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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So troops ARE better at it than other units then? So yes, that would mean that there IS a penalty for not taking troops.

They are, but the margin has been vastly reduced.

Whether there is a penalty for not taking troops is debatable, and depends on the troops you have available. If your non-troops are better in other ways - e.g. if they can take more special weapons or are better in combat, then you're punished if you take troops in their place.

The question is whether you're punished more by lacking objective secured or by lacking whatever your non-troops bring.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Regardless believe what you want. I will continue to win games using some of the squishiest "worthless for the poits" troops in the game.

I guess you must also believe that you're proving something. Not sure what, really.

But there IS a margin correct? That means by definition that there IS a penalty. The extent of this penalty varies depending on the army as some armies are designed to 'win' in different ways having different strengths and weaknesses.
The question is not if your being "punished more" by one or another at all. The quesion is rules that dont make sense to "you". Some players want to have their cake and eat it too with no weaknesses in their army. I'm able to understand that my army has strengths and weaknesses that I must play to.
Am I "proving' something by winning games using units that are not designed to be "uber"/, Yes, most definately. The thing is, skill at playing the games tactics and strategy and such play a part in who wins just as the "matrhhammer" can play a part in winning games.

 EVIL INC wrote:
But there IS a margin correct? That means by definition that there IS a penalty.

Indeed, but there's also a penalty for not taking troops - in that you're usually getting less firepower, or suffering some other disadvantage.

 EVIL INC wrote:
The extent of this penalty varies depending on the army as some armies are designed to 'win' in different ways having different strengths and weaknesses.

Indeed.

 EVIL INC wrote:

The question is not if your being "punished more" by one or another at all. The quesion is rules that dont make sense to "you". Some players want to have their cake and eat it too with no weaknesses in their army. I'm able to understand that my army has strengths and weaknesses that I must play to.

That was the original question, but this had already deviated from that.

With regard to all armies having weaknesses, I thought that was what allies were for?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Which army do you play? Are ALL troop choices for that worthless? I mean no a single unit being worth taking? Are there NO, not even one roles that it would possibly play in a game? ect ect...

I play several armies.
Wolves, grey hunters are an amazing choice.
Space marines, I swap out for bikes or take min scouts. Their troops are bad.
Chaos, I swap out for noise marines.
Nids, I take min units. Troops aren't terrible, but not really as great as the rest the codex.
I don't use formations much. They aren't actively banned but most people have been playing since 2nd or 3rd around here, and don't really like formations.

 EVIL INC wrote:

And you cannot discount real life examples or examples from other games. if you want a perfectly balanced game where both sides are perfectly equal with all game pieces matching from one side to another, there is always checkers or chess.
There is no perfect game (even checkes or chess. heck even tic tac toe should ALWAYS go to the player who goes first if you sit and mathmatically figure out moves and possible moves and remember all of the possibilities.

You are strawmanning. I never asked for perfect balance, not even once. Chess isn't even perfectly balanced, white has a distinct advantage. I would like it if troops were a bit better, but I would also like it if more of my codex was viable. I have some lovely converted models that almost never see play.

 EVIL INC wrote:

The armies are not designed to be the same. Some armies are designed to rely more heavily on non-troop choices than others and the points are intentionally set up to represent this. I would say if you want to field an army of troops, you are being set up with new and tactical/strategic challenges. The question is are you up to that challenge? If not that is perfectly fine and it says nothing about you as a person. There might be a different army that it would be easier with. Just as with real life, so too it is in this game. Different forces have different strengths and weaknesses.

I can't think of an army that isn't, from a fluff point of view, designed to not include troops. You can work around it, Eldar especially could do this, but most armies are pictured with lots of their troops in play.
When you say fielding an army of troops presents new tactical challenges, I assume the challenge is hurting your opponent or surviving, since troops tend to be weaker than the other slots in most instances (not always...IG vets are really good for example).

 EVIL INC wrote:

es, I can jump on the "GW is evil" bandwagon, but even I who is likely the president of the "Anti GW Club" is forced to admit that there is no perfect game and that a more skilled or a better mathmaticianhas better chances of winning games. Especially if it is a skilled mathmatician.

I would hardly call you the president of that club, I think Martel would take that from anyone in a heartbeat, but it doesn't take a skilled mathematician to see that a lot of choices in most dexes are weaker. I believe this is the way cover works in the game, since it favors low armor save models more, who are already cheaper, and the way assault works.

thats the point. troops are just that. They are not meant to be super elites or heavies or whatnot. They are troops. gap fillers. The grunts without the specialties. They are not intended to be the ones who do the super killyness. They hunker down or advance and soak up shots.

There is no strawmanning at all. Although I see a few strands of hay sticking out of the cuffs of your sleeves. Thre is no perfect game. Accept that. I am the president of the "anti-GW club" but even I have to admit that there are aspects they get right on rare occasions.

no one is saying that there are units in the dexes that are weaker or stronger than others (that explains the straw I saw coming from your cuffs). Your claiming this as though it is a revelation. If THAT was all your wanted to point out, I coulda done it for you.

 EVIL INC wrote:
thats the point. troops are just that. They are not meant to be super elites or heavies or whatnot. They are troops. gap fillers. The grunts without the specialties. They are not intended to be the ones who do the super killyness. They hunker down or advance and soak up shots.

Right, and if they were costed correctly, you would see them taken. They shouldn't be elite destructive killers of all things, holy or unholy, but it'd be nice if I could put a large amount of troops on the table and not be handicapped. Make them a bit cheaper, up the cost of other things, whatever you wish. My army is alpha legion, and I use the Space Wolves dex because the troops in there are actually good, and I love the scouts being close combat specced. It feels Alpha Legion to me.
But now, for many armies, troops are a penalty.

 EVIL INC wrote:

There is no strawmanning at all. Although I see a few strands of hay sticking out of the cuffs of your sleeves. Thre is no perfect game. Accept that. I am the president of the "anti-GW club" but even I have to admit that there are aspects they get right on rare occasions.

I have highlighted the part where you are strawmanning, since you seem unaware of it yourself. Never have a claimed I wanted a perfectly balanced game, and you are suggesting, or flat out stating I did. Either quote where I suggested such, or admit to strawmanning...or just stop bringing up a perfectly balanced game.
We are not in third grade anymore, where the correct response to someone suggesting you are doing something wrong is "No, you are!".

Also, you can't declare yourself president. If you feel you have to, you probably aren't.

 EVIL INC wrote:

no one is saying that there are units in the dexes that are weaker or stronger than others (that explains the straw I saw coming from your cuffs). Your claiming this as though it is a revelation. If THAT was all your wanted to point out, I coulda done it for you.

I'm going to assume you meant to say "no one isn't saying", because otherwise that is an absurd statement to make in this thread.

I am not suggesting you think that all the units are equivalent in power (please, quote where I did). I am suggesting that you think troops, despite being weaker, can still be taken without penalty (your earlier argument about objective secured being better for troops suggests that).
It is not a matter of weaker or stronger, it is a matter of degree. If something is slightly weaker, fine. You can still take it for reasons (take last editions eldar codex and compare banshees to scorpions, for example) and not suffer greatly.
If something is greatly weaker, then taking it is a penalty in a competitive meta, meaning units get left on the shelf despite being fluffy or good looking models. Warp Talons are a good example.
Since you seem a little lost on my point (or you don't know what strawmanning means at all), my point is this;
In most codexes, troop choices are arguably weaker then most other choices in the codex. This leads to things like Cult troops or Biker armies being taken, which aren't the fluffiest thing in the world, and leave large parts of a collection to gather dust.

But this is wildly off topic. My original suggestion was that cover highly favors certain models over others, causing there to be a greater difference in strength that model entries have a hard time compensating for, since it is a flaw in the core rules (close combat units also have this issue).

"Costed correctly" that is a loaded phrase. if you ask 10 people what something should cost in points, you will get 15 different answers Like you, I want all of mine to be free and have all stats of ten.... nah, i only want them to be fair.

I see you know how to turn letters red. Now if you put that effort towards learning what strawmanning is, you'll be set. here is a link you may find usefull. After reading the definition, you will find that it does not apply to my statement, but it does however apply to the one you made in your last post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm glad that you changed your stance and now say "for many armies instead of all. That is good. I would go further and say for many armies taking troops CAN be a penalty if you do not intend to play towards objectives and not taking them (playing an unbound army) can be a penalty if you do.

In terms of other rules that don't make sense:

A Lord Commissar is unable to overrule a Company Commander, because of the chain of command.

Here is a list of other AM units who apparently can overrule a Company Commander:
- A regular Commissar
- A Primaris Psyker
- A Techpriest Engineer
- A Platoon Commander
- A Veteran Sergeant
- A regular Infantry Squad Sergeant
- An Ogryn Bone 'ead

Would anyone like to explain the AM Chain of Command to me?

Anyone?

Step right up...

 vipoid wrote:
In terms of other rules that don't make sense:

A Lord Commissar is unable to overrule a Company Commander, because of the chain of command.

Here is a list of other AM units who apparently can overrule a Company Commander:
- A regular Commissar
- A Primaris Psyker
- A Techpriest Engineer
- A Platoon Commander
- A Veteran Sergeant
- A regular Infantry Squad Sergeant
- An Ogryn Bone 'ead

Would anyone like to explain the AM Chain of Command to me?

Anyone?

Step right up...

LOL, I agree. Sometimes, I think its just the one with the strongest personality.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Costed correctly" that is a loaded phrase. if you ask 10 people what something should cost in points, you will get 15 different answers Like you, I want all of mine to be free and have all stats of ten .... nah, i only want them to be fair.

I see you know how to turn letters red. Now if you put that effort towards learning what strawmanning is, you'll be set. here is a link you may find usefull. After reading the definition, you will find that it does not apply to my statement, but it does however apply to the one you made in your last post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm glad that you changed your stance and now say "for many armies instead of all. That is good. I would go further and say for many armies taking troops CAN be a penalty if you do not intend to play towards objectives and not taking them (playing an unbound army) can be a penalty if you do.

If you think I have never had a debate where I have to call someone out on strawmanning, you have a very naive view of the scientific community. Not to mention the educational one.
I highlighted it again for you, since you still seem a bit lost on what it is and are unaware of when you are doing it. And are doing it more frequently.

For all intents and purposes of the debate, let's pretend unbound doesn't exist. While it is legal, by the rules, I feel it's a fair statement to say that the majority of gamers do not utilize it. On most forums, it is treated as if it is a dirty word, and my own personal gaming store doesn't allow it to be used in pickup games or tournaments. It is my understanding that most, if not all, tournaments discourage its use.

So troops don't have any benefit unless you are playing in a way that nearly nobody does, why shouldn't they be changed? While some people will disagree on points values, playtesters can be used to price everything effectively if they were used. 40k isn't a very complicated game, and anyone with more than 2 years experience can tell that some units are not costed using the same method (compare tacticals to ork boyz, the rip tide upgrade to....anything really, wave serpents to other transports).

Troops in general come out losers, it'd be nice if this wasn't the case. I'd like to run my alpha legion using the chaos dex (I have an amazing converted hydra maulerfiend and heldrake), but I have to run them as noise marines or plague marines. I could take 2 squads of cultists and leave them sitting on the backfield, but cultists for alpha legion are always described more as imperial guard esque, not word bearer raving lunatic.

My personal pet peeve:

Tanking 2+ characters that then Look Out Sir! AP2 shots. These projectiles are traveling at supersonic speeds (Lascannons would be at the speed of light, FWIW), but the grunts in the unit are able to tell which ones are dangerous and just jump in front of those bullets?

 Asmodas wrote:
My personal pet peeve:

Tanking 2+ characters that then Look Out Sir! AP2 shots. These projectiles are traveling at supersonic speeds (Lascannons would be at the speed of light, FWIW), but the grunts in the unit are able to tell which ones are dangerous and just jump in front of those bullets?

Agreed. I think you should have to decide to LoS all wounds or none of them - none of this picking and choosing nonsense.


I also think it's weird that a model who succeeds in LoS (but doesn't die) doesn't actually change position in the squad. I mean, hasn't he just pushed his commander out of the way? So, surely he should be moved in front of the character?

 Tod wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Large blast type weapons that can miss so badly as to end up behind the shooter

This.
I've had games when i've shot blast weapons at a target about 7 or so inches away, but after scatter, the blast ends up scrapping the left arm of the shooter

Sure there used to be a rule that a shot could never scatter more than half the distance between the shooting model and the aim point, avoided this very problem except at very shot ranges. Of course it tended to mean you did scatter half the distance except at decent ranges as the scatter dice never changed.

 vipoid wrote:

 Asmodas wrote:
My personal pet peeve:

Tanking 2+ characters that then Look Out Sir! AP2 shots. These projectiles are traveling at supersonic speeds (Lascannons would be at the speed of light, FWIW), but the grunts in the unit are able to tell which ones are dangerous and just jump in front of those bullets?

Agreed. I think you should have to decide to LoS all wounds or none of them - none of this picking and choosing nonsense.


I also think it's weird that a model who succeeds in LoS (but doesn't die) doesn't actually change position in the squad. I mean, hasn't he just pushed his commander out of the way? So, surely he should be moved in front of the character?

For a while, that's actually how I thought it worked. Then it was pointed out to me in game that the HQ unit didn't actually switch spots, causing me to have that exact same thought process.

Here's another one:

Tyranids never use ordinary ballistic weapons, radios, etc., but whenever they overrun an Imperial Bastion or Aegis line, the Venomthrope all of a sudden starts manning the heavy bolter and using the Comms Relay to call in... burrowing Rippers and Mawlocs? Does the Hive Mind equip its burrowers with radio earpieces "just in case?"

 Asmodas wrote:

Tyranids never use ordinary ballistic weapons, radios, etc., but whenever they overrun an Imperial Bastion or Aegis line, the Venomthrope all of a sudden starts manning the heavy bolter and using the Comms Relay to call in... burrowing Rippers and Mawlocs? Does the Hive Mind equip its burrowers with radio earpieces "just in case?"

Lol.

I've thought along similar lines in terms of Ammunition Dumps - did the hive mind leave spare Fleshborer beetles lying around? How would they even load them...?

Akiasura wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Costed correctly" that is a loaded phrase. if you ask 10 people what something should cost in points, you will get 15 different answers Like you, I want all of mine to be free and have all stats of ten .... nah, i only want them to be fair.

I see you know how to turn letters red. Now if you put that effort towards learning what strawmanning is, you'll be set. here is a link you may find usefull. After reading the definition, you will find that it does not apply to my statement, but it does however apply to the one you made in your last post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm glad that you changed your stance and now say "for many armies instead of all. That is good. I would go further and say for many armies taking troops CAN be a penalty if you do not intend to play towards objectives and not taking them (playing an unbound army) can be a penalty if you do.

If you think I have never had a debate where I have to call someone out on strawmanning, you have a very naive view of the scientific community. Not to mention the educational one.
I highlighted it again for you, since you still seem a bit lost on what it is and are unaware of when you are doing it. And are doing it more frequently.

For all intents and purposes of the debate, let's pretend unbound doesn't exist. While it is legal, by the rules, I feel it's a fair statement to say that the majority of gamers do not utilize it. On most forums, it is treated as if it is a dirty word, and my own personal gaming store doesn't allow it to be used in pickup games or tournaments. It is my understanding that most, if not all, tournaments discourage its use.

So troops don't have any benefit unless you are playing in a way that nearly nobody does, why shouldn't they be changed? While some people will disagree on points values, playtesters can be used to price everything effectively if they were used. 40k isn't a very complicated game, and anyone with more than 2 years experience can tell that some units are not costed using the same method (compare tacticals to ork boyz, the rip tide upgrade to....anything really, wave serpents to other transports).

Troops in general come out losers, it'd be nice if this wasn't the case. I'd like to run my alpha legion using the chaos dex (I have an amazing converted hydra maulerfiend and heldrake), but I have to run them as noise marines or plague marines. I could take 2 squads of cultists and leave them sitting on the backfield, but cultists for alpha legion are always described more as imperial guard esque, not word bearer raving lunatic.

Actually, my degree is in education. Secondary Education Social Studies as a matter of fact. So I am not the one who is naeve in this regard.
You have been strawmanning throughout and I did not call you out on it until you accused me of it when I was not.
Troops have multiple benefits.
1. They let you field a legal list unless you are going unbound. I dont have my book in front of me but doesnt unbound have some sort of disadvantage in terms of objectives?
2. Objective secured. They are better at claiming objectives than non-troops.
3. Depending on the army they can give different benefits. For example guard mobs with commissars can be good cheap tarpits. How usefull a squad is depends on your ability to effectively use them.
4. Often times, they can give you a heavy weapon without having to spend points on a whole heavy slot designed for multiples of it thus freeing it up for something more devastating.

If your using your troops as your "main enemy killers", chances are, your using it incorrectly.
The point is, your saying that taking them is a penelty. This statement says that there are no benefits at all.

Now, I say that they CAN be usefull at their current state. Some armies have more usefull troops than others as this is designed, but the troops of ALL armies CAN be usefull if properly played. Of course, there are outside factors that also factor in such as scenerio, opponant's army table set up and so forth.
I am also saying that points values can be altered to make them more usefull.

Personally, I can live with the current army composition charts but I feel that there are things that could make troops more usefull yet. For example, if there were no limitations on numbers of troop units while you only had a total of 4-5 other unit types units allowed (with no more than 3 of any 1. 2 in case of hq). This would stop or limit the heavy/elite/fa spam.

I would say that discussing something you think doesnt make sense would be far more useful than instigating arguments with someone who does not agree with you 100%. If you talk with and discuss in a calm manner, you can share ideas and gain insight. If, I were having trouble getting enough "bang for my buck" with my space wolf long fangs i would ask you how you effectively use them to get tips rather than flame you for saying that you find them usefull.
I'm not saying you would fall into this catagory of course, but just tossing that out there as a general statement for anyone who might find it usefull (myself included).

I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

 jreilly89 wrote:

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

You forgot Dreadknights (why does everyone forget them?).
I'd happily take an AV14 13 12 walker with 4HP any day over the current Riptide (that's what the new statline would have to be).

...with 2+ save.

SGTPozy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

You forgot Dreadknights (why does everyone forget them?).
I'd happily take an AV14 13 12 walker with 4HP any day over the current Riptide (that's what the new statline would have to be).

Forgot Dreadknights (cuz I don't play em and GK are borefests anyway), but yeah, DK should also be walkers.

Perhaps an even better solution would be to drop AVs altogether and give all vehicles toughness and saves.

You could then add something like 'living' or 'construct' to all units - with the former being susceptible to poison (but immune to Haywire and the like), and the latter being immune to poison (and similar abilities), but vulnerable to melta, haywire etc.

SGTPozy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Waaargh wrote:
I can accept the wraithlord as a MC and so a wraithknights .. but a riptide? That is very much a dreadnought equivalent and should have AV.

LoS would be so much better if it was required. Tanking is counter-intuitive from the minute it was written

They might as well say Gundam on em, because they're pretty much mechs. Wraithguard are the only ones who shouldn't be dreads, because they're closer in size to Tac marines. Wraithlords and Wraithknights should become AV in addition to Riptides. I think that would also help with the Eldar OP

You forgot Dreadknights (why does everyone forget them?).
I'd happily take an AV14 13 12 walker with 4HP any day over the current Riptide (that's what the new statline would have to be).

T6 is about on part with AV 9, bump it to like 11 because we can't have nice things.

 vipoid wrote:
Perhaps an even better solution would be to drop AVs altogether and give all vehicles toughness and saves.

You could then add something like 'living' or 'construct' to all units - with the former being susceptible to poison (but immune to Haywire and the like), and the latter being immune to poison (and similar abilities), but vulnerable to melta, haywire etc.

I think I broke my mouse-button exalting this.

 EVIL INC wrote:


1. They let you field a legal list unless you are going unbound. I dont have my book in front of me but doesnt unbound have some sort of disadvantage in terms of objectives?

I don't think "necessary to play the game" should be a point in their favor. That's why people call them a burdensome tax.

And yeah, you're strawmanning pretty heavily.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

I think I broke my mouse-button exalting this.

Easy there Hulk.

But yeah, I agree with the vehicle/MC stuff. Would simplify the game, help with balance, and retain most, if not all, of the flavour.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:


1. They let you field a legal list unless you are going unbound. I dont have my book in front of me but doesnt unbound have some sort of disadvantage in terms of objectives?

I don't think "necessary to play the game" should be a point in their favor. That's why people call them a burdensome tax.

And yeah, you're strawmanning pretty heavily.

Also, it's not really a disadvantage if your opponent has troops and you don't if you have the firepower to wipe out their troops with little difficulty.

It would be like Tau vs Necrons where the Tau player brings Railgun Hammerheads and pathfinders and the the Necron player brings lots of Necron Warriors on foot.

The Necron player has more troops so should be able to win on objectives, right? Well, not if his units keep getting deleted by ignores cover S6 AP4 large blasts...

Strawmanning to say that troops could be made "better" by tweaking the points values. Huh, whoda thunk it (actually, you cant just change the definition of a word so you can call people you dont like that name when the actual definition does not apply). ya ever stop to think that I actually think that tweaking the points values and possibly working on them in other ways would make them more effective? I notice you have not made that accusation against anyone else in the thread who has expressed the exact same opinion. Likely because it was no more so for them than it was for me.

Troops should be the backbone of an army. the way the force org chart is set up is a little unrealistic. Elites should be more rare as should the other specialist unit types such as fast attack and heavy. As specialist units they should be fewer in number IMO.
A few ways to alter would be to
-make them 0-2 instead of 0-3
- allow 5 "specialist units in an army with no more than 2 of any one kind
-allow 0-3 in one, 0-2 in a 2nd one and 0-1 in the 3rd
-other possible variations.
(in doing these, allow troops a wider variety of weapon options such as a marine tc squad having the option of switchin a special weapon for a 2nd heavy or the heavy for a 2nd special.)

SGTPozy wrote:
How exactly does Mark of Nurgle grant you +1T? It makes no sense how rotting can make you tougher.

Rotting isn't the mark of Nurgle, it's only a side-effect of it.
Anyway, Chaos!
You're rotting to help foster new life (maggots), but as Nurgle loves all life, you are also protected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamerely wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
I hate how AM orders work with Vox Casters. Unless these are cans tied together with string, distance should not matter with radios.

I originally thought that's what they did. That, if the commander had a vox, and the unit had a vox, he could cast orders regardless of the distance. That would be so awesome.

the Militarum Tempestus codex explains this by saying that beyond that range, the cr**py great the IG gets means that "interference" (ie noise, bolter fire, smoke, ennemy yells, the phases of the moon... - Anything really, even the Creed's cat sneezing back on Terra) messes up your transition, and nothing comes out. This is why they're called "ghost boxes".

The stupid thing id that the MT ones, which are described as soooo much better in fluff, have exactly the same rules xD

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamerely wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
I hate how AM orders work with Vox Casters. Unless these are cans tied together with string, distance should not matter with radios.

I originally thought that's what they did. That, if the commander had a vox, and the unit had a vox, he could cast orders regardless of the distance. That would be so awesome.

the Militarum Tempestus codex explains this by saying that beyond that range, the cr**py great the IG gets means that "interference" (ie noise, bolter fire, smoke, ennemy yells, the phases of the moon... - Anything really, even the Creed's cat sneezing back on Terra) messes up your transition, and nothing comes out. This is why they're called "ghost boxes".

The stupid thing id that the MT ones, which are described as soooo much better in fluff, have exactly the same rules xD

Makes you wonder how they are able to pull of an Orbital Bombardment if they can't get walkie talkies to work further than 100 yards.