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.

Hey everybody,

I want to make some videos "debating" some of the more ambiguous 40k 6th edition rules.

In your experience, which rules do you think are still up for debate, even with the current FAQ?

I'm not interested in rules that are very obvious as RAW, but that people don't like.

Thanks!

Matthew Glanfield
http://www.MiniWarGaming.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And of course I should have put this under "40K You Make Da Call."

Sorry mods!

Allies of convenience... do they deny objectives?

Matney X wrote:
Allies of convenience... do they deny objectives?

Not sure if sarcasm....

Cheesedoodler wrote:

Matney X wrote:
Allies of convenience... do they deny objectives?

Not sure if sarcasm....

Maybe not, RAW they're stilll counted as enemies, but should have an FAQ to determine one way or another.

Wound allocation...from scattered blast templates

Cheesedoodler wrote:

Matney X wrote:
Allies of convenience... do they deny objectives?

Not sure if sarcasm....

I'm not sure, myself. It seems to be one of those nit-picky rules that could start fistfights at the end of a game, with a WAAC player.

I agree that the wording on allies of convenience is truly wretched, and that would probably get my vote for the most ambiguous.

Probably second place for me is the rules about who can challenge who when. It's very possible to take a straight reading of those rules that completely negates the entire challenge system.

Yea we always ignore that allies of conv. issue, but it is definately a problem.

Because of the description "Are enemys that cannot be targeted or charged" technically all negative effects for being near an enemy unit applies. If someone REALLY wanted to they could screw you out of a win because you had an allied unit close enough to your objective denying yourself.
That needs a FAQ saying they dont deny objectives to yourself.
EDIT: That or allow you to target them to compensate for the denying factor, so you can send in a squad of troops to bubblewrap something while you dakka the crap out of it (since nothing stops you from targeting a non-allied CC you dont care bout hurtin both models cuz neither are yours!)

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Yea we always ignore that allies of conv. issue, but it is definately a problem.

Because of the description "Are enemys that cannot be targeted or charged" technically all negative effects for being near an enemy unit applies. If someone REALLY wanted to they could screw you out of a win because you had an allied unit close enough to your objective denying yourself.

No someone REALLY could not.

This is because players count objectives, the players units do not.

AoC are only enemy units to your other units, not to you.

The rules for buildings (Bastions and Fortresses of Redemption) are some of the most poorly worded rules in all of 40k. Trying to make sense of how to shoot at them and units on top, as well as embarking and disembarking, is almost impossible.

This may have been fixed, I'm not sure, but the biggest black hole I ever found in the rules was having a 5 man ccs/pcs all plasma in a chimera, all fire and four gets hot! And die. Unit takes moral check from casualties and fails, while inside the chimera. How do they fall back? Logically, they ought to disembark and run, I suppose, but maybe the chimera turns around and drives off? Either way I never found anything in the rules to clarify it.

 loota boy wrote:
This may have been fixed, I'm not sure, but the biggest black hole I ever found in the rules was having a 5 man ccs/pcs all plasma in a chimera, all fire and four gets hot! And die. Unit takes moral check from casualties and fails, while inside the chimera. How do they fall back? Logically, they ought to disembark and run, I suppose, but maybe the chimera turns around and drives off? Either way I never found anything in the rules to clarify it.

Aren't units embarked in transports fearless?

Oh, also, buildings, if anything, got worse rules for 6th.

A bunker with some barricades on top counts as two buildings? And I can't assault people on the top if my models don't fit? And I can't destroy the building the guys are hanging out on because the building itself is empty?

Did you just make units hanging out on terrain invincible against assault?

 Ailaros wrote:
Oh, also, buildings, if anything, got worse rules for 6th.

A bunker with some barricades on top counts as two buildings? And I can't assault people on the top if my models don't fit? And I can't destroy the building the guys are hanging out on because the building itself is empty?

Did you just make units hanging out on terrain invincible against assault?

Here is one: If you have a unit on a Bastion, and I shoot the unit, do I also hit the bastion?

loota boy wrote:This may have been fixed, I'm not sure, but the biggest black hole I ever found in the rules was having a 5 man ccs/pcs all plasma in a chimera, all fire and four gets hot! And die. Unit takes moral check from casualties and fails, while inside the chimera. How do they fall back? Logically, they ought to disembark and run, I suppose, but maybe the chimera turns around and drives off? Either way I never found anything in the rules to clarify it.

That one is fixed. Units in transports don't take morale tests.

Ailaros wrote:A bunker with some barricades on top counts as two buildings?

It did before the Rulebook FAQ. Now it's a multi-part building comprised of a building and a ... something that isn't a building. Which drops it into a great big black hole in the rules, since there are no rules for dealing with a mulit-part building that has parts that are not buildings.

insaniak wrote:Which drops it into a great big black hole in the rules, since there are no rules for dealing with a mulit-part building that has parts that are not buildings.

...yeah...

This actually came up at a recent apocalypse game where a juggerlord attempted to assault some guys on top of one of the side pieces of a fortress of redemption. Turns out that, despite being only a few inches away, the lord couldn't assault...

 insaniak wrote:

Ailaros wrote:A bunker with some barricades on top counts as two buildings?

It did before the Rulebook FAQ. Now it's a multi-part building comprised of a building and a ... something that isn't a building. Which drops it into a great big black hole in the rules, since there are no rules for dealing with a mulit-part building that has parts that are not buildings.

Games Workshop: Masters of clarity.

Personally, I would go to the YMDC section. Anything discussion which goes on for a certain number of pages (your own call, I guess, but I would say five or six) probably has enough ambiguity in the central issue that you could have a reasonable debate on the topic.

As "reasonable" as wargamers ever "debate" anything. Especially game rules.

Drop pods. After all this time and even a whole new edition, there's nothing to tell us whether you're allowed to keep the doors closed after the initial disembark, or whether the unfolded doors count as a model for keeping 1" distance.