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.

 Yarium wrote:
It's definitely weird, considering no one really thinks of close combat as guys "throwing" the grenade ...

'No one' in this case including the rulebook...

 koooaei wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


My next question would be:
What does "a certain amount of common sense" mean.

Looking at the situation in which the roll is being taken and if it's appropriate? And agreeing with your opponent?

I'm talking about justifying that you 'can't hide from warp' but you 'can hide from warp' with 'certain amount of common sense'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are a few derp moments but overall it's good.

Guess justification is that perils of the warp is attack inside your head. Witchfire is physical bolt/beam/cloud coming from sorcerer toward you so somebody can push you out of the way.

tneva82 wrote:

Guess justification is that perils of the warp is attack inside your head. Witchfire is physical bolt/beam/cloud coming from sorcerer toward you so somebody can push you out of the way.

I'd argue this point in regard to most focused witchfires.

Haemorrhage, Mind war, 'eadbanger are to name a few.

 koooaei wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Guess justification is that perils of the warp is attack inside your head. Witchfire is physical bolt/beam/cloud coming from sorcerer toward you so somebody can push you out of the way.

I'd argue this point in regard to most focused witchfires.

Haemorrhage, Mind war, 'eadbanger are to name a few.

That's what GW meant with the "What does "a certain amount of common sense" mean. " Guess you need to determine with your opponent with "certain amount of common sense" as to whether this particular attack is look-out-sirrable or not...

Captyn_Bob wrote:
They faqd it to be not snp, just same effects
Models which join a unit in Cataphractii armour may themselves not
make Run moves or Sweeping Advances while with the unit, but may make Overwatch attacks as normal for them. If a unit is joined by a model
in Cataphractii armour, the unit is prevented from making Run moves or Sweeping Advances while the model is with them.

Feel like this is how S&P should work across the board tbh.

Multiple levels is pretty dumb for templates, If you're considering house ruling it I'd do it as based off template size. I.e: place the template on it's side and see how many levels it can touch then center it where you would like to hit.

Grenades are good, I've always played it that way so no change for me.

Tank shock is kind of weird, but workable.

The nerf to Beams from a Transport stings. There was a particular Ork build I wanted to test with Mogrok's Bossboyz, and 2 Warp'eads in outflanking Gun Wagons as mobile tank destroyers, but I guess it wasn't meant to be...

tneva82 wrote:

That's what GW meant with the "What does "a certain amount of common sense" mean. " Guess you need to determine with your opponent with "certain amount of common sense" as to whether this particular attack is look-out-sirrable or not...

And if you can't determine, roll off to see what "a certain amount of common sense" means this game.

Cool.

What does it tell me about my Exorcist's ability to shoot a tank right in front of it with zero intervening cover being a house rule the entire community uses, often without even knowing that that's a house rule?

Did GW's answer to that in this FAQ actually convey that they understood the problem more than the last time an FAQ tried to cover that?

Oh, this didn't even cover that. Shucks. I was hoping to get that fixed in the last half-decade, but apparently not yet. Oh well.

In the sense of your exorcist doesn't need line of sight?

 malamis wrote:
In the sense of your exorcist doesn't need line of sight?

Do the rules actually say that anywhere?

Last I checked, no, it didn't.

 Pouncey wrote:

 malamis wrote:
In the sense of your exorcist doesn't need line of sight?

Do the rules actually say that anywhere?

Last I checked, no, it didn't.

I don't follow the question you have in the first place, hence Request For Clarification

Exorcist needs LoS but ridiculous model only points the launchers straight up with no way of actually aiming them at the target. Thus, they can't shoot a target that isn't flying over the top of them, RAW.

If they were barrage or no LoS then problem solved.

This should be a codex specific errata - I wouldn't expect it in the core rules FAQ.

Aren't hull mounted weapons assumed to have a 45 degree swivel regardless of wether or not they can actually turn.

nareik wrote:
Aren't hull mounted weapons assumed to have a 45 degree swivel regardless of wether or not they can actually turn.

Doesn't solve the problem when they're pointing straight up. Swinging 22.5 degrees forward is still nowhere near pointing at other models on the same level.

Park on a hill with a slope then I guess

nareik wrote:
Aren't hull mounted weapons assumed to have a 45 degree swivel regardless of wether or not they can actually turn.

They are, but look the model up ;-). It has pipes that are LITERALLY (and the actual meaning of literally) pointed straight upwards, and it's those pipes from where the rockets fire from. By the RAW, it can shoot directly upwards, or within 45 degrees of upwards. In effect, only really nearby flyers or really REALLY tall units, can be shot by it (by the RAW). Of course, no one plays that way, because it's silly. I'm very happy letting people treat it as a turret weapon with 360 degree firing arc, with vision from any point on the weapon.

I know the exact model because I am tempted to get one to use as a slaanesh rhino with doom caster/havoc launcher .

My bodge, would be as you suggest, 'cheating', I think in this case people wouldn't mind.

Incidentally, I don't know much on sisters. Does the weapon have the barrage rule or anything? If not it would suck to play against 'laywers'!

With the blasts and multiple levels ruling, does this mean that a barrage weapon could now target a unit that is at the bottom of a ruin? It's not a buff I think they really need and wouldn't make much sense.

This is me speaking as a owner of wyverns + griffons.

It is really disappointing about the grenades. That was literally the only answer some units had to MC's, and now they don't even get that. Super lousy.

 DoomMouse wrote:
With the blasts and multiple levels ruling, does this mean that a barrage weapon could now target a unit that is at the bottom of a ruin? It's not a buff I think they really need and wouldn't make much sense.

This is me speaking as a owner of wyverns + griffons.

They have always been able to in 7th, this just makes it more explicit. So yes, yes it could.

As for 'need', well blast weapons are generally speaking sub optimal compared to some of the alternatives available to blast weapon packers, so obliging a defender to both spread out and avoid too much vertical distribution makes them more useful from a game point of view. That said, it does disproportionately benefit IG, which isn't exactly a bad thing.

 DoomMouse wrote:
With the blasts and multiple levels ruling, does this mean that a barrage weapon could now target a unit that is at the bottom of a ruin? It's not a buff I think they really need and wouldn't make much sense.

This is me speaking as a owner of wyverns + griffons.

It's not a buff, the rulebook is pretty clear on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:

Incidentally, I don't know much on sisters. Does the weapon have the barrage rule or anything? If not it would suck to play against 'laywers'!

It does not.

Could Anyone find anything Regarding Apocalypse Formations In Regular Games?
I Looked under the "Formations and Detachmemts" Section And Foind Nothing

 commander dante wrote:
Could Anyone find anything Regarding Apocalypse Formations In Regular Games?
I Looked under the "Formations and Detachmemts" Section And Foind Nothing

It's sorted under "Expansions" at the end. And just says "No."

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It is really disappointing about the grenades. That was literally the only answer some units had to MC's, and now they don't even get that. Super lousy.

Agreed. I now feel ripped off for every marine model I pay points for, since they are paying for grenades in their base cost. I'd absolutely drop the grenades now if given the option.

It's just incredibly silly to see a big unit of 10 guys surrounding a tank, and they all chill while 1 guy clamps a grenade and either fails his 3+ hit or the grenade doesn't kill the tank, which is incredibly likely unless it's like...a trukk on its last HP.

I don't think taxtical marines among others needed another nerf keeping them off the table.

And I don't think Tacticals should be able to kill a walker or MC in one turn.

Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.

A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase.

There is a big debate in a german forum. The overwhelming majority says it stops players from moving forward a transport like a chimera 6 inch then turn 180° and disembark. But I can't believe they (GW) mean that, it means you have to track each part of a vehicle individualy which is extremly unpractical and it means that the longer the vehicle is the less it can turn (like a raider). Making the movement of vehicles exremly complicated and timeconsuming. And it ignores the rulebook passage that pivoting on the spot dos not count as movement. How do you guys see that?

 EnTyme wrote:
And I don't think Tacticals should be able to kill a walker or MC in one turn.

They were hardly doing that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Exorcist needs LoS but ridiculous model only points the launchers straight up with no way of actually aiming them at the target. Thus, they can't shoot a target that isn't flying over the top of them, RAW.

If they were barrage or no LoS then problem solved.

This should be a codex specific errata - I wouldn't expect it in the core rules FAQ.

The problem with this argument is that the rules don't require you to be able to draw a straight line parallel to the barrel of the weapon from the weapon to the target to be able to fire. The Exorcist launcher is defined as a 'turret-mounted' weapon and hence has 360 degree line of sight at all times, regardless of where its barrels are pointing, as per the diagram on p. 74. That interpretation of the rules would make indirect-fire artillery scatter regardless of whether it could see or not, prohibit weapons without obvious barrels from firing at all, and force us into a moronic three-dimensionality 'top armour' argument as people scramble to prop their guns up somewhere they could be used.

If someone's actually enough of a d*** to try and call you on firing your Exorcist you have my permission (and indeed my recommendation) to depart the game posthaste and post a warning bulletin. Or call them on trying to use their Serpent Shields, apply their BS to scatter with Basilisks, or use their Broadside-mounted Seeker Missiles.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 commander dante wrote:
Could Anyone find anything Regarding Apocalypse Formations In Regular Games?
I Looked under the "Formations and Detachmemts" Section And Foind Nothing

It's sorted under "Expansions" at the end. And just says "No."

*Abuses Rules so that Formations from the Apocalypse Book are not allowed, But WD Publications Are*