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.

Saythings wrote:
Also note that in the Rulebook you cannot place Fortifications/Terrain within 3" of each other. I do not believe you'll be able to place the Quad Gun on a hill to get LOS for the scarabs.

This is only true using the (dumb) rules of "Alternating Terrain." Using the (far superiour) rules of "Narrative Terrain," there is no such restriction listed. Since tables are already set up when tournament players arrive, I would say this is much closer to "Narrative Terrain," since the players don't do anything even remotely like "Alternating Terrain."
So, players don't have to abide by a restriction that isn't there. Problem solved.

Also, I'm biased toward one type of setup...the one where your opponent can't be a dick.

I use Alternative Terrain all the time without problem, but then I play with maybe once a quarter against one of three people whom have no interest in Winning at All Costs.

It is a personal choice because I really do love the archiotechs, or whatever the spelling, and other forms of Random Terrain. These pieces have the ability to throw a spanner into any serious game plan, and because their effects are not relieved till some point during the game it is impossible to really plan for them. Not all are negative effects either, so during the Terrain Deployment stage you can't just plop them down on the enemies side of the table for a guaranteed hurdle for your opponent to overcome. Being a Jinx it normally goes against me, but it still is nice to see the terrain being more then just a cover save generator. It just gives the battle a little bit more of a flavor, because even the trees can not be trusted!

I do recognize the problem when it comes to Fortifications, centered around the fact they Deploy first, but giving your opponent the chance to show their true colors before the start of the game is not a bad thing. Knowing ahead of time that you are playing against someone whom is willing to use every Rule against you, caring not about the mutual enjoyment of both players but simply the 'thrill of victory,' means knowing your opponent just that bit better and can fathom how they are going to play against you. Hell, you might even decide at that point that wasting a few hours in a game against an opponent that has no care about your enjoyment of said game is not worth it.

Besides:
Keep three Deathstrike Missiles/Manicore Launcher looking Gun Emplacements in your bag just for these types of players....

While I know that RAW its possible to apply the ES to the quad gun, I think its clearly meant to work in the same manner as Rending. Rending on the model only impacts close combat attacks, not ranged weapons held (or used) by the model. The fact the the rule was created before fortifications were a thing causes most of the problem, but the necron codex is literally filled with these sorts of problems.

If someone wanted to pull this on me I'd just point out the RAW that a model can only fire a Quad gun insread of its own weapon. Scarabs don't have weapons so they can't fire it at all.

ClassicCarraway,
Take a look at the Blind Special Rule....

While I agree that re-writing the Entropic Strike to follow the three clause system other Rules have is the best solution to this problem, it is sadly not the only Rule with this issue. Blind is a 6th edition rule at that, found within the Basic Rule book, and thanks to the format used it causes the same problems. It also has additional problems all of it's own however, for example it lacks the One or More terminology that often prevents a Special Rule from being triggered multiple times in a single attack. With the right Unit, that forces so many Blind tests that your guaranteed that the Target won't have any eyes left!

You would use the exact same rules as a piece of hill terrain your opponent and you agree is open terrain. You would use the exact same rules for obscurement from anything, 5+ cover.
There is nothing in the rules preventing terrain from being stacked to create a cooler battlescape, but the Aegis you have to take it a specific way, unless you are are using the stronghold rules for multi-fortifications. You are required to place terrain 3" from each other so you don't just make a wall so Imperial tanks can't get to your side of the board.

Here is an example of one of the tiles my place used

Where in the Rule Book is it written that being obscured from anything is a 5+ cover save?

JinxDragon wrote:
Where in the Rule Book is it written that being obscured from anything is a 5+ cover save?

Assuming that everything in the game would be the terrain or models. This is exptraloated to the tile plates due to them not being covered in the BRB and you will need to argue your grievances with your FLG

Aside from how 'discuss it with your opponent' is a poor argument to make on a rule debate forum, the closest thing in the Rules to what these pieces would be actually grants a 4+ cover save.

How would you figure a molded terrain plate would grant a 4+ cover save?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
If someone wanted to pull this on me I'd just point out the RAW that a model can only fire a Quad gun insread of its own weapon. Scarabs don't have weapons so they can't fire it at all.

Playing devil's advocate, do you also enforce that unarmed units cannot Run? eg. Hormagaunts, Spawn and Daemonettes?

No it doesn't come up as noone I know uses scarabs on a quad in an attempt to get Entropic Strike.

Running however is in lieu of firing, I see that as diffetent to firing a weapon instead of another weapon. Its pkaying on semantics which is what the OP comes down to.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
No it doesn't come up as noone I know uses scarabs on a quad in an attempt to get Entropic Strike.

Running however is in lieu of firing, I see that as diffetent to firing a weapon instead of another weapon. Its pkaying on semantics which is what the OP comes down to.

Unfortunately, without a gun, you don't have permission to fire, and without permission to fire, how do you run instead?

Both Gun Emplacements and the Run rule function almost identically.

You most certainly do have permission to fire if you don't have a gun, you just can't do anything with it.

"almost" but not quite

Uptopdownunder wrote:
You most certainly do have permission to fire if you don't have a gun, you just can't do anything with it.

"almost" but not quite

You may want to reread page 12

Nominate Unit to Shoot wrote:During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

If a unit doesn't contain a ranged weapon, they can't shoot. Since they can't shoot, they can't run by your logic for gun emplacements.

Shooting attack isn't quite firing

But more importantly the rule you quote pretty much seals the fate of scarabs firing quad guns.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Shooting attack isn't quite firing

But more importantly the rule you quote pretty much seals the fate of scarabs firing quad guns.

I would like you to explain how a shooting attack isn't firing. I would also like to know if you agree that by your argument, models without ranged weapons can't run.

It would, seal the deal, if the scarab couldn't use the quad-gun in place of it's own weapon. The scarab dose have a weapon, though it is close combat, but a weapon non the less.
However, if the 'instead' in the rule allowed a model to skip the restriction, both a scarab could shoot the quad-gun without problem and models without ranged weapons will still be able to run.

How can a scarab make a shooting attack if the unit doesn't contain a model with a ranged weapon?

 Nilok wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Shooting attack isn't quite firing

But more importantly the rule you quote pretty much seals the fate of scarabs firing quad guns.

I would like you to explain how a shooting attack isn't firing. I would also like to know if you agree that by your argument, models without ranged weapons can't run.

It would, seal the deal, if the scarab couldn't use the quad-gun in place of it's own weapon. The scarab dose have a weapon, though it is close combat, but a weapon non the less.
However, if the 'instead' in the rule allowed a model to skip the restriction, both a scarab could shoot the quad-gun without problem and models without ranged weapons will still be able to run.

'Instead of' is quite flexible wording, It can mean that in the case of running the ability to perform the action your taking in lieu of isn't required to be possible, while the in the case of the quad gun the item the model possess could be required for you to use it in lieu of.

I couldn't get my car to work so we went for a walk instead of driving to the cinema.

I can't figure out how to replicate that sentence with an item that never existed rather than action that is impossible to perform.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have the hilarious image of scarabs riding on the shells, with their entropic emitters held high, like the cowboy at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

GW is now legally obliged to make this model happen.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
If someone wanted to pull this on me I'd just point out the RAW that a model can only fire a Quad gun insread of its own weapon. Scarabs don't have weapons so they can't fire it at all.

Every model in 40k has a weapon; some simply do not have specific ranged weapons e.g. Hormagaunts. They still have their claws.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
You most certainly do have permission to fire if you don't have a gun, you just can't do anything with it.

"almost" but not quite

I can't totally agree with this.

If a model was not allowed to make a ballistic attack they wouldn't have been given a Ballistic Skill, just as if a model wasn't allowed to make a close combat attack are not given Weapon Skills ( i.e. most vehicles ). I think that it's more of a situation where such models that don't have a range weapon but do have a Ballistic Skill, are just supposed to be unlikely to make a ranged attack in the normal course of events, so they are given low Ballistic Skills to reflect that - Flayed Ones are case in point. But that is not to say that they can't or wont if the circumstances requires it.

But it goes further than that, Imperial Bastion and Fortress of Redemption, both have weapons that say absolutely nothing about which model is making the shooting attack from any of the weapons installed in them ( or that the shooting attack from them substitutes for a weapon attack from a model ) - and I'm not seeing anything that limits what or how many squads that can use them ( I will grant that it's early in the morning and I still haven't totally woken up ).

Nilok,
If we are going to give a ridge in the 'table' itself an arbitrary Cover Save value, then why shouldn't that Cover Save be the one the book describes for a nearly identical situation?

 Nilok wrote:
How would you figure a molded terrain plate would grant a 4+ cover save?

Because it's quite obviously a ridgeline and/or hill crest (see p105).

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
How would you figure a molded terrain plate would grant a 4+ cover save?

Because it's quite obviously a ridgeline and/or hill crest (see p105).

Ah, never came across that in any of my games and forgot all about that. Thanks