Switch Theme:

Extra ability for complete mono-forces  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Norn Queen






 p5freak wrote:
w1zard wrote:
Jury rigging can only be used once a turn in matched play. It would be horribly broken otherwise. Overlapping fields of fire is strong, but only cadians can use it. You can only deepstrike one baneblade with the Tallarn stratagem, and you can only use it ONCE. If you are going to complain about stuff at least get it right. If you are playing against someone who does this stuff, he is cheating TERRIBLY.


OMG, read the rules please, before you say things which are wrong You can use stratagems outside of phases as many times as you want, until you run out of CP. Check the BRB pg. 215 strategic discipline. Jury rigging is at the start of your turn, which is outside of a phase. The tallarn deepstrike stratagem is used during deployment, which, again, is outside of a phase.
The start of the turn is the same as the start of the movement phase. You can't use Jury Rigging multiple times in matched play. You are simply wrong.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Harlequins were in both the CWE book and the DE book. Because they didn't really belong to one more than the other.

So when a CWE book would come out, they couldn't update Harlequins, because they don't wnat to force DE players to buy the new book.

Then when the DE book would come out, they couldn't update Harlequins, because they don't want to force CWE players to buy the new book.

Harlies don't deserve full-codex support, but there are some reasons beyond money-grabbing to break them out of the book.

As for how to encourage mono, it comes down to how far you want to go. Several common suggestions (some of which are already here) are:

-Only get baseline 3CP if you're mono-faction
-Only generate CP from factions that match your Warlord
-Only get Attribute and/or Stratagem for Detatchments that match one specific Keyword your Warlord matches
-Everyone starts with 1 CP for every 5 Power Points (100 "regular" points). Each detatchment costs CP instead of provides CP.

Some of those nuke Allies too hard, but they're each interesting ideas with their own downsides.
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The start of the turn is the same as the start of the movement phase. You can't use Jury Rigging multiple times in matched play. You are simply wrong.


No, you are wrong. The BRB pg. 215 gives two examples what is outside of a phase. One is before the battle starts and the other is at the end of a battle round. I only have the german BRB, so i cant say the exact words in english. If the end of something is outside a phase, so is the start, or the beginning.
You said your opinion, i said mine, no need to argue, we will have to wait until GW actually defines when a phase starts, and when it ends.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 p5freak wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
The start of the turn is the same as the start of the movement phase. You can't use Jury Rigging multiple times in matched play. You are simply wrong.


No, you are wrong. The BRB pg. 215 gives two examples what is outside of a phase. One is before the battle starts and the other is at the end of a battle round. I only have the german BRB, so i cant say the exact words in english. If the end of something is outside a phase, so is the start, or the beginning.
You said your opinion, i said mine, no need to argue, we will have to wait until GW actually defines when a phase starts, and when it ends.
That's not how it works. That's now how any of it works.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
That's not how it works. That's now how any of it works.

Would you care to explain further? I hate to say it but he does have a point. BRB pg 215 explicitly says that stratagems that are used outside of phases such as "at the end of the battle round" are not subject to the one use per phase limitation of matched play. If "the end of the battle round" is outside the phase system, I don't see why "the beginning of the battle round" wouldn't be either.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






w1zard wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
That's not how it works. That's now how any of it works.

Would you care to explain further? I hate to say it but he does have a point. BRB pg 215 explicitly says that stratagems that are used outside of phases such as "at the end of the battle round" are not subject to the one use per phase limitation of matched play. If "the end of the battle round" is outside the phase system, I don't see why "the beginning of the battle round" wouldn't be either.
Because Jury Rigging isn't used at "the end of the battle round". It's used "at the start of your turn", which is the same as the start of your movement phase, as per page 176 of the BRB, under the "The Battle Round" grey boxout.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because Jury Rigging isn't used at "the end of the battle round". It's used "at the start of your turn", which is the same as the start of your movement phase, as per page 176 of the BRB, under the "The Battle Round" grey boxout.

I don't have my rulebook on me right now so I'll check when I get home. But I think there is a pretty strong argument that if "the end of the battle round" is outside the phase system, then the "end of your turn" would also be, and by consequence "the beginning of your turn" would also be as well. Pg215 states that there are such "situations" and gives two examples but doesn't elaborate further.

EDIT: Checked the rules. Nothing states that the turn immediately begins with the movement phase, just that the movement phase is the first phase in the player turn. "At the beginning of your turn" could still mean "before the movement phase". It's too vague, it really needs a FAQ.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/30 18:27:26


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





The beginning of your turn is definitely outside the movement phase; it's when all acts of faith currently happen for Sisters players. Your movement phase does not begin until your acts of faith are done, and if you happen to accidentally move a unit before rolling and executing your acts of faith, you lose the ability to use them for the turn (unless a character dies and you burn command points for martydom).

If you're still in doubt, consider that one of their acts of faith allows them to move "as if it were the movement phase."

If, as you claim, the beginning of your turn (when acts of faith happen) was the same as the beginning of the movement phase, you wouldn't need an act of faith to move as if it was the movement phase, because it would in fact be the movement phase.

Dig?
   
Made in nz
Regular Dakkanaut




Twizard is correct. Jury rigging is at the "begining of the turn" which is not defined in any of the phases within the core rulebook (these being Movement,Psychic,shooting,Charging,Close Combat,Morale)

Therefore he is correct in that you can use jury rigging on a single vehicle more than once in the turn.

That makes that stratagem extremely scary as a bane blade can be from one wound to full if you have the 26 CP to repair it. especially since grand strategist got changed so it now applies to CP instead of stratagems now, so a 5+ on a CP gets it back

However, this does indeed need clarification from GW as this is a grey area that is hotly debated about. So until there is a true defenitive clarification from GW (No using things that are "slight") it can swing either way
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




mchammadad wrote:
Twizard is correct. Jury rigging is at the "begining of the turn" which is not defined in any of the phases within the core rulebook (these being Movement,Psychic,shooting,Charging,Close Combat,Morale)

Therefore he is correct in that you can use jury rigging on a single vehicle more than once in the turn.

That makes that stratagem extremely scary as a bane blade can be from one wound to full if you have the 26 CP to repair it. especially since grand strategist got changed so it now applies to CP instead of stratagems now, so a 5+ on a CP gets it back

However, this does indeed need clarification from GW as this is a grey area that is hotly debated about. So until there is a true defenitive clarification from GW (No using things that are "slight") it can swing either way


Off topic a little but GW actually buffed the CP stupidity to make Imperial Guard CP miners more efficient who the hell though guard needed more broken CP generation
   
Made in gb
Incorporating Wet-Blending




U.k

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.


Doesn't mean its a good idea. Next you'll be telling me that rerolling 2+ invuls and scat laser spam were intended, and as such completely acceptable instances of game design.

Allies are both intended and good examples of game design.

Some armies aren't designed to work alone. Your suggestion is like saying you couldn't make multicoloured decks in MtG.

It's also consistent with the fluff.



BLOODY HELL! I agree with you. Good to see you out of the rules forum and good points. Fluff is full of mixed armies, it’s fun and it’s good business sense to allow allies. If single theme armies were a rule how would you even use assassins etc. Allies and mixed lists have been around as long as 40k has. Don’t see the problem.
   
Made in gb
Incorporating Wet-Blending




U.k

 Peregrine wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
That's like including Imperial Guard in the Space Marines codex because both come from Planets.


It's not the same at all. Harlequins are space elves with slightly different rules and a very small number of units. They used to be in the space elf codex and only very recently got an independent "codex" that can't really function without a normal space elf army next to it. Take away GW's need to sell you another $50 book and there's no reason for them to be a separate faction. Imperial guard, on the other hand, are a full faction with a full list of units and have nothing to do with space marines rules-wise.


They used to have they’re very own army list long before darl eldar existed so maybe we should get rid of dark eldar all together. As I said before, allies and mixed lists have always existed. It’s power gaming WAAC players are the problem not allies.
[Thumb - image.jpg]

   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: