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.

Uh that's vague wording at 11" are you still firing 2 shots or 4? I think it's trying to say you extend the rapid fire range to 18"

Their example is 36 at 18" so is that assuming a hwt in the mix with frfsrf?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Uh that's vague wording at 11" are you still firing 2 shots or 4?

The "half of a weapon's range" is replaced with "up to 18 inches".

What's vaguely worded about that?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Uh that's vague wording at 11" are you still firing 2 shots or 4? I think it's trying to say you extend the rapid fire range to 18"

Their example is 36 at 18" so is that assuming a hwt in the mix with frfsrf?

No it means the basic infantry squad sergeant still has ccw and laspistol. 9x4=36

gendoikari87 wrote:
Uh that's vague wording at 11" are you still firing 2 shots or 4? I think it's trying to say you extend the rapid fire range to 18"

Their example is 36 at 18" so is that assuming a hwt in the mix with frfsrf?

You need to forget all the wording from previous editions. The current Rapid Fire wording is basically the same as this doctrine.

This return to conversions are fun from GW is radical

This is ace.

She does look very cool.

Apparently rough riders are gone from the codex
But I seriously hope some gw designer has the foresight to make the new necromunda plastics into penal legion 40k rules.

gungo wrote:
Apparently rough riders are gone from the codex
But I seriously hope some gw designer has the foresight to make the new necromunda plastics into penal legion 40k rules.

Expected, but they're in the Index so no actual loss

'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

I doubt that the Warhammer Community guys are the same as the ones that writte the rules.

Doubt all you want. That's still embarrassing. If they didn't have such a long standing history of being incompetent at reading rules, I actually accuse this commercial article of gross deception and false advertising.

 BrookM wrote:
This is ace.

This is cool as hell and exactly why GW needs to step up their game and make some women's heads for IG.

 Zewrath wrote:


'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

No, you can do this.

Turn 1: disembark, shoot
Turn 2: shoot, embark
Turn 3: disembark, shoot

Yeah, they're saying "You can get back in the tank after bailing out and be ready to go" without losing a turn of shooting.

In Dionysodorus's example, you would not be able to shoot turn 2 without being Steel Legion.

 Zewrath wrote:
Doubt all you want. That's still embarrassing. If they didn't have such a long standing history of being incompetent at reading rules, I actually accuse this commercial article of gross deception and false advertising.

I read it as saying disembark shoot, then shoot and embark. You're not losing a shooting phase to do this.

I hope they don't remove Rough Riders. They are in almost every list. They're so good and fun!

That said, I'm not sure that I see much point in using the order.

The transport can't move after you embark, since you're embarking in your shooting phase. And then if you want to disembark on your next turn, you have to do it before the transport moves. So all you're gaining here is the ability to redeploy on the other side of a transport, and protection from shooting for a turn (of course, you were vulnerable on the previous turn when you disembarked). After all, if you don't intend to disembark immediately, you could have just embarked at the start of the next movement phase instead of using the order.

Dionysodorus wrote:
That said, I'm not sure that I see much point in using the order.

The transport can't move after you embark, since you're embarking in your shooting phase. And then if you want to disembark on your next turn, you have to do it before the transport moves. So all you're gaining here is the ability to redeploy on the other side of a transport, and protection from shooting for a turn (of course, you were vulnerable on the previous turn when you disembarked).

This makes sense, but I could also see it being of some situational utility, e.g. after falling back to shoot and then hop in a transport.

Bunkering up again is always good, especially if the bunker happens to be a Stormlord.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:


'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

No, you can do this.

Turn 1: disembark, shoot
Turn 2: shoot, embark
Turn 3: disembark, shoot

Yes... I know? That's the the issue that I have with the article, because that's not what it says. The article make sound like you can disembark --> shoot --> immediately embark again. That's why they then go on to say that's the supposed reason that they are hard to pin down... but they aren't. If they can't re-embark immediately, like White Scars could in 7th, they are dead. That's a useless order, issued on what ever remains from the guys who had to wither an entire turn of shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Doubt all you want. That's still embarrassing. If they didn't have such a long standing history of being incompetent at reading rules, I actually accuse this commercial article of gross deception and false advertising.

I read it as saying disembark shoot, then shoot and embark. You're not losing a shooting phase to do this.

Yes, the article. The actual rules, no.

I still think it's not useless.

Steel Legion hopping out 18" away to rapid fire their plasma, then getting assaulted, then falling back, rapid firing again, and hopping into their transport sounds hilarious and trollish.

 Zewrath wrote:


'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

Seeing as how you Embark(and Disembark) during Movement, you would lose a Shooting phase if you Embarked without this Order.

By doing it like this, you Disembark during your Movement phase and then you can Shoot normally.
The next turn, instead of Embarking you can use this Order and fire then Embark.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still think it's not useless.

Steel Legion hopping out 18" away to rapid fire their plasma, then getting assaulted, then falling back, rapid firing again, and hopping into their transport sounds hilarious and trollish.

And impossible because you'd have to issue 'Get Back Into The Fight!' If you wish for them to do anything and they can't receive more than one order.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still think it's not useless.

Steel Legion hopping out 18" away to rapid fire their plasma, then getting assaulted, then falling back, rapid firing again, and hopping into their transport sounds hilarious and trollish.

And impossible because you'd have to issue 'Get Back Into The Fight!' If you wish for them to do anything and they can't receive more than one order.

Why do you have to do get back in the fight? Specific overrides general, and this order says very specifically they may shoot and embark if they received this order, overriding any general rule that may prevent them from doing so (including but not limited to falling back). Unless something prevents falling back units from receiving orders other than GBITF, this order should work.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:


'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

Seeing as how you Embark(and Disembark) during Movement, you would lose a Shooting phase if you Embarked without this Order.

By doing it like this, you Disembark during your Movement phase and then you can Shoot normally.
The next turn, instead of Embarking you can use this Order and fire then Embark.

Yes, see the post above, explaining I know this and why it's not actually what the article implies, nor is the actual order good as stated above.

I still think you're underestimating the order by assuming it doesn't work on units that fall back.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:


'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

Seeing as how you Embark(and Disembark) during Movement, you would lose a Shooting phase if you Embarked without this Order.

By doing it like this, you Disembark during your Movement phase and then you can Shoot normally.
The next turn, instead of Embarking you can use this Order and fire then Embark.

Yes, see the post above, explaining I know this and why it's not actually what the article implies, nor is the actual order good as stated above.

All the article says is that using them in tandem allows you to Disembark and Embark without losing a turn of shooting.

Did you really think that it would let you ignore the rules in place about Embarking/Disembarking in the same turn?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still think you're underestimating the order by assuming it doesn't work on units that fall back.

Usually the way this kind of interaction works is that the rule actually needs to tell you that it over-rides other restrictions, unless it must over-ride those other restrictions in order to do anything. This looks like it's just telling you that you can embark in your shooting phase, and you even get to shoot normally before you do it. Like, you'll note that "Get Back in the Fight!" doesn't just read: "The ordered unit can shoot this phase."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:


'Using these rules in tandem, you’ll be able to do maximum damage when disembarking, then re-embark and redeploy without losing a turn of shooting. Armageddon mechanised infantry are going to be very, very hard to pin down in the new codex.'

Sounds like this is confirmation that GW are literally incapable of reading their own rules or even understand them.

Seeing as how you Embark(and Disembark) during Movement, you would lose a Shooting phase if you Embarked without this Order.

By doing it like this, you Disembark during your Movement phase and then you can Shoot normally.
The next turn, instead of Embarking you can use this Order and fire then Embark.

Yes, see the post above, explaining I know this and why it's not actually what the article implies, nor is the actual order good as stated above.

All the article says is that using them in tandem allows you to Disembark and Embark without losing a turn of shooting.

Did you really think that it would let you ignore the rules in place about Embarking/Disembarking in the same turn?

And this post confirms Kanluwen apparently doesn't know what special rules are, or just play pretends that they don't exist!

GBITF allows you to ignore rules about falling back, Harlequins have rules that allows you to Assault after advancing, Fly has rules for shooting after falling back. It's astonishing that you can use that argument with a straight face or ignore the fact that the article make it sound like it works like a rule that literally existed in several iterations before. Top kek.