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.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's interesting the extra layers to a units durability in this.

2 successful wounds only ever deals 1 damage. Additional wounds is very powerful. The way that meshes with saves, cards, and protector units makes a lot of things that were complete crap in regular 40k very worthy of consideration in apoc.

There is a lot more to think about here.

Well, the protector cards are the one area where gretchins don't really work at all. Unlike Boyz or some other units, they get very little mileage out of Go to Ground, Armor of Contempt, Telekine Dome etc. But that's still assuming you actually have those cards in your hand/deck.

The biggest counterplay to gretchins is the fact that they do pretty crappy damage in melee and have only 12" range and 5" move. If you're 18" away from gretchins at the start of an action phase, they aren't attacking you and they don't really want to Assault at you because then you can just melee them. They kind of rely on a mathhammer-y sort of napoleonic war scenario where everyone lines up in orderly ranks, closes to 12" of each other and starts firing away.

In order to make their dream scenario of advance 5" shoot at 12" work, they have to put themselves in the threat range of any melee unit with 9" move or more.

Best way to use them is probably as the troop choice in a patrol detachment with two characters. This gives you a detachment that produces a command asset (remember, large boyz mobs won't get you command assets) and can continue to do so once one of the characters bites it.
The grots simply surround your character to stop the enemy from assaulting it so that you can always use your own assault or advance order to get the character into combat, because the grots can fall back when moving and there aren't many units out there that can (or would want to) surround a mob of 30 grots.
I think swamping the table in a green tide has become an absolutely viable strategy.

On topic, though! Two's company, three's a crowd: Chaos Spawn are 1" slower when taken in units of three. But add another one or two and you're OK again. One of their random mutation abilities also grants them a re-roll they get anyway if they're taken in a detachment that gets the Heretic Astartes faction power. To be fair, though, they can turn up mid-battle by transforming enemy characters, so it might be useful then.

The Relic Contemptor's Plasma Blastgun is totally wrong.

40k: 18" Range, Assault 2, Plasma.
Apoc: 96" Range, 4 attacks 6+/5+ Supercharge.

So for 10 PL you can currently get 8 shots at 96" that easily wound any unit in the game.

Yeah, I think that's some Titan's weapon.

The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

2 wounds is more than twice as good as 1 wound.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

Thats due to save stat. Models with 6+ or better get discounts usually because of the risk of morale losses. Models with 7+ or worse and good ld pay the most for extra wounds.

the_scotsman wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

Thats due to save stat. Models with 6+ or better get discounts usually because of the risk of morale losses. Models with 7+ or worse and good ld pay the most for extra wounds.

That makes sense, but both flavors of guardians have a 10+ save and identical leadership. It does explain the banshees vs fire dragons difference though. Thanks for clarifying, the pl costs seemed quite random to me.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
The power level costs on most eldar units appear wonky.

For instance, banshees are 5 for 5pl but 10 for 12pl, although they don't gain any bonus other than the standard wounds/attacks. I thought this might be deliberate, meant to incentivize smaller squads, but nope; fire dragons are 5 for 5pl and 10 for 9pl.

It's the same for guardians. 10 of them for 3, 20 of them for 8(!), but storm guardians scale linearly at 8 models per 3pl :/

Thats due to save stat. Models with 6+ or better get discounts usually because of the risk of morale losses. Models with 7+ or worse and good ld pay the most for extra wounds.

That makes sense, but both flavors of guardians have a 10+ save and identical leadership. It does explain the banshees vs fire dragons difference though. Thanks for clarifying, the pl costs seemed quite random to me.

Yeah, paging thru it it does seem a bit more random. A lot of the time it seems like a shift of 1 between 1 unit size and the other. Maybe fire dragons for example are worth about 4.5 but since there's a slight advantage to less wounds vs more wounds they rounded one way or another.

Some things from today's game:

If a Warlord/Warmaster and other units are in Defensible Terrain, are the Warlord/Warmaster considered "the closest unit" when shooting at it if the terrain feature is closer than any other unit?

Can units move into Defensible terrain but not garrison it (e.g. Can I put a Wave Serpent in a ruin without garrisoning it?)

Wave Serpents have the same issue as 40k. How do I get into base contact with it if you always measure to the hull?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Some things from today's game:

If a Warlord/Warmaster and other units are in Defensible Terrain, are the Warlord/Warmaster considered "the closest unit" when shooting at it if the terrain feature is closer than any other unit?

A unit occupying defensible terrain is considered to have the footprint of the defensible terrain. So if the terrain is the closest then the character is the closest. Not that that would mean anything mechanically. If they were not the closest they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. Being in defensible terrain also means they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. You can't be obscured twice, and so closest or not the unit has -1 to hit.

Can units move into Defensible terrain but not garrison it (e.g. Can I put a Wave Serpent in a ruin without garrisoning it?)

pg 29. Moving over terrain features. No. If you cannot finish your move on the other side of the terrain feature then you cannot move into the terrain feature. You can't end mid climb You have to move entirely up over and down the terrain feature.

Wave Serpents have the same issue as 40k. How do I get into base contact with it if you always measure to the hull?

Sure. But more than 40k apoc seems to not factor in vertical thinking (except in moving up and over things). So while the hull is the base, like terrain features I think that base is more it's footprint and getting your base within it's footprint is base to base contact. No direct quote for rules, simply stating what I believe to be RAI considering the rest of the rule book and the obvious implications of float stand bases.

 Lance845 wrote:
A unit occupying defensible terrain is considered to have the footprint of the defensible terrain. So if the terrain is the closest then the character is the closest. Not that that would mean anything mechanically. If they were not the closest they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. Being in defensible terrain also means they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. You can't be obscured twice, and so closest or not the unit has -1 to hit.

It came up because my Warmaster Farseer had the "Stealth Adept" Warmaster trait and was in a ruin with some Dark Reapers, so we were wondering if they could shoot her since they are equidistant.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A unit occupying defensible terrain is considered to have the footprint of the defensible terrain. So if the terrain is the closest then the character is the closest. Not that that would mean anything mechanically. If they were not the closest they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. Being in defensible terrain also means they are obscured and gain -1 to hit. You can't be obscured twice, and so closest or not the unit has -1 to hit.

It came up because my Warmaster Farseer had the "Stealth Adept" Warmaster trait and was in a ruin with some Dark Reapers, so we were wondering if they could shoot her since they are equidistant.

I would say being equidistant means they are both equally closest. One cannot be said to be closer so it is a valid target.

When exactly do you make your command asset deck? Before the game or after deployment?

It must be shuffled after selecting commanders. It can be assembled whenever. Presumably when you put your list together, but honestly it can be assembled after selecting commanders as long as it is then shuffled and placed face down.

How long does it normally take for GW to answer question emails? I asked them about the Ta'unar's Cluster Launcher that goes with the Heavy Rail Cannon. No rules for it.

 Rolsheen wrote:
How long does it normally take for GW to answer question emails? I asked them about the Ta'unar's Cluster Launcher that goes with the Heavy Rail Cannon. No rules for it.

They don't.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
How long does it normally take for GW to answer question emails? I asked them about the Ta'unar's Cluster Launcher that goes with the Heavy Rail Cannon. No rules for it.

They don't.

Yeah, not unless it's asked frequently enough, and they put out a FAQ.

Which I would be surprised if we didn't see for Apoc, since they've put out FAQs for Necromunda and Kill Team. They will at least fix "Contemptor Plasma Blastgun" level errors, if not just outright editing the PDFs and documenting the changes in an errata document.

Which I don't know why they haven't done that in other fully electronic rulesets....anyone know if they do that with like Sigmar?

How does Entropic Plague (halve the result of all saving throws) interact with with Go to Ground (double the result of saving throws)? The result of a saving throw is not a characteristic, so it's not rounded as per the rule on page 43. Does that mean it remains as a fraction so it cancels out regardless of the order applied?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How does Entropic Plague (halve the result of all saving throws) interact with with Go to Ground (double the result of saving throws)? The result of a saving throw is not a characteristic, so it's not rounded as per the rule on page 43. Does that mean it remains as a fraction so it cancels out regardless of the order applied?

Nobody can use a second card until the effects of the first card are completed entirely.

So lets say I useEntropic Plague and you halve your save results. Even if you rolled 5s a 2.5 is not a 3+ so the fraction does not get rounded and is a failure (as you say it's not a characteristic so it doesn't get rounded). But now that the effects of my card are complete you can use Go to Ground (unless it says you have to use it before you roll saves, in which case you are incapable of using it) where it would double that 2.5 back up to 5.

I hoped to be able to field Tau Tidewalls as viable choices in Apocalypse, because I like games with fortifications on the table and I really like the model design of Tau Tidewalls. Sadly in standard 40k they are pretty useless.

When reading the rules I noticed that following RAW you are not able to move Tidewalls in Apocalypse.

All Tidewalls have a movement characteristic of 6.

All Tidewalls have the Mobile Defense Platform rule, which states that the unit can only make a Move action if any models are embarked aboard it.

All Tidewalls are fortifications.

Fortifications can only be fielded as part of a fortification network.

Fortification networks can't get orders which include a movement action.

I've send an email about it to 40kfaq@gwplc.com and hope the issue will be corrected soon.
All other fortifications have a movement characteristic of "-" and therefore could not move no matter what order they were assigned. Perhaps it would be the easiest solution to remove the order restriction on fortification networks.

myUserName wrote:
I hoped to be able to field Tau Tidewalls as viable choices in Apocalypse, because I like games with fortifications on the table and I really like the model design of Tau Tidewalls. Sadly in standard 40k they are pretty useless.

When reading the rules I noticed that following RAW you are not able to move Tidewalls in Apocalypse.

All Tidewalls have a movement characteristic of 6.

All Tidewalls have the Mobile Defense Platform rule, which states that the unit can only make a Move action if any models are embarked aboard it.

All Tidewalls are fortifications.

Fortifications can only be fielded as part of a fortification network.

Fortification networks can't get orders which include a movement action.

I've send an email about it to 40kfaq@gwplc.com and hope the issue will be corrected soon.
All other fortifications have a movement characteristic of "-" and therefore could not move no matter what order they were assigned. Perhaps it would be the easiest solution to remove the order restriction on fortification networks.

You can't even use a Command Asset like Signal the Advance that replaces a detachments order. Classic GW! You can use Priority Orders Revived to change its order however, so it's clearly intentional.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

myUserName wrote:
I hoped to be able to field Tau Tidewalls as viable choices in Apocalypse, because I like games with fortifications on the table and I really like the model design of Tau Tidewalls. Sadly in standard 40k they are pretty useless.

When reading the rules I noticed that following RAW you are not able to move Tidewalls in Apocalypse.

All Tidewalls have a movement characteristic of 6.

All Tidewalls have the Mobile Defense Platform rule, which states that the unit can only make a Move action if any models are embarked aboard it.

All Tidewalls are fortifications.

Fortifications can only be fielded as part of a fortification network.

Fortification networks can't get orders which include a movement action.

I've send an email about it to 40kfaq@gwplc.com and hope the issue will be corrected soon.
All other fortifications have a movement characteristic of "-" and therefore could not move no matter what order they were assigned. Perhaps it would be the easiest solution to remove the order restriction on fortification networks.

You can't even use a Command Asset like Signal the Advance that replaces a detachments order. Classic GW! You can use Priority Orders Revived to change its order however, so it's clearly intentional.

Does the game then explode if you voxnet a fortification network?

the_scotsman wrote:
Does the game then explode if you voxnet a fortification network?

Yes, because that is cheating.

stratigo wrote:
I mean, yeah, but at a certain level you gotta trust you are playing someone who isn't an donkey-cave

When you're paying this much for a ruleset product, it ought to get at least a check via a technical writer/editor for internal consistency. GW charges luxury good prices, they should put the effort in.

Or rhey could probably pay a few dozen players in models (which is peanuts in plastic) to do it for them and avoid all these issues.

Understrength Units, what profile do you use? All it says is you "can field a single unit of that type in your army, with as many models as you have available" and that "you must halve the Attacks and Wounds characteristics" and "subtract 1 from hit rolls for any attacks they make with Heavy weapons".

It doesn't state you need to use the smallest model count profile, so I could theoretically take a single Khorne Berserker model and use the 20 model profile. Yes, it's not worth ever doing because of the half wounds and attacks, but it's still something to consider, especially since that single model can fit into spaces 20 models could not.

So, each Kastelan Robot must either be equipped with 2 Heavy Phosphor Blasters or 1 Kastelan Fists.

Kastelan Fists are Attacks: User.

So if I take a unit of 6 Kastelan Robots and they have an attack stat of 6... and I equip them with 6 kastelan fists....

...do I make 36 attacks with that unit?

The unfortunate thing about this is that I don't actually know what the intended rule is supposed to be here - i.e., whether each robot is supposed to grant 1 attack, or 2. Mathwise I think it's more likely that each robot is supposed to make 1 attack, given their offensive output. But it is definitely a strange little setup they've got going on.

the_scotsman wrote:
So, each Kastelan Robot must either be equipped with 2 Heavy Phosphor Blasters or 1 Kastelan Fists.

Kastelan Fists are Attacks: User.

So if I take a unit of 6 Kastelan Robots and they have an attack stat of 6... and I equip them with 6 kastelan fists....

...do I make 36 attacks with that unit?

The unfortunate thing about this is that I don't actually know what the intended rule is supposed to be here - i.e., whether each robot is supposed to grant 1 attack, or 2. Mathwise I think it's more likely that each robot is supposed to make 1 attack, given their offensive output. But it is definitely a strange little setup they've got going on.

I would say yes, you get to make 36 attacks. They have Six weapons that have A: User and their A is 6. As to whether it's an oversight I cannot say.

incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

No. Each profile has A: User. Since each model is equiped with the weapon it has as many profiles as there are models with each profile having as many attacks as the units stat line says.

6 each x 6 models = 36 attacks.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
incorrect. you get Attacks:User which at 6 models is 6 attacks.

You are correct in that you get A:User attacks. However, you get to use each Melee weapon you have. Since the unit has a Fist "For each model this unit contains", you have 6 fists, so get to use all 6, each weapon making 6 attacks.

Furthermore, the unit never loses the single Armoured Feet weapon, so they get to use that weapon too!

If you need further proof beyond the RaW and want a "This unit doesn't make sense otherwise" argument, consider the Stone Crusher Carnifex. It has two Wrecker Claws by default, each with A:User (which is 2). You can swap 1 Claw for a Flail, which has A:x2. It also has a Tail weapon which is also A:User

Thus, you can either get 4 Claw Attacks and 2 Tail Attacks, or 2 Claw Attacks, 4 Flail attacks and 2 Tail Attacks.

Another example is the Death Company Dreadnought. You can either have 2 Fists with A:1, or 1 Talons with A:User.