM to fall back and shoot, because both rules use "can", but the UM tactic later states that if the unit does this action, they MUST subtract 1. It does not matter if you state you are using FLY or UM to Fall back and shoot, the Trait still says if the unit does this, it subtracts 1. This needs an Errata, but it is pretty clear.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/17 16:06:11
Depends on the flow chart. If my workflow stops at the fly rule, and never makes it to the chapter tactic, then there's no problem. I don't know. I'm not going to make people play it that way, and I wouldn't enforce it as a TO. And I'd petition for other TO's to not enforce it, either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/17 16:18:29
I don't think it works that way. The way I interpret it is that an UM unit with FLY has 2 different rules allowing them to Fall Back and Shoot, but one of those rules, whether used or not to Fall back & Shoot still "activates" the -1 to hit if said unit preforms that action.
Sometimes, yeah. I didn't see this one come up. I kinda don't think it needs to be address (by us) at all. It seems pretty cut and dry what SHOULD be happening RAI, i.e. UM Flying units should NOT be suffering a penalty, but there is a clear RAW interpretation that would make this happen on a technicality. Since 99.9999% of us would HIWPI the same way, I don't see the need to solicit for more disagreement.
Rather, to get back on topic, the final loadout we have decided on is this: Sgt with SS/TH or Relic blade 2 dual LCs 2 SS/Axe 1 dual Plasma pistols
It hits the sweet spot for us in terms of cool/iconic looking models, effective melee on most models in the unit but still some "expendable" models. If they someday decide to expand their units, I'll recommend just a bunch of dual Chainsword & SS/Chainsword models as casualties
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/17 17:43:32
I guess through the ba lens two swings with the chapter trait is still decent. Obviously deep strike away from mass dakka and send in captain support for the plasma.
I mean I am sitting here laughing at how you people are tying yourselves in knots to pretend that your belief is justified so you can go “neener neener gw sucks at rules” when there is in fact no clear and direct rule stating that this interpretation is correct and are relying on a selection of rules interpreted in very specific ways that do not follow a common sense reading and are clearly not intended, and in fact are so not intended that they would not need to be addressed because it takes a particular kind of neck beardiness to read these rules in a certain way, and indicates that playing against you is probably a frustrating experiment of reading rules for three hours before getting fed up at the bizarre readings you have and conceding.
Do you think any to of a major tournament reads the rules this way? You could ask them
This is the reason we get awful bloated rule sets.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/17 18:42:36
