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.

So... Next one is 2k? I am liking the extra 150 points I have to play with...

Super excited to go since it will be my first tournament since getting back into 40k! Look forward to meeting and playing against you all!

It's definitely feeling more like a "kitchen sink" tourney than usual, I'll give you that.

It's just my own fault I'm rolling SW for this instead of my nice point-efficient DE

First post has been updated

Interesting rules query: Per the BRB FAQ non infiltrating characters cannot join infiltrators during deployment and vice versa, but what if say a character wants to join them in a way that doesn't use the infiltrate rule? Like what if a non-infiltrate character wants to join a unit that has infiltrate, but I wish to choose to hold the entire unit in reserve aboard a deep striking transport? They are not deploying, not infiltrating and not outflanking, could the character join them and then they all come in with the transport together?

 gameandwatch wrote:
Interesting rules query: Per the BRB FAQ non infiltrating characters cannot join infiltrators during deployment and vice versa, but what if say a character wants to join them in a way that doesn't use the infiltrate rule? Like what if a non-infiltrate character wants to join a unit that has infiltrate, but I wish to choose to hold the entire unit in reserve aboard a deep striking transport? They are not deploying, not infiltrating and not outflanking, could the character join them and then they all come in with the transport together?

Who specifically?

So if Khan and Gaz join up with a farsight bomb who wants to be inside a Thunderhawk being transported inside a StormLord, can they come through the portal glyph and still assault turn one?

When asking the question to another, they seem to put up a persuasive argument that all joining of units by IC's is done during deployment, and thus a unit cannot be joined even if they are not deploying via the infiltrate rule, as it is not as much a rule you can turn on and off, more a permanent attribute.

Even when embarking on a transport and arriving via deep strike, the IC would still have to elect to join them during deployment thus rendering them joining impossible.

Oh well...

And to MikeFox's question, the answer is OF COURSE

 gameandwatch wrote:
Interesting rules query: Per the BRB FAQ non infiltrating characters cannot join infiltrators during deployment and vice versa, but what if say a character wants to join them in a way that doesn't use the infiltrate rule? Like what if a non-infiltrate character wants to join a unit that has infiltrate, but I wish to choose to hold the entire unit in reserve aboard a deep striking transport? They are not deploying, not infiltrating and not outflanking, could the character join them and then they all come in with the transport together?

FAQ as written, no they cannot join a unit without also possessing the infiltrate rule. They could only join the unit in game. Not sure how Travis wants to rule it.

I thought Travis ruled that GE games the rule is Infiltrate if you want to, not the BAO/LVO ruling that you have to. I still have a hard time swallowing a rule that forces you to infiltrate when you have the rule. It does not address units that have both infiltrate and scout, Frontline's ruling makes you do both, which puts you in a game standstill, where I just want to throw my dice as far as they will go.

So, my suggestion is infiltrating and Scout is voluntary, never required.

@John, be a teacher and school me.
@Casey, be a "best sportsman" and give me my at-a-boy.
@Travis, be the TO and blow the whistle on this nonsense.

 sgtpjbarker wrote:

@Casey, be a "best sportsman" and give me my at-a-boy.

You go, Paul! Screw those FLG gaming guys and power tripping rulings!


(Yes, I know FLG make their rulings along with a larger community of TOs and it's not all Reece).

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
I thought Travis ruled that GE games the rule is Infiltrate if you want to, not the BAO/LVO ruling that you have to. I still have a hard time swallowing a rule that forces you to infiltrate when you have the rule. It does not address units that have both infiltrate and scout, Frontline's ruling makes you do both, which puts you in a game standstill, where I just want to throw my dice as far as they will go.

So, my suggestion is infiltrating and Scout is voluntary, never required.

@John, be a teacher and school me.
@Casey, be a "best sportsman" and give me my at-a-boy.
@Travis, be the TO and blow the whistle on this nonsense.

I'm not saying a unit that has infiltrate must infiltrate. I think that's asinine. What I am saying is, during deployment a character without Infiltrate can't join a unit with it, even if said unit won't be infiltrating, and vice versa. At least the way the BRB FAQ from GW is worded. Personally I think it's an oversight.

The following is from the GW FAQ

"An independent character without the infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of infiltrators during deployment, and vice versa."

So blame GW. The "must infiltrate" is something different

I unfortunately have to agree with you John, and it makes me sad only because it limits certain ideas in the game. For me, I wanted to do fun stuff with nids and actually use some tyranid primes which are NEVER used, but oh well.

I see everyone's point. The 'must infiltrate' is not different, people are making the point that a crazy rule should be followed, to heck with common sense. I am glad we have a TO with both heaps of common sense and the nads to use it.

So this came from china today....

I can't wait to see what you do with it sir. Ready for April tourney or May?

Lighting inspired by Spielberg's E.T. phase, Mike?



And since it looks like, "Hey, here's stuff I'm painting/modifying/buying", here we go:



And


You can really hate the guy with the white helmet on the right. He's the sergeant/vre with Twin-Linking/Ignores Cover.

So, yes, my army is getting completed. Better.

Or as the case might be, worse. Chocolate cake, Paul?

I am on Spring Break through the 6th. So I have many later night or early day opportunities to get games in.

2k for BSB practice. Or 1850. My garage-game table is F.A.T. mat and GW terrain equipped.

I might be able to go out to GE, too. Otherwise, beers might be consumed here ...

... go ahead, Adam, there's your opening:

I can't. I'm afraid I would fail a blind test every time I look at your army.

 Brothererekose wrote:
I am on Spring Break through the 6th. So I have many later night or early day opportunities to get games in.

2k for BSB practice. Or 1850. My garage-game table is F.A.T. mat and GW terrain equipped.

I might be able to go out to GE, too. Otherwise, beers might be consumed here ...

... go ahead, Adam, there's your opening:

Where do you live KC?

 Blackmoor wrote:
Where do you live KC?

I'll PM ya.

 Brothererekose wrote:
I am on Spring Break through the 6th. So I have many later night or early day opportunities to get games in.

2k for BSB practice. Or 1850. My garage-game table is F.A.T. mat and GW terrain equipped.

I might be able to go out to GE, too. Otherwise, beers might be consumed here ...

... go ahead, Adam, there's your opening:

You're off this week? I have the one after off. I'll see if I can fit in some time, how late is too late to start a game?

*rumbles to wakefulness, reactivated by scraping servitors deep in the halls of the armory

Paul, I have in the past dealt with Infiltrating units in that way, however these days I'm less inclined to deviate heavily from the ITC... It's not perfect, but it fills the vacuum of official rulings reasonably well and by and large I agree with it. At the expense of waxing philosophical I'm probably going to align with ITC more than less as we move forward in the interest of enacting whatever measures of continuity within the community that can be achieved; until, as Johnny Rico would agree, we find something better.

Something is better than nothing, and I'm not enthusiastic about a 'wild west' time where any given event can deviate wildly in terms of rulings. We're moving forward into a very good time for the game and a lot of good players are coming back in, so I want to present as unified and clear a format and community as possible.

All that being said, The ITC is just a tool, and we all know the adages. Independent Tournament FAQs don't kill players, TOs kill players.

And, John, Casey, Allan, with every intent to chastise and bully (deal with it), you know that playing at your *F*LGS fosters the larger community , increases the profile of the game at large, and helps generate interest that translates into stronger tournament attendance, more people available for weekly gaming, and generally makes the world a better place. Playing in someone's garage is divisive, not constructive, and creates cliques. And we all know somebody has to eat the waffle.
In the end, does Casey really need more opportunities to drink?



Nevertheless, the April event looks to be another good one. I'm toying with the idea of a 'big game' on the fifth Saturday in May, format uncertain but would people be interested in that just from a schedule-availability point of view?

*edit - Speaking of ITC, in case you didn't see the poll on Frontline, vote early and vote often (thanks to everyone's inevitable multiple gmail accounts). If we're going to use the resource, we should at least have input on how it is shaped.

 disdainful wrote:
*rumbles to wakefulness, reactivated by scraping servitors deep in the halls of the armory

Paul, I have in the past dealt with Infiltrating units in that way, however these days I'm less inclined to deviate heavily from the ITC... It's not perfect, but it fills the vacuum of official rulings reasonably well and by and large I agree with it. At the expense of waxing philosophical I'm probably going to align with ITC more than less as we move forward in the interest of enacting whatever measures of continuity within the community that can be achieved; until, as Johnny Rico would agree, we find something better.

Something is better than nothing, and I'm not enthusiastic about a 'wild west' time where any given event can deviate wildly in terms of rulings. We're moving forward into a very good time for the game and a lot of good players are coming back in, so I want to present as unified and clear a format and community as possible.

All that being said, The ITC is just a tool, and we all know the adages. Independent Tournament FAQs don't kill players, TOs kill players.

And, John, Casey, Allan, with every intent to chastise and bully (deal with it), you know that playing at your *F*LGS fosters the larger community , increases the profile of the game at large, and helps generate interest that translates into stronger tournament attendance, more people available for weekly gaming, and generally makes the world a better place. Playing in someone's garage is divisive, not constructive, and creates cliques. And we all know somebody has to eat the waffle.
In the end, does Casey really need more opportunities to drink?



Nevertheless, the April event looks to be another good one. I'm toying with the idea of a 'big game' on the fifth Saturday in May, format uncertain but would people be interested in that just from a schedule-availability point of view?

*edit - Speaking of ITC, in case you didn't see the poll on Frontline, vote early and vote often (thanks to everyone's inevitable multiple gmail accounts). If we're going to use the resource, we should at least have input on how it is shaped.

So good.

Doesn't my painting make me a bully? I want to in the bully group. Dare I say we call ourselves the bully boyz....

See what I did there

If painting makes you a bully then we have to add Paul and Darrell... I mean, maybe there's an argument for Casey's paint job assaulting your eyes, but I think that's really just ironic passive-aggressive showboating, so we're still one Boy short of a squad.

 disdainful wrote:
If painting makes you a bully then we have to add Paul and Darrell... I mean, maybe there's an argument for Casey's paint job assaulting your eyes, but I think that's really just ironic passive-aggressive showboating, so we're still one Boy short of a squad.

Ahem. The army I bring is fully painted 98.31578% of the time. I even used quasi mathematics to come up with that number.

 disdainful wrote:
[i]*


All that being said, The ITC is just a tool, and we all know the adages.

I am cool with whatever you set up, you always run a awesome RTT. But that being said, ITC is just a tool.

LOL

 disdainful wrote:
[i]And, John, Casey, Allan, with every intent to chastise and bully (deal with it), you know that playing at your *F*LGS fosters the larger community , increases the profile of the game at large, and helps generate interest that translates into stronger tournament attendance, more people available for weekly gaming, and generally makes the world a better place. Playing in someone's garage is divisive, not constructive, and creates cliques. And we all know somebody has to eat the waffle.

**Whiny. Whiny, petulant, passive-aggressive little sow of a TO.**

Fine. Fine!

Fine, I'll show up for Tuesday night, club some baby seal (nicely), supporting my FLGS, foster larger community, better place, altruism taken too far, blah, blah, blah.

So, if any of you clowns are up for being stomped by Tau, this coming Tuesday night ....

But don't you dare give me grief when I head for L.B. for the 9 o'clock/Turn 3 stretch.

 disdainful wrote:
In the end, does Casey really need more opportunities to drink?

And that answers that question, huh?

...
wait, that's not right.

no, not that either ...
...
Why doesn't yakface have a drunken orki-emoticon? Maybe this one:

Or after throwing up, this one:

Just before throwing up, this one: