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.

Byte, please note the following is made without the new rulebook. If anything is incorrect, please let me know.

I have permission to disembark from a vehicle, counting as having moved. Right?
I have permission to declare a charge against a unit within range and line of sight (assuming I did not Run, or target a different unit), correct?
Where is the denial that prevents me from doing something I have basic permissions for?

 cormadepanda wrote:
I can't find anywhere it says you can't charge out of a transport. Ignoring the assault vech. rule which clearly states it, for a non assault it is not listed or I cant find it.

Since page 81, Dismebarking Restrictions, left hand column, 1st paragraph gives it clearly that it's only assault vehicles, then you can't assault from rhinos & such.

What cormadepanda's sarcastic response is meant to convey, is that 40k, like most games, is a 'Permissive Rule Set', that is, you can only do what is stated you can do.

Let's apply this logic.

It doesn't say I *can't* take a Stanley hammer and use it once per turn and wap an enemy model, if I crush it, it is removed as a casualty. So, can I actually do that?


Ergo, go with only what the rules say you *can* do.

 cormadepanda wrote:
Could this mean we can charge out of our rhinos and things again?

So, nope.

This rule/game mechanic has not changed.

 Happyjew wrote:
Byte, please note the following is made without the new rulebook. If anything is incorrect, please let me know.

I have permission to disembark from a vehicle, counting as having moved. Right?
I have permission to declare a charge against a unit within range and line of sight (assuming I did not Run, or target a different unit), correct?
Where is the denial that prevents me from doing something I have basic permissions for?

I can't believe I'm still talking about this. I understand you don't have your book with you HJew. It's just amazing what folks will try to justify.

1. Yes.

2. No. Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

3. Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

P81 - disembarkation restrictions. "but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent assault phase"

Edit - Ninja'd

 Leonus wrote:
Exploding vehicles did str 4 hits before as well, should remove that one.

6e exploding Transports did Str4 hits to the unit inside, Str3 hits to everything else. It has changed.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Leonus wrote:
Exploding vehicles did str 4 hits before as well, should remove that one.

6e exploding Transports did Str4 hits to the unit inside, Str3 hits to everything else. It has changed.

Correct, details... details...

So Leonus, you played Str4 blast in 6th? tisk tisk.

 Byte wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Byte, please note the following is made without the new rulebook. If anything is incorrect, please let me know.

I have permission to disembark from a vehicle, counting as having moved. Right?
I have permission to declare a charge against a unit within range and line of sight (assuming I did not Run, or target a different unit), correct?
Where is the denial that prevents me from doing something I have basic permissions for?

I can't believe I'm still talking about this. I understand you don't have your book with you HJew. It's just amazing what folks will try to justify.

1. Yes.

2. No. Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

3. Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

It's not that I don't have the book with me. I don't have the book at all. I was going off what little information I had, from the thread. Now that I know the rules do prohibit it, I will stop arguing it.

 Happyjew wrote:
It's not that I don't have the book with me. I don't have the book at all. I was going off what little information I had, from the thread. Now that I know the rules do prohibit it, I will stop arguing it.

Not in your paws, day one of release?

For shame, sir. Turn in your 40k Fanboy card. Put your models on ebay and start playing Warma-something. Immediately.

 Byte wrote:

2. No. Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

Posting this as your first response, rather than the snarkiness, would have been far more helpful.

It's a new ruleset and people are still figuring it out. So if someone has got something wrong, it would be nice if people could assume that they've just missed the relevant rule rather than that they are trying to game the system.

 insaniak wrote:

 Byte wrote:

2. No. Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

Posting this as your first response, rather than the snarkiness, would have been far more helpful.

It's a new ruleset and people are still figuring it out. So if someone has got something wrong, it would be nice if people could assume that they've just missed the relevant rule rather than that they are trying to game the system.

Good point.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It's not that I don't have the book with me. I don't have the book at all. I was going off what little information I had, from the thread. Now that I know the rules do prohibit it, I will stop arguing it.

Not in your paws, day one of release?

For shame, sir. Turn in your 40k Fanboy card. Put your models on ebay and start playing Warma-something. Immediately.

Hey some of us are broke until next week when we get a nice fat paycheck (40 hours plus 8 hours overtime plus 8 hours holiday).

What about the change on Smash now? could you please add that to the list?
or the difference on large blast? (let's say molock?) that if you go striclty by the blast rule it has the ability to hit ruins in multiple levels.

 Happyjew wrote:
Hey some of us are broke until next week when we get a nice fat paycheck (40 hours plus 8 hours overtime plus 8 hours holiday).

That's what plastic is for! Pay later.

But, I feel for you, for once I was there and I understand. Besides, HJ, if I can't come to you to figure out something that doesn't make sense to me (or can't find), what else am I going to do? You're my Go-To man.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Hey some of us are broke until next week when we get a nice fat paycheck (40 hours plus 8 hours overtime plus 8 hours holiday).

That's what plastic is for! Pay later.

But, I feel for you, for once I was there and I understand. Besides, HJ, if I can't come to you to figure out something that doesn't make sense to me (or can't find), what else am I going to do? You're my Go-To man.

Ask nos or rigeld. I mean come on, who do you think I go to, insaniak?

 Celtic Strike wrote:

VEHICLES:
- Pivoting now happens from the centre point of the model, not its edge to prevent extra movement [/b]

Again, this is not a change. It's worked this way since 3rd edition. It is the reason you get extra movement.

The center of a Raider is much closer to the side than the front. When you pivot about the center, the front gets much more movement.

But in all seriousness, I could buy it on tuesday, as for americans at least, monday is a bank holiday.

Hey dude! nice summary, super useful for quick reference.

Adding these for suggestion:
Chariot profile changed: (Acts like infantry in assault, can be locked in combat, accept challenges, player controlling chariot allocates if shots hit are allocated to rider or chariot) - p86-87 7e)

Template weapons damage passengers in buildings (if shooting through fire point) and open top vehicles. D6 hits at weapon S and AP, randomly allocated. (No escape rule, p173 7e)

Removed reserve cap of half your total units (Preparing reserves: p135 7e, p124 6e)

Poison did change. Before you got re-rolls if your melee weapons strength is equal to or greater than targets toughness, now it has to be greater than. No re-rolls on Shooting weapons though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poison did change. Before you got re-rolls if your melee weapons strength is equal to or greater than targets toughness, now it has to be greater than. No re-rolls on Shooting weapons though.

Let's get back on track guys. I played two games today with my eldar. Since detachments are unlimited now I just spammed Farseers on bikes and foot Spiritseers (I had the right amount of troops)

I just basically cast 'Horrify' (-3 LD)
Then Psychic shrike (3D6 - LD wounds with no armour or cover saves allowed) and just repeat that over and over again to kill everything on foot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

Poison did change. Before you got re-rolls if your melee weapons strength is equal to or greater than targets toughness, now it has to be greater than. No re-rolls on Shooting weapons though.

Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Celtic Strike wrote:

VEHICLES:
- Pivoting now happens from the centre point of the model, not its edge to prevent extra movement [/b]

Again, this is not a change. It's worked this way since 3rd edition. It is the reason you get extra movement.

The center of a Raider is much closer to the side than the front. When you pivot about the center, the front gets much more movement.

Right, thanks

Some things I have noticed others may have missed:

While "Area Terrain" is gone, the terrain data sheets(which you have to write up for scratch-built terrain) give you the option via 1 of 2 rules: Ruins and Dense Thicket.

They still did not clear up what to do with a Gun emplacement that is reduced to 0 wounds(it is terrain, not a model). Obviously we still House rule it to be treated as a model(or even a wrecked vehicle) in this regard; but it would have been nice for them to explain it in the rules.

Your allies can be in either the allied detachment or another combined arms detachment(or any other detachment that GW releases in future rules), also we currently do have some other detachments available: LoW, Inquisitorial, and Fortification.

Did someone bring up Blind now having a 'one or more' clause?
Still doesn't have the proper 'model or weapon' format though, so models without a Ranged Weapon can jump on a Quadgun and Snap Shot blind around the battlefield.

 Celtic Strike wrote:

VEHICLES:
[i][b]- Vehicle damage table
- Results may not always lose a hullpoint. If a weapon effect does not specify that it loses a hull point it just takes the result and not the hull point

Pretty sure this is incorrect. Glances do a hull point of damage. Penetrations do a hull point and then roll on the table.

lokust2501 wrote:

 Celtic Strike wrote:

VEHICLES:
[i][b]- Vehicle damage table
- Results may not always lose a hullpoint. If a weapon effect does not specify that it loses a hull point it just takes the result and not the hull point

Pretty sure this is incorrect. Glances do a hull point of damage. Penetrations do a hull point and then roll on the table.

For example if a weapon states it "causes a weapon destroyed result" instead of damage then it wouldn't do a hull point as well.
Compared to something like a Grav weapon that causes an Immobilise result AND a hull point loss. In this case it specifies.
It's for the wierd and unusual weapons.

"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase."

At the start of the rules for the movement phase under Movement Distance. That stop you from pivoting to gain extra movement.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase."

At the start of the rules for the movement phase under Movement Distance. That stop you from pivoting to gain extra movement.

No it doesn't. The vehicles rules are more specific and that sentence (or a similar one) has always existed.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase."

At the start of the rules for the movement phase under Movement Distance. That stop you from pivoting to gain extra movement.

Problem is that vehicles don't measure to the base. Unless that's been changed you'd still get the extra movement. For example, a Dark Eldar Raider deployed sideways would pivot and gain the extra movement because you measured to the hull, even though the base never moved farther than the allowed distance.

Ok, true. It does state that the normal rules for bases do not apply to them, I didn't read that part lol.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."

Doesn't this tell us that we still cannot move a vehicle further than its limit, i.e. 12" for a landraider. But by deploying sideways, then pivoting and moving a full 12" I have actually moved an extra 1" or 2", therefore moving further than allowed.

Just a thought


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase."

At the start of the rules for the movement phase under Movement Distance. That stop you from pivoting to gain extra movement.

No it doesn't. The vehicles rules are more specific and that sentence (or a similar one) has always existed.

That's interesting, because in the 5th and 6th edition rule books, Movement Distance is almost exactly the same. Coincidently 7th has almost exactly the same writing as both 5th and 6th, except that one sentence is added to the end.

 Ghaz wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase."

At the start of the rules for the movement phase under Movement Distance. That stop you from pivoting to gain extra movement.

Problem is that vehicles don't measure to the base. Unless that's been changed you'd still get the extra movement. For example, a Dark Eldar Raider deployed sideways would pivot and gain the extra movement because you measured to the hull, even though the base never moved farther than the allowed distance.

Any measurements involving the measurement of distances uses the Hull instead of the base.

So a restriction on base, becomes a restriction on Hull. So yes, this rule would prevent the gaining of an inch. Vehicles don't have a seperate rule for moving and measuring, they use the normal method, with the above mentioned difference.

Just for reference can you quote the rule that says this? Won't have the money for the rulebook for a while, especially since my main focus right now is Flames of War (way easier to find a game locally).

It's says, because they don't usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distance to and from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving vehicles, measure to and from their hull.