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.
Hi there,
I have gone over the rules a few times, and I cannot find anything in the rules that would disallow units from declaring an Aircraft a charge target and then allocate hits to the Aircraft in the fight phase.
The rules for aircraft simply state:
"Models can move within an enemy Aircraft's engagement range"
So, can units charge an Aircraft? Can an Aircraft charge other units? Can jump infantry/units with fly charge Aircraft?
It doesn't make sense that Aircraft can be charged, but where is it disallowed in the rules?
It's a rule on the datasheet of the aircraft units themselves, rather than being in the core rules for aircraft.
Example:
Airborne: You cannot declare a charge with this model,
and it can only be chosen as a target of a charge if the
unit making the charge can FLY. You can only fight with
this model if it is within Engagement Range of any enemy
units that can FLY, and this model can only make melee
attacks against units that can FLY. Enemy units can only
make melee attacks against this model if they can FLY.
Bonde wrote: Thanks a lot! That explains why I couldn't find it in the core rules. It does not make sense that such an important rule is not in the core rules!
Its because it is not a 'core' rule, but a special rule that only certain units have.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
...but that's exactly what they did. The rules say you can charge other models. The planes each have their own individual exception to the core rules about being a charge target.
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
...but that's exactly what they did. The rules say you can charge other models. The planes each have their own individual exception to the core rules about being a charge target.
Except they don't have their own individual exception, they all have a rule called "Airborne" so it is basically a USR.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
...but that's exactly what they did. The rules say you can charge other models. The planes each have their own individual exception to the core rules about being a charge target.
Except they don't have their own individual exception, they all have a rule called "Airborne" so it is basically a USR.
Nope. The functionality of a USR is being able to modify it exactly once and affect everything it applies to. If they want to change the planes, they have to modify each and every datasheet in each and every book. Same as the eleventy-five different versions of 'deep strike.' That 'airborne' is named the same in most codex datasheets is effectively a coincidence, as you still have to make explicit alterations to each and every datasheet if you change something.
Exception-based design (which is what this is) makes no sense for this kind of game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/04 18:56:07
Currently, a lot of these rules will reference universal special rules, and you might need to do some digging to find a specific rule in the main rulebook – or just be really good at memorising a lot of rules.
Not for the new Warhammer 40,000 – universal special rules are out, and all the rules for a unit will appear on its datasheet. No more lugging a demi-library of books to every game night to ensure you have all the rules you need. Even the rules for weapons will be on there for the most common weapons the unit is likely to be equipped with.
I don't see Universal Special Rules being superior to having the rules on the datasheets. With the FAQs being free online, I don't see a problem if GW has to FAQ a large number of units instead of a single USR (which would still necessitate FAQs for units which already had exceptions to the USR in its datasheet).
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
...but that's exactly what they did. The rules say you can charge other models. The planes each have their own individual exception to the core rules about being a charge target.
Except they don't have their own individual exception, they all have a rule called "Airborne" so it is basically a USR.
Nope. The functionality of a USR is being able to modify it exactly once and affect everything it applies to. If they want to change the planes, they have to modify each and every datasheet in each and every book. Same as the eleventy-five different versions of 'deep strike.' That 'airborne' is named the same in most codex datasheets is effectively a coincidence, as you still have to make explicit alterations to each and every datasheet if you change something.
Exception-based design (which is what this is) makes no sense for this kind of game.
They literally just have to change the text of the "Airborne" rule...
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Currently, a lot of these rules will reference universal special rules, and you might need to do some digging to find a specific rule in the main rulebook – or just be really good at memorising a lot of rules.
Not for the new Warhammer 40,000 – universal special rules are out, and all the rules for a unit will appear on its datasheet. No more lugging a demi-library of books to every game night to ensure you have all the rules you need. Even the rules for weapons will be on there for the most common weapons the unit is likely to be equipped with.
I don't see Universal Special Rules being superior to having the rules on the datasheets. With the FAQs being free online, I don't see a problem if GW has to FAQ a large number of units instead of a single USR (which would still necessitate FAQs for units which already had exceptions to the USR in its datasheet).
Having the rules on the datasheets does not exclude using USRs.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Currently, a lot of these rules will reference universal special rules, and you might need to do some digging to find a specific rule in the main rulebook – or just be really good at memorising a lot of rules.
Not for the new Warhammer 40,000 – universal special rules are out, and all the rules for a unit will appear on its datasheet. No more lugging a demi-library of books to every game night to ensure you have all the rules you need. Even the rules for weapons will be on there for the most common weapons the unit is likely to be equipped with.
I don't see Universal Special Rules being superior to having the rules on the datasheets. With the FAQs being free online, I don't see a problem if GW has to FAQ a large number of units instead of a single USR (which would still necessitate FAQs for units which already had exceptions to the USR in its datasheet).
Having the rules on the datasheets does not exclude using USRs.
Never said that it did, but GW has decided that they will have the rules on the datasheets instead of USRs.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
GW doing something poorly doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Hell, they didn't even stick to that-look at current Marine Datasheets. They've got a buttload of rules off the sheet-especially if you get Warlord Traits or Relics involved.
There's a White Scars Bike Captain build that, going off the datasheet alone, gets something like five S4 AP-1 D1 attacks. When in actuality, it gets ten to twelve S6 AP-2 D2 attacks. It can also advance and charge, not on the datasheet; and rerolls charges, not on the datasheet.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Again, I don't see any advantages of Universal Special Rules versus having the rules on the datasheet or vice versa. Neither will cut down on the number of FAQS that seems to be the main complaint Voss was making.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
...but that's exactly what they did. The rules say you can charge other models. The planes each have their own individual exception to the core rules about being a charge target.
Except they don't have their own individual exception, they all have a rule called "Airborne" so it is basically a USR.
Nope. The functionality of a USR is being able to modify it exactly once and affect everything it applies to. If they want to change the planes, they have to modify each and every datasheet in each and every book. Same as the eleventy-five different versions of 'deep strike.' That 'airborne' is named the same in most codex datasheets is effectively a coincidence, as you still have to make explicit alterations to each and every datasheet if you change something.
Exception-based design (which is what this is) makes no sense for this kind of game.
They literally just have to change the text of the "Airborne" rule...
In every FAQ. And list every page for every datasheet where it applies, and then add the changed paragraph in each and every instance, whether thats once, twice or four or five times.
If its part of the core rules, they change it once and once only.
And additionally, its less confusing if all the rules for aircraft are actually in the aircraft section of the rules. Its just cleaner game design.
'Open-topped' has much the same problem. And deep strike. And scout. And a whole bunch of other things that could have been clear in the rules rather than buried in assorted datasheets and treated as exceptions rather than a solid part of the game.
Voss wrote: If its part of the core rules, they change it once and once only.
Then they also have to change the exceptions to fit the new rule, in every FAQ. And list every page for every datasheet where it applies, and then add the changed paragraph in each and every instance, whether that is once, twice or four or five times.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
tneva82 wrote: GW decided it's fun to have option to create 10 different airplanes each that work differently.
It's still better than one universal special rule (that's in the rule book instead of on the datasheet) with 9 of those airplanes having an exception to that USR that is either in the codex or a FAQ.
...but that's exactly what they did. The rules say you can charge other models. The planes each have their own individual exception to the core rules about being a charge target.
Except they don't have their own individual exception, they all have a rule called "Airborne" so it is basically a USR.
Nope. The functionality of a USR is being able to modify it exactly once and affect everything it applies to. If they want to change the planes, they have to modify each and every datasheet in each and every book. Same as the eleventy-five different versions of 'deep strike.' That 'airborne' is named the same in most codex datasheets is effectively a coincidence, as you still have to make explicit alterations to each and every datasheet if you change something.
Exception-based design (which is what this is) makes no sense for this kind of game.
They literally just have to change the text of the "Airborne" rule...
In every FAQ. And list every page for every datasheet where it applies, and then add the changed paragraph in each and every instance, whether thats once, twice or four or five times.
If its part of the core rules, they change it once and once only.
And additionally, its less confusing if all the rules for aircraft are actually in the aircraft section of the rules. Its just cleaner game design.
'Open-topped' has much the same problem. And deep strike. And scout. And a whole bunch of other things that could have been clear in the rules rather than buried in assorted datasheets and treated as exceptions rather than a solid part of the game.
This is my point exactly! You cannot read the aircraft rules in the main rulebook and have it make any sense, because the section does not include the full rules for aircraft. To get the full rules, you have to find a codex entry on aircraft for it to make sense and that is just poor game design.
Open topped, scout and deep strike should also be in the core rules!
Voss wrote: If its part of the core rules, they change it once and once only.
Then they also have to change the exceptions to fit the new rule, in every FAQ. And list every page for every datasheet where it applies, and then add the changed paragraph in each and every instance, whether that is once, twice or four or five times.
Only if they have that many exceptions. Can you tell me how many exceptions to the Airborne rule there are right now, vice how many individual printings of it?
It'd be like reprinting the rules for stepping through the shooting phase on each units datasheet, just in case they want to do something to alter the way the shooting phase works for THAT UNIT ONLY.
Also, there are more exceptions in how the shooting phase works than there are in the Airborne rule, but the shooting phase is in the core rulebook and the Airborne rule is not...
This subforum isn’t it about how the rules are written vis a vis bespoke or USR. It’s just about how they work. Is anything useful being discussed right now?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/12 17:51:42
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Da Blitza Boyz! (Orks) 70% painted.
