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.

With the new deep strike article, it stated that units must be placed over 9"s away, should they have said placed at least 10" instead?

I personally don't find it confusing, but I made this thread to stop the news post going off topic.

No. It's super clear and super simple. How does anyone get confused by "more than 9" away?" Seriously?

If it's 9" or less, you're wrong, otherwise you're right. It couldn't be more binary, imo.

Just seemed like one fellow who was trying to misinterpret the rules by any means.

No. It's perfectly unambiguous. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand numbers.

I get the feeling this thread is quickly going to turn into a "Is 1 the same as .999999999 repeating?" thread.

It's fairly simple. It only sounds confusing to people who are desperately hoping that assault from deep-strike will be viable.

 EnTyme wrote:
I get the feeling this thread is quickly going to turn into a "Is 1 the same as .999999999 repeating?" thread.

It's better in here than in the news and rumours thread.

I can't decide:

1-The Warhammer40k community is the community with the worst reading comprehension out there (At least some members of it).

or

2-Some people just want to Twist to the extreme some rules to make them say what they want them to say.

"More than 9 inches away" just means more than 9 inches.

As in: If you charge, and you measure, and you say "That's 9 inches!" then you cheated. Because you had to be over 9 inches.

Ghorros wrote:
"More than 9 inches away" just means more than 9 inches.

As in: If you charge, and you measure, and you say "That's 9 inches!" then you cheated. Because you had to be over 9 inches.

Well you have to be 1" away for a successful charge in 8th, so 9" will be fine because you have to be 1" away making 10"... But I get your point

Just flicked through the 7th ed rulebook for a precedent - the current wording on infiltrators is the same.

So infiltrating meltaguns were always completely out of range, and then definitely out of melta bonus range after a first turn move?

Those that deployed within line of sight only got a 5.99999" benefit (depending on where the enemy deployed).

I hope infiltrators get better rules in this new ed!

The meaning is clear, though the context did cause me to go "Are you sure you meant to use > instead of ≥?".

But they clarified they did it on purpose, so a unit that just did a deep strike is outside of 9" by definition.

On the one hand, I'm glad it'll be that much harder for deep-striking units to assault my units. On the other hand, that means a Stormtrooper squad that just did a deep strike is outside of rapid-fire range by definition, no matter how close to the line they may be.

Though... I wouldn't mind hot-shot lasguns getting an extra 2" of range (extending their rapid-fire range by 1" ) to resolve that little conflict. Don't think that's likely to happen though, oh well.

If ever we have a potentially disagreeing situation like this, we declare how far we intend to be. So if I put it at 9 inches, I just declare it to be just over 9 inches away. Then, if we ever measure 9 inches or less to it we know that it should be just over 9 inches.

 Yarium wrote:
If ever we have a potentially disagreeing situation like this, we declare how far we intend to be. So if I put it at 9 inches, I just declare it to be just over 9 inches away. Then, if we ever measure 9 inches or less to it we know that it should be just over 9 inches.

This is exactly how I have done a lot of measuring, and if the intent is to deep strike and charge it makes things a lot faster and easier.

 ross-128 wrote:
The meaning is clear, though the context did cause me to go "Are you sure you meant to use > instead of ≥?".

But they clarified they did it on purpose, so a unit that just did a deep strike is outside of 9" by definition.

On the one hand, I'm glad it'll be that much harder for deep-striking units to assault my units. On the other hand, that means a Stormtrooper squad that just did a deep strike is outside of rapid-fire range by definition, no matter how close to the line they may be.

Though... I wouldn't mind hot-shot lasguns getting an extra 2" of range (extending their rapid-fire range by 1" ) to resolve that little conflict. Don't think that's likely to happen though, oh well.

did we ever get stats for hslg?

even then it seems like an extremely niche case. well that and flamers (IIRC they are max 9" right?) so unless drop pods do a thing, deepstriking regular flamers might not be worth it without a lot of special unit functions that we dont know about.

 Desubot wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
The meaning is clear, though the context did cause me to go "Are you sure you meant to use > instead of ≥?".

But they clarified they did it on purpose, so a unit that just did a deep strike is outside of 9" by definition.

On the one hand, I'm glad it'll be that much harder for deep-striking units to assault my units. On the other hand, that means a Stormtrooper squad that just did a deep strike is outside of rapid-fire range by definition, no matter how close to the line they may be.

Though... I wouldn't mind hot-shot lasguns getting an extra 2" of range (extending their rapid-fire range by 1" ) to resolve that little conflict. Don't think that's likely to happen though, oh well.

did we ever get stats for hslg?

even then it seems like an extremely niche case. well that and flamers (IIRC they are max 9" right?) so unless drop pods do a thing, deepstriking regular flamers might not be worth it without a lot of special unit functions that we dont know about.

No, if we had I wouldn't be speculating about a possible range change at all. I just don't think it's likely to change, and currently (7th ed and earlier) it's 18".

We have gotten flamers and flame pistols though. Flamers are 8" and the pistols are 6" in the Datasheet/Rubric Marine preview, so drop-flamers are right out unless Grav Chute Insertion (or drop pods) lets you land closer than 9", which is also maybe possible.

Drop pods could easily be closer due to the disembark, with a rule saying no assault after DS.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Drop pods could easily be closer due to the disembark, with a rule saying no assault after DS.

Drop pods are a big question mark for me right now.


right now we know reserves seem to be a "come in when you decide, so long as it's at turn 3 or earlier" which removes the relative reliability of drop pods for reinforcement management
we also know that deep strike is gonna be WAAAAY more accurate. with no scatter etc. which removes another major plus of drop pods.

so it';ll be intreasting to see what drop pods bring to the table. will they simply be a way to deliver space marine units without deep strike into the field will drop pods have some additional rules to reflect being more accurate? these are i,portant questions.

for example, if drop pods are just "deep strike trucks" they'll be useful but not super important, BUT, if drop pods say, allow you to drop within 6 inches of an enemy instead of 9, they'll be popular with Marines in that they'll lend themselves to a very agressive drop in, shoot, charge, play style. (something which synergizes very nicely with how marines are fluffed even if it might be deemed a little too good )

I don't like "over x" wordings.

They should have said: "It may be no closer than 10 inches" or something like that.

There's basically two ways to phrase a rule like that:

'at least x inches' (or 'no less than x inches' or other equivalent phrasing.

or

'over x inches'

The first one leads to a possible situation where someone declares that they are setting up exactly x inches away from the enemy. Then they try to use an ability which has a range of x inches. But their opponent points out that it's physically impossible to place a model by hand with that degree of accuracy, so they must either have set up slightly less than x inches away (and therefore broke the rule about setting up) or are currently slightly more than x inches away and unable to use their ability. Cue argument.

The second option avoids this. The model has to be fractionally more than x inches away and everyone knows it. There's no reason to set it up x.00000001 inches away; x.5 inches will have the same in-game effect.

There's still room for people to argue, because people generally aren't very good with numbers, logic and reading comprehension, but from the available options it's the better way to do things.

Remember this is the forum that once argued:

1.) That because a tank has no sculpted eyes it cannot check for line of sight.

2.) "Visible" and "Line of Sight" clearly meant completely different things because nothing in the rules verbally communicated that the two terms are basically synonmous

3.) The Storm Raven is Blood Angels and Grey Knights only and vanilla marines will never see it.

4.) Guilliman wields two weapons and 1 weapon simultaniously, thus gaining the benefits of both and the downsides of neither for some reason.

5.) Cataphractii Terminator Armor is only considered Terminator Armor when you want a weapon that is marked "Terminator Armor only", and counts as another type of armor that just happened to share a name at all other times.

All of this, among the countless other insanities that I have since exorcised from my brain with copious applications of bleach. So someone trying to interpret the lawyer-literal version of the wording is not surprising. To anyone with common sense, it means you measure to 9" and deploy beyond that within reason.

 Traditio wrote:
I don't like "over x" wordings.

They should have said: "It may be no closer than 10 inches" or something like that.

That's literally the same thing backwards.

Y'all realise I was complaining about this being clumsy wording prone to starting positioning arguments, not that it was possible to get the charge by being right on the line, right?

Sweet mother of feth.

Look at your ruler. Find the 9" mark. Then place the model literally fething anywhere behind that mark.

I struggle to understand where the problem is with this.

Azreal13 wrote:That's literally the same thing backwards.

Practically speaking, it's not:

"Over 9 inches" means that we get the tape measure, measure out the distance, and say: "Ok. You can't touch this tape measure."

"No closer than 10 inches" means that we get the tape measure, measure out the distance and say: "Ok. You can touch this tape measure."

I think it's blatantly obvious what they mean, but yes they could have worded it slightly more simple:

"...must be placed 9" or more from an enemy unit."

Same exact premise, but slightly better worded. People can get stupid over the use of "More than"...meaning that if you actually set it up, it'll have to be 9.1" away, etc. (i.e. this is where the arguments for charging will come on - in which case the odd choice of wording is definitely a stupid issue some poor tournament organizer will have to cope with)

 Traditio wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:That's literally the same thing backwards.

Practically speaking, it's not:

"Over 9 inches" means that we get the tape measure, measure out the distance, and say: "Ok. You can't touch this tape measure."

"No closer than 10 inches" means that we get the tape measure, measure out the distance and say: "Ok. You can touch this tape measure."

What a shocking difference. This changes everything. I mean, wow, its now plain as day how one of these is clearly the more obvious rule to follow. How could anyone have been so blind. GW really messed here. I mean, can you imagine having to look at your ruler and say "don't touch this line!" instead of "don't go past this line!". It'd be anarchy and chaos.

Blacksails wrote:What a shocking difference. This changes everything. I mean, wow, its now plain as day how one of these is clearly the more obvious rule to follow. How could anyone have been so blind. GW really messed here. I mean, can you imagine having to look at your ruler and say "don't touch this line!" instead of "don't go past this line!". It'd be anarchy and chaos.

That is roughly my assessment and expectation.

"Don't touch this line" will be nothing but trouble.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's fairly simple. It only sounds confusing to people who are desperately hoping that assault from deep-strike will be viable.

Assault is fine, 2d6 to get from over 9" to within one inch of the enemy means a risky roll but a legal and possible roll nonetheless.
The issue comes from shootie armies that have weapons on the borderline.

 Blacksails wrote:
Sweet mother of feth.

Look at your ruler. Find the 9" mark. Then place the model literally fething anywhere behind that mark.

I struggle to understand where the problem is with this.

Thank you. I was wondering if it was just me thinking that.

Tbf it is perfect wording. '9" or more' is where you get the crazy 'on the line - is that exactly 9", can he/can't he charge/rapid fire etc, 'More than 9"' means it can't possibly be at 9" but can be closer than 10". Perfect.

You have stated it perfectly Blacksails