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.

col_impact wrote:

XC18 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Per those quoted rules, a gretchin unit with objective secured that is embarked on a Stompa will measure its objective secured 3" from the Stompa's hull.

The 1st rule you quote gives ability to a unit embarked in a building (not a vehicle) to control an objective outside the building.
A unit embarked in a vehicle (like a Stompa) still cannot control. (Usually not a problem because now vehicles can score yeah! ).
But no, stompa doesn't gain OS.

Correct. The Stompa does not gain OS. But you measure the gretchin's OS from the Stompa's hull.

Thank you. That's exactly what I thought too. It's not a dedicated transport, and the Gretchin don't give/convey/whatever Objective Secured to the Stompa.

Edit -- no, wait -- why would you measure the Objective Secured from the Stompa hull? That doesn't make sense. It's not a building. It's a transport. If the Gretchin were in a building, they would have OS. But they are in the Stompa, and not on the table. OS doesn't "project" from the Stompa like that, right?

 Cleatus wrote:

col_impact wrote:

XC18 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Per those quoted rules, a gretchin unit with objective secured that is embarked on a Stompa will measure its objective secured 3" from the Stompa's hull.

The 1st rule you quote gives ability to a unit embarked in a building (not a vehicle) to control an objective outside the building.
A unit embarked in a vehicle (like a Stompa) still cannot control. (Usually not a problem because now vehicles can score yeah! ).
But no, stompa doesn't gain OS.

Correct. The Stompa does not gain OS. But you measure the gretchin's OS from the Stompa's hull.

Thank you. That's exactly what I thought too. It's not a dedicated transport, and the Gretchin don't give/convey/whatever Objective Secured to the Stompa.

Well, that is a case of you saying tomahto and me saying tomayto. When the gretchin is embarked on the Stompa its bubble of influence for Objective Secured has been increased by the entire hull of the Stompa, so practically speaking, it is as if the Stompa itself had Objective Secured even though technically it does not.

If the gretchin granted the Stompa Objective Secured the only difference would be that the combined unit could score two objectives, which IS a notable difference.

I think you are confused: what makes you think a unit can control an objective from inside a vehicle in the first place?

It can't. There is simply no rule for that.

also only a "model" can hold objectives...embarked units in transports do not have models on the board (at least that is how everyone embarks units in trasnports, they remove the models from the board) (correct me if im wrong on this).

 Cleatus wrote:


Edit -- no, wait -- why would you measure the Objective Secured from the Stompa hull? That doesn't make sense. It's not a building. It's a transport. If the Gretchin were in a building, they would have OS. But they are in the Stompa, and not on the table. OS doesn't "project" from the Stompa like that, right?

This rule tells me how to measure distances for embarked units.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

XC18 wrote:
I think you are confused: what makes you think a unit can control an objective from inside a vehicle in the first place?

It can't. There is simply no rule for that.

This rule gives me explicit permission. If the objective is within 3" of the Stompa's hull then it is secured by the OS gretchin.

col_impact, this isn't tomato tomahto. There is no "bubble of influence". Does the Stompa have Objective Secured? No. Models inside of transports cannot control objectives. (Also, it would be really nice if you would quote page numbers, but I digress...)

This really belongs in YMDC.

please enlighten us to where this rule of yours is stated in the rulebook, for all we know you are getting it from the 6th edition rulebook. give us a page number, chapter title, section name.....litteraly anything so we can look up this rule ourselves.

 Cleatus wrote:
col_impact, this isn't tomato tomahto. There is no "bubble of influence". Does the Stompa have Objective Secured? No. Models inside of transports cannot control objectives. (Also, it would be really nice if you would quote page numbers, but I digress...)

This really belongs in YMDC.

Where does it say that a model inside a transport cannot control objectives?

I have a rule that allows me to measure distance with regards to an embarked unit from the vehicle's hull. With that permission, the burden is on you to show restriction.

I found it, BRB p80, transports, under the Embarking and Disembarking, Embarking sub-heading (good grief). That has nothing to do with controlling objectives or Objective Secured.

 Cleatus wrote:
I found it, BRB p80, transports, under the Embarking and Disembarking, Embarking sub-heading (good grief). That has nothing to do with controlling objectives or Objective Secured.

It has to do with measuring distances with regards to the embarked unit.

When you check to see if the embarked unit is controlling an objective, you measure 3" from the hull of vehicle that unit is embarked upon.

col_impact wrote:

 Cleatus wrote:
col_impact, this isn't tomato tomahto. There is no "bubble of influence". Does the Stompa have Objective Secured? No. Models inside of transports cannot control objectives. (Also, it would be really nice if you would quote page numbers, but I digress...)

This really belongs in YMDC.

Where does it say that a model inside a transport cannot control objectives?

I have a rule that allows me to measure distance with regards to an embarked unit from the vehicle's hull. With that permission, the burden is on you to show restriction.

this "restriction" is the rule you quoted on page 134 where it states models hold objectives (admittedly you didnt tell us the page you found this rule, but considering you contempt of providing page numbers i had to find it...now only if you would provide the page number or something for another rule...hint hint).

col_impact wrote:

 Cleatus wrote:
I found it, BRB p80, transports, under the Embarking and Disembarking, Embarking sub-heading (good grief). That has nothing to do with controlling objectives or Objective Secured.

It has to do with measuring distances with regards to the embarked unit.

When you check to see if the embarked unit is controlling an objective, you measure 3" from the hull of vehicle that unit is embarked upon.

This quote has to do with measuring the distance from the vehicle's hull with regards to the unit embarking on to the transport. You are taking it out of context.

This issue has already been discussed on YMDC and has been the way people have been playing it for quite some time. I am surprised to have to school people on it. The rule interaction accounts for how a Ghost Ark (with warriors embarked) can objectively secure two objectives rather than just one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602834.page#6979526

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/642774.page#7724741




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cleatus wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Cleatus wrote:
I found it, BRB p80, transports, under the Embarking and Disembarking, Embarking sub-heading (good grief). That has nothing to do with controlling objectives or Objective Secured.

It has to do with measuring distances with regards to the embarked unit.

When you check to see if the embarked unit is controlling an objective, you measure 3" from the hull of vehicle that unit is embarked upon.

This quote has to do with measuring the distance from the vehicle's hull with regards to the unit embarking on to the transport. You are taking it out of context.

I am applying the correct context. It applies when you need to measure a distance with regards to the EMBARKED unit.

col_impact wrote:
This issue has already been discussed on YMDC and has been the way people have been playing it for quite some time. I am surprised to have to school people on it. The rule interaction accounts for how a Ghost Ark (with warriors embarked) can objectively secure two objectives rather than just one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602834.page#6979526

sorry to be nitpicky, but listing a single post on ymdc that only had the response of 10 or so poeple doesnt suggest that the entirety of the playerbase agrees to your rules interpretation.
i cant believe i still have to ask this question...
WHERE IS THIS RULE LISTED!

I stand corrected

In addition: i was seeing the ruling that was excluding units embarked inside a zooming flier to score, which implies that actually embarked units could score in the first place.

geargutz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue has already been discussed on YMDC and has been the way people have been playing it for quite some time. I am surprised to have to school people on it. The rule interaction accounts for how a Ghost Ark (with warriors embarked) can objectively secure two objectives rather than just one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602834.page#6979526

sorry to be nitpicky, but listing a single post on ymdc that only had the response of 10 or so poeple doesnt suggest that the entirety of the playerbase agrees to your rules interpretation.
i cant believe i still have to ask this question...
WHERE IS THIS RULE LISTED!

Another YMDC thread for you

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/642774.page#7724741

col_impact wrote:

geargutz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue has already been discussed on YMDC and has been the way people have been playing it for quite some time. I am surprised to have to school people on it. The rule interaction accounts for how a Ghost Ark (with warriors embarked) can objectively secure two objectives rather than just one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602834.page#6979526

sorry to be nitpicky, but listing a single post on ymdc that only had the response of 10 or so poeple doesnt suggest that the entirety of the playerbase agrees to your rules interpretation.
i cant believe i still have to ask this question...
WHERE IS THIS RULE LISTED!

Another YMDC thread for you

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/642774.page#7724741

OK, you have another ymdc post, and ill guess for now you have other threads you can quote...but seeing as to how you cant quote a rule (quoteing in that you provide a page number or something to back the quote) then ill just have to conclude that neither you or me are correct, if we play ill suggest a dice role to see what happens.

lets see if we can get this thread back on track...how about dem orkz? i heerz they aint so tough these days...
...nd yes i realize i was the one who started this argument, but seeing as to how its going nowhere then ill accept my fault...i just want to talk about orks again.

Col_Impact is correct. You can secure an objective from inside a non-objective secured transport as long as the models inside have objective secured. The rules he quoted are relevant and comprehensive, if a little counter-intuitive. It works like this:

1) I have an objective: secured unit and would like to control objective 3

2) are any models within 3" of objective 3 from said unit?

3) they are inside a transport, so how do I know if they're within 3" or not?

4) is any part of the transport's hull within 3" of the objective?

5) yes part of it is

6) therefore, so too is the unit inside of the transport for scoring purposes

The rule that Col_Impact quoted about how to measure distances to a unit embarked inside a transport is why this is allowed. And yes, it's really not even contentious, which is why there's not a big thread on it. It's simply how the rules work. I've never even seen anyone play it differently, and you can bet your bottom dollar that that is exactly how any reputable event would play it

geargutz wrote:

col_impact wrote:

geargutz wrote:

col_impact wrote:
This issue has already been discussed on YMDC and has been the way people have been playing it for quite some time. I am surprised to have to school people on it. The rule interaction accounts for how a Ghost Ark (with warriors embarked) can objectively secure two objectives rather than just one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/602834.page#6979526

sorry to be nitpicky, but listing a single post on ymdc that only had the response of 10 or so poeple doesnt suggest that the entirety of the playerbase agrees to your rules interpretation.
i cant believe i still have to ask this question...
WHERE IS THIS RULE LISTED!

Another YMDC thread for you

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/642774.page#7724741

OK, you have another ymdc post, and ill guess for now you have other threads you can quote...but seeing as to how you cant quote a rule (quoteing in that you provide a page number or something to back the quote) then ill just have to conclude that neither you or me are correct, if we play ill suggest a dice role to see what happens.

lets see if we can get this thread back on track...how about dem orkz? i heerz they aint so tough these days...
...nd yes i realize i was the one who started this argument, but seeing as to how its going nowhere then ill accept my fault...i just want to talk about orks again.

I am correct because I have the rules on my side and the fact that it's been the way people have been playing it for quite some time. If you want to challenge me on that then feel free to post a thread on YMDC. Roll-offs are not required when one side has rules justification and the other side does not.

You can find the main rule in EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING section.

I think people are confused because 6th edition played it differently. Here are the 6th edition rules which are no longer in the 7th edition rule book




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yeah a 400 point Stompa is a big deal.

And embarking objective secured gretchin on it is a cheap awesome upgrade.

And embarking cheap Meks on it for stackable hull point repair is also awesome.

And embarking a Big Mek with MFF on it for 4++ invul against shooting is crazy awesome.

Easy guys. No need to resort to caps.

col_impact, thank you for linking those threads from YMDC. That helps. In the future, it would help if you gave the page numbers of the rules you were quoting, please. I think you have a point about the 6th vs 7th ed rules... but then again, honestly, I can see why people would be confused on this point. I can see both sides. In truth, I'm not sure I've ever even had it come up in a game. *shrug*

luke1705, thank you for your explanation as well. I agree it is a little counter-intuitive.

Gentlemen, thank you for the discussion, now let's get back to Orks.

col_impact wrote:

You can find the main rule in EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING section.

man, was it that difficult for you to tell me where to find it after this extended argument. now that i have my book infront of me and truned to page 80, i can finaly confirm your claim.....that took forever.
now i can reasonably make my point next time i try this in a game, the argument was never about you or me being right, it was about finding evidence as my initial post about thiis was

geargutz wrote:
So I have seen the advice to put objecsec grots in a stompa....how does this do anything. I've looked at the rules A ND there is nothing that alows a unit to hold objectives while embarked in a transport. Is there a specific page for this rule?

i apreciate that you told me where to find it, i dont apreciate that it took this long to get this out of you.

 cranect wrote:
So I am looking for some tips against the new tau. I normally run either footslogging orks or the dread mob. I only have a few bikers and 4-5 trukks. Also only 6 meganobz. Other than that I have everything in the codex. If it is dawn of war deployment it isn't too bad but the other two are kind of painful.

Back to that question.
I plan to try the dreadmob formation + a CAD with cheap warboss Kap (for stealth mtc traits) & 3 units of guntrukks Supa--skorcha

Anyone tried supa skorcha guntrukk already ?

XC18 wrote:

 cranect wrote:
So I am looking for some tips against the new tau. I normally run either footslogging orks or the dread mob. I only have a few bikers and 4-5 trukks. Also only 6 meganobz. Other than that I have everything in the codex. If it is dawn of war deployment it isn't too bad but the other two are kind of painful.

Back to that question.
I plan to try the dreadmob formation + a CAD with cheap warboss Kap (for stealth mtc traits) & 3 units of guntrukks Supa--skorcha

Anyone tried supa skorcha guntrukk already ?

im guessing you mean the ghaz dreddmob, though i have experience with it i havent fought tau yet with em, but unfortunately i dont think it would be competitive against tau, but if your dedicated to it then try a megaforcfield bike mek to cover the gmorkanauts until they get into combat...or use those points for kff for each morkanaut to cover the rest of the dreddmob.

as for the guntrukk, i hope to run some myself, but ive never run one, or even the supaskorcha for that matter, but expensive template weapon on a low armour vehicle isnt as good as an idea as it sounds (plus youl have to get a ram, adding up to 60pts). i would try guntrukks with big lobbas, big lobbas have done wonders for me in the past and can rival tau at range (the ap will kill drones and firewarriors). if you want ignores cover then try skorcha buggies, cheaper, not as killy but you can add basic buggies to the squadron to add a shield of hullpoints (speaking of which, i have run mass tl roket buggies against tau, they are pretty hard hitting and outright ap most of the army). a suad of 4 tl roket buggies with a skorcha bug can have the potential to do good damage to tau.

If your running the ghaz one I recommend a MFF on the big mek and throw him inside the gorkanaut. Then take a morkanaut and give it a KFF. Also grab at least a barebones warboss to call the waaagh since all of the walkers get ere we go. It has worked the best for me against tau actually. Since they demolish footslogging orks that is. Just need to find good support for it but otherwise it is great.

I'm wary of mff + naughts. That's at least a 110 pt investment into an allready overcosted underperforming unit. You could literally get a big mek stompa for the points.

 koooaei wrote:
I'm wary of mff + naughts. That's at least a 110 pt investment into an allready overcosted underperforming unit. You could literally get a big mek stompa for the points.

Agreed. Too many points. What you want is a Void Shield Generator. From there, you can add pressure units to your list like Manz Missiles, Bikes, and even Boyz in Transports. They will draw fire away from the slower Walkers. Adding more points to the pricey walkers actually raises their target priority to opponents.

The #1 threat to walkers is Grav. Void Shields protect 100% vs grav in most rules interpretations. Melta is scary as well, and Void shields coupled with very careful deployment can protect from a good amount of melta.

It also would help out your Guntrukks quite a bit, though I don't really like them. It is too easy to kill them and/or make them snap shoot.

I tried to build you a viable list using the Dread Mob formation. It is just too many points to work at 1850. At least too many points to work consistently.

If you did want to put a MFF in the list the way to go would be to put it in a Deffkopta Deathstar. Warboss on Bike + Painboy on Bike + Big Mek on Bike (MFF) with as many Deffkoptas as you can get. You could do it with Warbikers, but they are more expensive.

Are you saying that they're more expensive because you will typically include Zhardsnark as part of that star? Or are you referencing nob bikers? Because deffkoptas are actually more expensive per model, and you can only have 5 in a unit. Doesn't really feel deathstar-like to me. Plus, I'm not a fan of the MFF due to available cover, jink and the fact that you out of necessity make yourself more vulnerable to blast weapons. In fact, vs blast weapons, even those that ignore cover, I would wager that s large blast would still kill more on a wag with the MFF than if you just spread out

 luke1705 wrote:
Are you saying that they're more expensive because you will typically include Zhardsnark as part of that star? Or are you referencing nob bikers? Because deffkoptas are actually more expensive per model, and you can only have 5 in a unit. Doesn't really feel deathstar-like to me. Plus, I'm not a fan of the MFF due to available cover, jink and the fact that you out of necessity make yourself more vulnerable to blast weapons. In fact, vs blast weapons, even those that ignore cover, I would wager that s large blast would still kill more on a wag with the MFF than if you just spread out

The MFF was about using the Dread Mob formation vs Tau. You can't put Zhardsnark in a list with walkers. Deff Koptas are 15 points per wound compared to Warbikers which are 18 points per wound. When I tried to build a dread mob list I was only able to fit 4 Deff Koptas into the list at 1850. Deffkoptas give you scout which can be useful if you are trying to shield Walkers with a MFF.

Yes, it is a pretty sad deathstar. 4 Deff Koptas + Big Mek on Bike + Painboy on Bike + Warboss on Bike. Its basically ablative wounds for the MFF, and a Caddy fro the Warboss. The MFF in this list isn't for the bikes. It is for the walkers. You get alot more bang for your buck if you put it on bike rather then embark it on a naught, because you can shield a number of walkers rather than just 1.

What do people consider the optimal unit size for stormboyz? If run as a smaller unit is it worth deepstriking with them or just jump-packing across the board?

20 stormboyz is optimal. unless you will have a lot of LOS blocking terrain and can make sure to give your opponent other targets, a unit of 10 will just be an easy target to blast away, or diminish enough to fail a LD check. and boy to they retreat fast with those jump packs.