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.

 Shadelkan wrote:
These read like the quick rules as opposed to the main rules. I'm going there's more details in the CRB

Well there are only 14 pages of rules now so i don't know what you expect

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
These read like the quick rules as opposed to the main rules. I'm going there's more details in the CRB

Well there are only 14 pages of rules now so i don't know what you expect

I don't think all of the rules are from the same book. I think the majority of what is there is from the core rules leaflet from the dark imperium box. The points appendix, hellblaster squad and primaris armoury are probably from the primaris marines booklet from the new box. And the battle forged armies bit is almost definitely from the main rulebook given that it mentions the detachment rules are on pages 243-245.

I'm thinking that this might not be a leak but gw showing some of the rules as advertising disguised as a leak given that whoever took the pictures had access to so much stuff but we didn't get too much.

 jeff white wrote:

Again, multiple volleys of overwatch fire for a given unit are possible and are resolved on sixes... Personally I find this mechanic disappointing.

It doesn't seem to me like multiple overwatch is going to be that much of a problem; it's only going to happen if all prior charging units fail their charges.

 jeff white wrote:
But just for kicks could you outfit a single marine with three bolters? I guess there must be a limit on main weapons so infantry can have only one? But what about reaper exarchs with two launchers? Or ... I know maybe not smart but still the question is could such a thing be use able by the rules as written? And how about two pistols?

Currently, there are codices which more often than not allow certain squad members to exchange a weapon. It is very rare for a model to have more than one ranged (non-pistol) weapon unless they are dedicated weapons platforms already (war walkers, crisis suits, centurions, etc).
I would asume the new indices (and subsequent codices) to have like restrictions. From what we have read, a hypothetical infantry model with both a boltgun and a plasmagun would be able to fire them both. Just as a Reaper Exarch with two launchers. I highly doubt that a Reaper Exarch would get two launchers, however.
In that same vein, gimme some pistol lovin'. Sisters Seraphim being able to fire both pistols as separate weapons would seem so much more usefull than having two pistols, and for that fact being able to use only one, but count it as twin-linked anyways.

Am I understanding pistols right? My guys in hand to hand can shoot the squad they are fighting with their pistols during their own shooting phase?

ryanme12 wrote:
Am I understanding pistols right? My guys in hand to hand can shoot the squad they are fighting with their pistols during their own shooting phase?

Yes

This is gonna get weird.

Not bad, just weird.

Looking forward to my first games.

The 'model can shoot all it's ranged weapons' is just a general rule so that your battle tank can shoot all it's guns - like it should - without adding an extra special rule or tag on it.

It's just going to be handled with unit profiles not having access to multiple weapons. So that your guardsman wouldn't be able to get a lazgun, a grenade launcher and a flamer all at the same time unless he's Rambo Marbo.

On the other hand, i'm pretty sure that at first we'll get some hilarious loopholes where a grot would be able to take an infinite number of grotblastas and one-shot a titan or something. But it's gona be fixed quickly...i'd probably even play vs this grot if it was wysiwyg.

 koooaei wrote:
.i'd probably even play vs this grot if it was wysiwyg.

No probably about it. I WOULD play against that grot if it was wysiwyg.

Ran through a few turns with a couple of units this morning (making some educated guesses re profiles we haven't seen yet) and I like these rules. Particular shout out to the revisions to close combat; it's so much less of a headache now.

(It's pretty much the AoS CC rules, but with the addition of chargers striking first, I think, but it's been a little while since I've played AoS)

Bring on the Indices; I want to get going properly!

So here's something amusing - RAW, the Assault rule on weapons doesn't actually do anything.

"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."

So, this would come up in Step 3 of the Shooting Phase (Choose Ranged Weapon). However, before we ever get there, we have this rule in Step 1:

"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."

There is nothing in the Assault rule that overrides this. The Assault rule talks about individual models and specific weapons. Step 1 of the Shooting Phase is on the level of whole units, and doesn't even get into individual weapons or weapon-types.

 vipoid wrote:
So here's something amusing - RAW, the Assault rule on weapons doesn't actually do anything.

"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."

So, this would come up in Step 3 of the Shooting Phase (Choose Ranged Weapon). However, before we ever get there, we have this rule in Step 1:

"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."

There is nothing in the Assault rule that overrides this. The Assault rule talks about individual models and specific weapons. Step 1 of the Shooting Phase is on the level of whole units, and doesn't even get into individual weapons or weapon-types.

I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.

all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.

all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot

That's what it means, that's not what it technically reads... You can bet somebody's going to try to argue that in a tournament!

Well luckily not going to be major issue and TO's likely will laugh that player off if somebody tries.

tneva82 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.

all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot

That's what it means, that's not what it technically reads... You can bet somebody's going to try to argue that in a tournament!

Well luckily not going to be major issue and TO's likely will laugh that player off if somebody tries.

I like to assume there is a point in which if you try to lawyer certain things people will attempt to force feed you the rule book, rectally.

BrianDavion wrote:

I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.

all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot

First off, why not just write their rules properly in the first place? I mean, why even bother having them if the players literally have to break and amend them just to get them to work properly?

Second, let's say that you were actually trying to follow the rules (I know, what a concept!). Please explain to me how you'd actually fire that stormbolter within the steps outlined in the Shooting Phase.

In particular, which rule(s) do you plan to break or ignore in order to get the Assault rule on the Stormbolter to function?

There's a csm leak and heldrakes are listed to have 30' move. So, they can perform guaranteed charges 1-st turn?

 koooaei wrote:
There's a csm leak and heldrakes are listed to have 30' move. So, they can perform guaranteed charges 1-st turn?

yeah Heldrake's myay be THE first strike CC unit in 8th

Are you really arguing on the internet about this rule ?
It is crystal clear.
Maybe you have too much free time ?

 godardc wrote:
Are you really arguing on the internet about this rule ?
It is crystal clear.
Maybe you have too much free time ?

By RAW it's crystal clear it's no shooting with assault weapon.

RAI it's pretty obvious can shoot. But RAW it's not even close. Clear cannot shoot.

 vipoid wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.

all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot

First off, why not just write their rules properly in the first place? I mean, why even bother having them if the players literally have to break and amend them just to get them to work properly?

Second, let's say that you were actually trying to follow the rules (I know, what a concept!). Please explain to me how you'd actually fire that stormbolter within the steps outlined in the Shooting Phase.

In particular, which rule(s) do you plan to break or ignore in order to get the Assault rule on the Stormbolter to function?

The part where they can't fire because they had Advanced earlier in the turn. Just stop nitpicking and TRYING to break the rule. Are you really going to be the guy who says that the 1 stormbolter can't fire even though its an Assault Weapon, because of minor nitpicky wording that ultimate doesn't matter, because any reasonable person knows that Assault Weapons are designed as "can fire after running" weapons?

 Deadshot wrote:
The part where they can't fire because they had Advanced earlier in the turn.

No such rule exists.

You are not allowed to choose a unit that Advanced in the Shooting Phase, as per Step 1 in said phase.

Is that the rule you're referring to?

 Deadshot wrote:
Just stop nitpicking and TRYING to break the rule.

On the contrary - *you* are the one breaking the rule. I am following the rules, as written, step by step.

 Deadshot wrote:
Are you really going to be the guy who says that the 1 stormbolter can't fire even though its an Assault Weapon

Are you really going to be the guy who needs to break the rules for the sake of firing that 1 stormbolter?

You seriously haven't seen all the nitpicky wordings people argue in 7th ed? Like 99% of arguments from 7th ed rules comes from nitpicking wordings...

GW leaves a hole like this, you can be sure it gets picked on and exploited.

Are you really going to be the guy who needs to break the rules for the sake of firing that 1 stormbolter?

Alright, time to take it to YMDC because according to forum rules that's where you go to argue rules interpretations.

God it's far too early for this though.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
So here's something amusing - RAW, the Assault rule on weapons doesn't actually do anything.

"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."

So, this would come up in Step 3 of the Shooting Phase (Choose Ranged Weapon). However, before we ever get there, we have this rule in Step 1:

"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."

There is nothing in the Assault rule that overrides this. The Assault rule talks about individual models and specific weapons. Step 1 of the Shooting Phase is on the level of whole units, and doesn't even get into individual weapons or weapon-types.

I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.

This. It's abundantly clear what the intention is, and anyone who argues otherwise, because they've got an agenda to pursue about GW, isn't the sort of person I'd have any interest in playing a game with.

I would never argue that you should play it any other way than how it should be obviously intended.

That being said, GW really does need to learn how to write rules properly.

 vipoid wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
The part where they can't fire because they had Advanced earlier in the turn.

No such rule exists.

You are not allowed to choose a unit that Advanced in the Shooting Phase, as per Step 1 in said phase.

Is that the rule you're referring to?

 Deadshot wrote:
Just stop nitpicking and TRYING to break the rule.

On the contrary - *you* are the one breaking the rule. I am following the rules, as written, step by step.

 Deadshot wrote:
Are you really going to be the guy who says that the 1 stormbolter can't fire even though its an Assault Weapon

Are you really going to be the guy who needs to break the rules for the sake of firing that 1 stormbolter?

I'm not arguing the rule, the rule is badly worded, but I'm arguing why you feel the need to be that guy who argues about it? Why nitpick to that degree to cause arguments when you know exactly what its supposed to do? I don't need to break rules on this because no one else would argue that I can't fire my stormbolter or flamer after Advancing because I can't pick that unit to fire.

 Lance845 wrote:

That being said, GW really does need to learn how to write rules properly.

I really don't feel like it matters that much. As long as the way it's intended to work is clear, what's the problem?

 Deadshot wrote:
I'm not arguing the rule, the rule is badly worded, but I'm arguing why you feel the need to be that guy who argues about it?

Eh?

I wasn't the one who started the argument.

I just thought it was amusing that, RAW, the Assault rule was nonfunctional, and decided to share that.

I wasn't the one who decided to turn this into an argument. Nor was I the one who started making personal attacks based on this.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

That being said, GW really does need to learn how to write rules properly.

I really don't feel like it matters that much. As long as the way it's intended to work is clear, what's the problem?

Look at the YMDC full of arguments over RAW vs RAI and nitpicking loopholes.

GW doesn't write RAW=RAI and it's going to lead into arguments.

Arguments don't stop just by 8th ed being it. It stops if they write rules bullet proof. This isn't. Arguments will come.

 vipoid wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I'm not arguing the rule, the rule is badly worded, but I'm arguing why you feel the need to be that guy who argues about it?

Eh?

I wasn't the one who started the argument.

I just thought it was amusing that, RAW, the Assault rule was nonfunctional, and decided to share that.

I wasn't the one who decided to turn this into an argument. Nor was I the one who started making personal attacks based on this.

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here." I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play. Rules aren't bulletproof, even the law has thousands of loopholes that can only be discovered by abuse of it, so why not just say "hmm, it's not technically allowed but we all know its supposed to work that way so why not just ignore it?"

It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.

Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.