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.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.

They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.

But why is it that Space Marines are able to get this army wide and even confer it to non marine units?
Why are Crisis suits lead by a commander thrown into complete disarray and over run by cultist while a few tactical marines can turn back around and fight a Carnifex that just ate the rest of their squad?
I agree that there is a reason fluff wise on why they would have it. I disagree that fluffwise no other units would get these benefits.

Oh, I never said that it should be exclusive to Space Marines.

Some kind of 'controlled retreat' USR should be implemented, and its mechanic removed from ATSKNF.

 Ascalam wrote:
The word is pronounced 'egreeeegious' (egregious for spelling) - egress means exit.

I also get tired of ATSKNF sillyiness, but that's GW for you

Sorry, it's still early for and my brain didn't recognize that spellcheck was offering the wrong word.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

That they resist sweeping advances is because they make fighting retreats, fully aware of their surroundings and ready to counter any blow that would try to intercept their retreat.

They run just as fast as everyone else, but their retreat is stable rather than panicked.

But why is it that Space Marines are able to get this army wide and even confer it to non marine units?
Why are Crisis suits lead by a commander thrown into complete disarray and over run by cultist while a few tactical marines can turn back around and fight a Carnifex that just ate the rest of their squad?
I agree that there is a reason fluff wise on why they would have it. I disagree that fluffwise no other units would get these benefits.

Oh, I never said that it should be exclusive to Space Marines.

Some kind of 'controlled retreat' USR should be implemented, and its mechanic removed from ATSKNF.

Now this I can get behind.

I'm so glad that so many have these thoughts about And They Shall Know No Fear.

people talking about ATSKNF usually falls into one of two categories from what I've seen.
One side hates all the benefits it has for a 1pt upgrade and how no others get access to a fraction of the benefits.
-Compare ATSKNF to Vet of the Long War or Bonding Ritual. Both 1pt upgrades and one clearly stands out as more all around useful.

The other side just doesn't see the benefit to it and says it generally doesn't come into play much. Some have played games without it to show that it's just not needed.
I can actually see this, since a majority of the time I try to kill every last marine possible since I know they will just regroup and contest an objective. So if you're treating marines like they have it and putting in effort to kill them instead of just trying to run them off the board, then it probably won't make much difference.

I also hate it because it makes killing the squad leaders less important. You test on a slightly lower leadership and if you fail... well you'll get right back in the fight.

Once in 5th edition I played a game against a guy who worked in a game store and owned two 40k armies. At one point I moved a Basilisk and fired the gun directly in the subsequent shooting phase. Not everyone knew you could fire ordnance barrage weapons directly in that edition but that wasn't what he complained about. He said, "You can move and fire ordnance now?" Yes, yes you can move and fire ordnance now. You could do it in the previous edition too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:
The word is pronounced 'egreeeegious' (egregious for spelling) - egress means exit.

I also get tired of ATSKNF sillyiness, but that's GW for you

Sorry, it's still early for and my brain didn't recognize that spellcheck was offering the wrong word.

It's all good, but how often do i get to misquote Capt. Jack

'Couldn't resist, mate...'

 Ascalam wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:
The word is pronounced 'egreeeegious' (egregious for spelling) - egress means exit.

I also get tired of ATSKNF sillyiness, but that's GW for you

Sorry, it's still early for and my brain didn't recognize that spellcheck was offering the wrong word.

It's all good, but how often do i get to misquote Capt. Jack

'Couldn't resist, mate...'

I didn't drink last night and I still want to say "Why is all the rum gone?" so I know the feeling. Just one of those days that I'm not 100% I suppose.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

And "colour". And because I have been playing off and on for 20 years…i use those spellings at work in my reports. I will normally mutter, "it's the British spelling."

I am currently resisting the urge to go on a rant about the standardisation of the English language and the correct way to spell things.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am currently resisting the urge to go on a rant about the standardisation of the English language and the correct way to spell things.

See that's the thing, American English is the result of our country absorbing all the tired, weary and poor from everywhere else (to include the heavily illiterate...something that hasn't changed too much it seems) as well as every language they speak. Not to mention we had a long time of little direct influence from Jolly Ol' England (thanks to that whole revolution thing) so our English went one way, and theirs another.

Spelling and word choice aside, English is a horrible language that requires a lot of words to be extremely precise, even more so when trying to limit yourself to the most common words used as to not potentially lose your readers.

You cannot take feel no pain against insta-kill!

Dark Angels don't get back up from a S10 AP2 demolisher blast!

Common things my group gets wrong.

We generally ignore night fight rules.
We set up terrain however we feel like, nobody uses fortifications usually, but if they do they'd be placed after terrain.
We always forget soul blaze and awkwardly 50% of our group is some flavour of Chaos.

 TheSilo wrote:
You cannot take feel no pain against insta-kill!

Dark Angels don't get back up from a S10 AP2 demolisher blast!

And the related, Eternal Warrior doesn't mean you get to take FnP against Instant Death.

Chrysis wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
You cannot take feel no pain against insta-kill!

Dark Angels don't get back up from a S10 AP2 demolisher blast!

And the related, Eternal Warrior doesn't mean you get to take FnP against Instant Death.

^Damn, beat me to it!
XD
I have had the same guy try to insist he gets FNP against my S10 AP<whatever> weapon because he's got EW.

Also; The same guy used to insist (as did a number of others) that they get FNP before my force weapon vaporises his ***** ass. (Y'know, assuming my librarian *doesn't* have an aneurysm trying to activate it.)
(That's not me being an ass to them, that's just the way we talk to each other. Friendly insults. )

Edit: Had this one the other day; You don't pile in if you can't make it into base to base or 2" of a friendly model's base. (This was them saying it.)

 Ond Angel wrote:
Edit: Had this one the other day; You don't pile in if you can't make it into base to base or 2" of a friendly model's base. (This was them saying it.)

If you're not in 2", you're not in coherency.
It happens in cc as models die, but it if happens in the initial charge, someone's got to hold back IIRC.

 Happyjew wrote:
. Besides, in America it is spelled "berserk" not "berzerk".

The correct spelling is ofc "bärsärk". :-)

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
Edit: Had this one the other day; You don't pile in if you can't make it into base to base or 2" of a friendly model's base. (This was them saying it.)

If you're not in 2", you're not in coherency.
It happens in cc as models die, but it if happens in the initial charge, someone's got to hold back IIRC.

We were locked in combat. I'm talking about piling in at initiative step.
And I should have worded it clearer, I meant

or 2" of a friendly model's base that's in base to base

(Bold is what I added)
I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.

 Ond Angel wrote:
I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.

 Galorian wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.

Is that a facepalm to me? Am I missing something? (I tend to miss things, sorry.)

Edit; I realise I get attacks, but I meant I don't get attacks with certain models. (Trying to avoid posting the entire rule)

 Savageconvoy wrote:
people talking about ATSKNF usually falls into one of two categories from what I've seen.
One side hates all the benefits it has for a 1pt upgrade and how no others get access to a fraction of the benefits.
-Compare ATSKNF to Vet of the Long War or Bonding Ritual. Both 1pt upgrades and one clearly stands out as more all around useful.

The other side just doesn't see the benefit to it and says it generally doesn't come into play much. Some have played games without it to show that it's just not needed.
I can actually see this, since a majority of the time I try to kill every last marine possible since I know they will just regroup and contest an objective. So if you're treating marines like they have it and putting in effort to kill them instead of just trying to run them off the board, then it probably won't make much difference.

I also hate it because it makes killing the squad leaders less important. You test on a slightly lower leadership and if you fail... well you'll get right back in the fight.

just gonna add, VotLW, its not always 1 point... the better the model type the more you pay.... very tedious

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.

Is that a facepalm to me? Am I missing something? (I tend to miss things, sorry.)

Edit; I realise I get attacks, but I meant I don't get attacks with certain models. (Trying to avoid posting the entire rule)

I think it was a facepalm in your favor, because that's nonsense.

Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?

For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.

 Happyjew wrote:
Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?

For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.

But you do have to be within 3" as measured from the hull (pg 71 and pg 80, as the base is basically just there to hold it up, much like a skimmer is held up by the large flying base) and generally the model is going to be 5" off the table so that objective needs to be 2" tall or on the second floor of a building (or above) for it to work.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?

For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.

But you do have to be within 3" as measured from the hull (pg 71 and pg 80, as the base is basically just there to hold it up, much like a skimmer is held up by the large flying base) and generally the model is going to be 5" off the table so that objective needs to be 2" tall or on the second floor of a building (or above) for it to work.

is correct fortunately the helldrakes wings can hang to an inch off the table top

GuardRalph wrote:

And "colour". And because I have been playing off and on for 20 years…i use those spellings at work in my reports. I will normally mutter, "it's the British spelling."

Haha. I use inches and centimetres freely interchangeably because even though we're supposed to be metric over here, GW uses inches in everything except BFG.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am currently resisting the urge to go on a rant about the standardisation of the English language and the correct way to spell things.

See that's the thing, American English is the result of our country absorbing all the tired, weary and poor from everywhere else (to include the heavily illiterate...something that hasn't changed too much it seems) as well as every language they speak. Not to mention we had a long time of little direct influence from Jolly Ol' England (thanks to that whole revolution thing) so our English went one way, and theirs another.

Spelling and word choice aside, English is a horrible language that requires a lot of words to be extremely precise, even more so when trying to limit yourself to the most common words used as to not potentially lose your readers.

Actually, interestingly enough, American English is a lot closer to Old English than British English is. For example, England used to be criss-crossed by highways, but when we adopted the car wholesale we started calling them motorways instead. The most obvious difference (the dropped 'u') is because of independent development - when America were left to fend for themselves, spelling was still mostly considered optional.

Happyjew wrote:Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?

For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.

Well, in a way, they're kind of right. Not because of the rules, of course, but it's very difficult to maintain a hold on an objective when you're obligated to move 18" every turn.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?

For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.

Well, in a way, they're kind of right. Not because of the rules, of course, but it's very difficult to maintain a hold on an objective when you're obligated to move 18" every turn.

Except for the Mysterious Objective bonuses, the only time controlling an objective matters is at the end of the game, at which point the Flyer is not moving anymore.

Well the other thing about Flyers is that they can't contest objectives (vehicle aren't contesting units) and can't score without special mission types or characters that make them scoring (but they still don't contest in that case).

 Leonus wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
I know you don't get attacks, but you still get to pile in. He only let me pile in models that would get attacks, taking the rest of my unit out of coherency.

Is that a facepalm to me? Am I missing something? (I tend to miss things, sorry.)

Edit; I realise I get attacks, but I meant I don't get attacks with certain models. (Trying to avoid posting the entire rule)

I think it was a facepalm in your favor, because that's nonsense.

*ding* *ding* *ding*

WE HAVE A WINNER!

You, sir, win one internet!

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Did I mention I have to constantly correct people that Flyers (when scoring) do not have to be in Hover mode to control an objective?

For some reason, every time this comes up, they always say you must be in Hover mode, it is in the rules. And then I tell them to show me the rule. And they can't.

But you do have to be within 3" as measured from the hull (pg 71 and pg 80, as the base is basically just there to hold it up, much like a skimmer is held up by the large flying base) and generally the model is going to be 5" off the table so that objective needs to be 2" tall or on the second floor of a building (or above) for it to work.

is correct fortunately the helldrakes wings can hang to an inch off the table top

Good thing wings are not considered part of the hull then.
You cant score from them, nor can you fire your baleflamer from them, or aim AT them if thats all the LoS you have (if the wing itself hides the hull though, you can shoot.)
Its considered "bling" just like a needlessly large sword held high, or some high base.