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.

Davor wrote:
Now I think we are dangerously making a YMDC here. But now I am confused. I thought WE HAD TO have a Warlord.

So is CWZ saying taking a Warlord is optional? I thought it was Mandatory.

No, no I am not. I'm saying there is an obvious issue involving the Tervigon not being a character but not being limited from being you're only HQ choice. I blame GW for that one as it breaks RAW about needing a Warlord.

Frankly the "it must be a character to be a Warlord" thing is kind of pants. I'd rather they'd gone to Fantasy route and highest Leadership (or you choose if it's a tie) is the Warlord.

It is mandatory. A list without a warlord is as illegal as a list with only a single troops choice.

rigeld2 wrote:
It is mandatory. A list without a warlord is as illegal as a list with only a single troops choice.

Unless you're playing a mini-codex that says otherwise on the troops thing.

Seriously this whole game is a big list of "you can/can't do X unless you have this rule that makes it so you can/can't do X". It's all loopholes based on knowing specific rules. Makes me thik a bit of 3.5 D&D.

add to that CWZ how loose gw are over their use of english... as wel all know and i said before this isnt written like MTG, the fact that there is even a YMDC section as always speeks to this :(

You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.

Sorry but I can't find the rules to support this.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
add to that CWZ how loose gw are over their use of english... as wel all know and i said before this isnt written like MTG, the fact that there is even a YMDC section as always speeks to this :(

GW is British. They write like Brits.

And GW is picking up clues from other games, slowly. The use of universal USRs with key words instead of inventing 10 new rules that do the same exact same thing in four different codexes is something they've recently gained in 6th and it's a small improvement, but an improvement none-the-less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sickening wrote:
You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.

Sorry but I can't find the rules to support this.

Of course not, as it was someone mentioning the kind of house rules the folks they know play with.

So, we've gone off a bit of a tangent, let's get this thread on track:

- Vector Strike does not need Line of Sight
- Beasts and other units that "are not slowed by difficult terrain" still need grenades to strike at initiative when charging through difficult terrain
- Jump Infantry don't get Hammer of Wrath unless they use their jump pack in the assault phase
- Look Out, Sir! happens before saves are rolled
- Flyers & FMCs have to choose whether to Skyfire or not at the beginning of the shooting phase
- A Hovering Flyer or Gliding FMC cannot choose to Skyfire

Setting up the table seems to be something I see done incorrectly a lot of the time so let's go over the mistakes I usually see:

-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.
-Terrain is set up by using 2'x2' sections
-Each section gets D3 terrain peices, which need to be a sing substantial element (building, forest, ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller terrain peices (such as battlefield debris).
-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)
-Terrain that's in more than one 2'x2' section counts for which ever section the majority of it is in
-After setting up terrain players are free to move and shuffle terrain about as long as both sides agree on it to "create the best looking board possible"

Basically you should have at minimum 6 good sized terrain peices (like buildings, or forests), and upwards to 18. Small things, such as battlefield debris count as a single peice of terrain in groups of up to 3 pieces. So setting it up like 5th edition with a single piece in each corner and one in the middle isn't good enough kids.

It doesn't have to be City Fight (but honestly unless you're playing a gunline City Fight is a fine way to think of how dense it should be ), but generally people need more terrain because they're just not using enough of it.

For me, it's not so much as doing it correctly as it is thinking the the terrain setup rules are completely idiotic and deliberately ignoring them.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For me, it's not so much as doing it correctly as it is thinking the the terrain setup rules are completely idiotic and deliberately ignoring them.

Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.

It's the fortifications before terrain thing that really bothers me, it makes absolutely zero sense.
I much prefer the Narrative Terrain deployment setup.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It's the fortifications before terrain thing that really bothers me, it makes absolutely zero sense.
I much prefer the Narrative Terrain deployment setup.

Which is basically "wing it as long as it serves the story" if I recall correctly. And that's fine, but I still think for your average player you need something akin to hand holding to get them to put enough terrain on the table.

I think it says something along the lines of both players being happy with the terrain placement, so if there's not enough terrain on the board just say you're not happy with it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For me, it's not so much as doing it correctly as it is thinking the the terrain setup rules are completely idiotic and deliberately ignoring them.

Terrain set up largely makes sense (out side of fortifications honestly, but thats fixed by just setting up the table and replacing an appropriately sized piece of terrain with the fortification) and I have no real issues with them. 5th edition's standard of terrain always felt too sparse for me and too heavilly favored immobile gunlines. I'd much rather have a board with a lot of heavy terrain than get tabled before I can cross the table because my opponent is running a Tau gunline.

These rules would've been fine if it wasn't for the fortification BS- I love having tons of terrain but in the last tourney I played in my opponent cut off my ADL with a 6" tall 2' long wall with no stairs or access points...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW is British. They write like Brits.

I object to this. :p I am quite capable of writing a tight, concise ruleset for a game with all my British spelling and use of language.

The game system for Tsunami - Wave of Change is very simple.

Most actions will be resolved narratively, with no dice rolling involved.

When there is a conflict between two individuals that risks physical injury, or there is a chance of danger if an action is failed, a single D20 will be rolled.

Odd numbers are good. Even numbers are bad.

A roll of a 1 is a critical success, while a roll of a 3 or a 9 is a good success.

A roll of a 20 is a critical failure, while a roll of a 12 or 16 is a serious failure.

If a character is skilled in the task being attempted and a failure is rolled, they may roll a d6. On a 4+, a failure becomes a success, a serious failure becomes a failure, and a critical failure becomes a serious failure.

That's it.

See? A whole RPG system in 8-10 lines (Depending on wordwrap). Made In England.

 sickening wrote:
You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against Witchfire powers. Why? Because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and then firing it like a gun.

Sorry but I can't find the rules to support this.

This seems to be an issue with how people are writing examples in this thread, half of the posts have the ridiculous rule, half the posts have the real rule. In my case, it's definitely just a ridiculous rule that someone seems to have gotten the impression that that's how it works, because under the real rules, you target an enemy unit, which gives them a Deny the Witch save.

On the topic of psychic powers, I came across an interesting one the other day that I'm pretty sure everyone at my FLGS has been doing wrong, and that's rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek. Every time anyone used it, they just rolled the psychic test, rolled the Deny the Witch test, and then rolled the 3d6 for the power's effect. But unless I missed a FAQ somewhere, it is in fact a witchfire power, meaning that it has to roll to hit before it can be used.

If you try to play this game RAW it crumbles like a house of cards in an earthquake.

ClockworkZion wrote:GW is British. They write like Brits.

HEY! I'm offensive and I find that to be incredibly British.

ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.

Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"

ClockworkZion wrote:-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)

Why would someone want to do that?
O.o

- You make your saves up until you hit a character/member with a different save. Then decide if you want to Look Out, Sir! NOT roll 20 4+ saves even though the 10th out of the 21 guys is a Necron Lord.
Also, with the above, I guess that would be; You remove models CLOSEST to the firing models. Not take all your saves and ignore the 10th guy with a 2+ because you took 20 4+ saves.
>.>
- You cannot Look Out, Sir! a Look out, Sir!
- You cannot Look Out, Sir! onto a model unless it is the closest and within 6". No that one Guardsman at the back of your 50 man squad.
- You cannot Look Out, Sir! unless it is a character.

 Locclo wrote:
On the topic of psychic powers, I came across an interesting one the other day that I'm pretty sure everyone at my FLGS has been doing wrong, and that's rolling to hit with Psychic Shriek. Every time anyone used it, they just rolled the psychic test, rolled the Deny the Witch test, and then rolled the 3d6 for the power's effect. But unless I missed a FAQ somewhere, it is in fact a witchfire power, meaning that it has to roll to hit before it can be used.

Well all they're doing is skipping the bit where you roll 0 dice, since Psychic Shriek is an Assault 0 Witchfire that resolves its effect regardless of whether it hits the target or not.

 Ond Angel wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.

Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"

It's even worse from a nerative viewpoint (which is incredibly ironic given the whole "forge a nerative" bullsh*t GW dumps on whoever criticizes their rules)- by placing fortifications first and terrain second you're essentially saying construction crews came and built a defensive emplacement in an empty open plain and then geology happened...

It's stupid enough when you have to make believe that some imperial commander decided to erect a defensive position in the middle of nowhere followed by some architect who reached the conclusion it'll be a particularly bright idea to build the administratum building right in front of that quad gun, but placing a hill/rock formation there that's tall enough to render the thing useless basically means your army had to travel hundreds of thousands if not millions of years back in time in order to build that ADL...

Seriously, from both a nerative and game rules perspective you'd have to be a real idiot to write up this terrain setup order, and I'm being both generous and rather mild with my terminology here.

As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.

 Leonus wrote:
As the first thing my group does is set up an attractive board, regardless of the terrain placing rules, I never realized quite how idiotic the real rules are. Glad we house rule that to place fortifications after terrain.

I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.

I do not recall anyone ever complaining.

 Galorian wrote:
I usually just grab what terrain pieces fit the board and try to set them up in a way that would be roughly symmetric in practical terms (though often looks quite distinct), oftentimes before my opponent even arrives.

I do not recall anyone ever complaining.

Rolling for deployment type and table-end usually sorts that out.
Also, IIRC, players get to rearrange the terrain before the game starts anyway.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW is British. They write like Brits.

I object to this. :p I am quite capable of writing a tight, concise ruleset for a game with all my British spelling and use of language.

You can object all you like, but they write in a way that feels very stereotypically British. And it's not just the spelling, it's the word choice. All in all the only way it could feel more British is if my rulebooks came with a complimentary cup of tea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ond Angel wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.

Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"

And that's why both players need to be happy with final terrain placement before you start.

 Ond Angel wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)

Why would someone want to do that?
O.o

I don't know, but on some forum somewhere I recall a question about putting an ADL inside of Ruins.

 Galorian wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.

Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.
"

It's even worse from a nerative viewpoint (which is incredibly ironic given the whole "forge a nerative" bullsh*t GW dumps on whoever criticizes their rules)- by placing fortifications first and terrain second you're essentially saying construction crews came and built a defensive emplacement in an empty open plain and then geology happened...

It's stupid enough when you have to make believe that some imperial commander decided to erect a defensive position in the middle of nowhere followed by some architect who reached the conclusion it'll be a particularly bright idea to build the administratum building right in front of that quad gun, but placing a hill/rock formation there that's tall enough to render the thing useless basically means your army had to travel hundreds of thousands if not millions of years back in time in order to build that ADL...

Seriously, from both a nerative and game rules perspective you'd have to be a real idiot to write up this terrain setup order, and I'm being both generous and rather mild with my terminology here.

Just forge a narrative The construction crew obviously got lost in the warp.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW is British. They write like Brits.

I object to this. :p I am quite capable of writing a tight, concise ruleset for a game with all my British spelling and use of language.

You can object all you like, but they write in a way that feels very stereotypically British. And it's not just the spelling, it's the word choice. All in all the only way it could feel more British is if my rulebooks came with a complimentary cup of tea.

I am offensive and I also find this to be very British.

You want a cuppa, mate?
:3

WAITWAITWAIT.
So your books all have our British spellings?
I did wonder about that, actually.

ClockworkZion wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ond Angel wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:-You deploy fortifications before deploying terrain.

Don't remind me.
-.-
That rule can be really stupid.
"You've set up your ADL? Okay, I'll block it with this, and this, and this.

And that's why both players need to be happy with final terrain placement before you start.

That is true.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:-Terrain needs to be at least 3" away from other terrain (so no, you can't put an ADL inside of a Ruin)

Why would someone want to do that?
O.o

I don't know, but on some forum somewhere I recall a question about putting an ADL inside of Ruins.

....
...
Wha...?
I just don't even...
<.<




Automatically Appended Next Post:
- Dedicated Transports being separate units from their own unit.
- FA and HS Dedicated Transports score in Scouring/Big Guns respectively.

 Ond Angel wrote:

I am offensive and I also find this to be very British.

You want a cuppa, mate?
:3

Actually I enjoy tea myself (I've sworn off soda and coffee just gives me heart burn). No lumps, no milk, just tea.

 Ond Angel wrote:
WAITWAITWAIT.
So your books all have our British spellings?
I did wonder about that, actually.

Yes, it's "Power Armour" here too.

On the subject of terrain, I much prefer the 5th edition way that things worked. You set up terrain so that both you and your opponent are happy, and THEN roll off to pick sides. You would have to put of fortifications after picking sides and deploying terrain for this version, but it created a far more balanced game because you had to make sure both sides were about equal. (So you wouldn't be screwed over by getting the wrong side.)

Ond Angel wrote:So your books all have our British spellings?

Even FFG's RPG books call it "Armour of Contempt".

And yet we have Khorne Berzerker rather than Khorne Berserkers.