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.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Dawg you respond to basically every post on this thread like this. This thread is for finding rules quirks and making them known for a laugh and for pointing mistakes out to gw. Apoc is a specialist game, it probably gets 1 FAQ if we're lucky.

Punching the numbers for kastelans, it seems pretty clear they're intended to be Attacks:1 weapons, as their damage is in line with other melee units without guaranteed turn 1 charge.

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Or you can just read the rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Or you can just read the rules.

Is there some rule that says units can only use one weapon with Attacks: User?

if so, there are a lot of units that just don't work as they appear to be intended. Wraithknights and Wraithlords both have 2 of the same Attacks:user weapons (Wraithbone Fists) and it's clear that they're supposed to be able to use both, because they can swap out one fist for a different option and keep the other fist. BCB also brought up carnifexes.

It's pretty clear to me that the Kastelan Fist thing was just a mistake - Kastelan Fists were supposed to be an A1 weapon like Bullgryn Mauls, Grotesque Cleavers, and all other cases where you can have either a melee option or a ranged option on a model-by-model basis.

In fact, looking at Sydonian Dragoons they've made the same mistake: Taser Lances are a model-by-model weapon, and they're "Attacks:X2" But EACH MODEL gets one and the unit's attacks go up by the number of models. So, RAW, 6 Sydonian Dragoons should make 72 taser lance attacks.

Whoever wrote the Admech rules just fethed up the math on these two particular units.

The stat profile is for the whole unit combined. You don't get 6 models all with 6 attacks, you get one unit which has an attack stat of '6'. Therefore the you get 6 attacks with the fists.

The wargear options below do seem to be a typo, though - but an obvious one.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
The stat profile is for the whole unit combined. You don't get 6 models all with 6 attacks, you get one unit which has an attack stat of '6'. Therefore the you get 6 attacks with the fists.

It's not really that difficult.

Did you not read the rest of the thread? You get to use every single melee weapon the unit has. If the unit has 6 melee weapons, it gets to make attacks with all 6. So you do make 6 attacks with the fists, but you have 6 fists, which each get to make "User" attacks, so the unit gets to make 36 attacks. I have already laid out the RaW arguments, with citations. Could you do the same for your assertion?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Or you can just read the rules.

Is there some rule that says units can only use one weapon with Attacks: User?

if so, there are a lot of units that just don't work as they appear to be intended. Wraithknights and Wraithlords both have 2 of the same Attacks:user weapons (Wraithbone Fists) and it's clear that they're supposed to be able to use both, because they can swap out one fist for a different option and keep the other fist. BCB also brought up carnifexes.

It's pretty clear to me that the Kastelan Fist thing was just a mistake - Kastelan Fists were supposed to be an A1 weapon like Bullgryn Mauls, Grotesque Cleavers, and all other cases where you can have either a melee option or a ranged option on a model-by-model basis.

In fact, looking at Sydonian Dragoons they've made the same mistake: Taser Lances are a model-by-model weapon, and they're "Attacks:X2" But EACH MODEL gets one and the unit's attacks go up by the number of models. So, RAW, 6 Sydonian Dragoons should make 72 taser lance attacks.

Whoever wrote the Admech rules just fethed up the math on these two particular units.

I agree that it is a mistake and that these weapons are probably meant to be A: 1 instead of A: User. But my guess at RAI doesn't change the current RAW.

the_scotsman wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

While you can try to argue this, I'd say your opponents should tell you to feth off with this nonsense and stop trying to find loopholes to win the game.

Dawg you respond to basically every post on this thread like this. This thread is for finding rules quirks and making them known for a laugh and for pointing mistakes out to gw. Apoc is a specialist game, it probably gets 1 FAQ if we're lucky.

Punching the numbers for kastelans, it seems pretty clear they're intended to be Attacks:1 weapons, as their damage is in line with other melee units without guaranteed turn 1 charge.

Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

Yeah man. This isnt a thread where people are trying to gain advantage. This is where you find the logic errors so they can be sent in and addressed. Clearly no one unit in apoc should be rolling 36 dice (or 72) base on a single no pl increase weapon choice.

Problem identified. Now we can submit the problem and hopefully gw updates the datasheets to fix it.

stratigo wrote:


Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

What's ambiguous in this example?

You'd rather just stick your head in the sand and pretend the rules aren't broken while telling everyone that doesn't agree with how you think it was supposed to work (regardless of what it actually says) to "feth off"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

So, how does it work? If I have 3 robots with gunhands and 3 robots with fists, how many attacks do I get out of the unit?

If the answer is "6" then do I still get 6 even if I have 6 robots with fists? how about if I have 1?

If the answer is "3" where are you getting that from a weapon with Attacks:User?

If the answer is "18" then the unit just happens to be 3-4x stronger than every other melee-focused unit in the game when it comes to damage.

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

How is it ambiguous? Myself and others have explained multiple times what the rules say and how they work. If you didn't understand it at first, fair enough. That doesn't make it ambiguous.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

How is it ambiguous? Myself and others have explained multiple times what the rules say and how they work. If you didn't understand it at first, fair enough. That doesn't make it ambiguous.

You're making an inference that isn't necessarily true and goes against common sense. The wording isn't iron clad, and your interpretation violates the most logical way for it to work, and thus ambiguous. Reading attacks:user for a weapon can be seen as applying to the unit as a whole and not each individual example of that weapon. No other weapon in the game I can think of has this particular wording.

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Because people are using this thread for ways to break the game dawg. I'd rather not have the game broken by a bunch of internet neckbeards interpreting ambiguous wording in the worst way possible because "feth GW" or "I must win every game"

If following the rules causes the game to be "broken", then perhaps the rules aren't up to snuff? There is nothing ambiguous in the wording here. Not liking something doesn't make it ambiguous.

I read it and it seems ambiguous to me, so, yeah.

How is it ambiguous? Myself and others have explained multiple times what the rules say and how they work. If you didn't understand it at first, fair enough. That doesn't make it ambiguous.

You're making an inference that isn't necessarily true and goes against common sense. The wording isn't iron clad, and your interpretation violates the most logical way for it to work, and thus ambiguous. Reading attacks:user for a weapon can be seen as applying to the unit as a whole and not each individual example of that weapon. No other weapon in the game I can think of has this particular wording.

Many many many many weapons in the game have this particular wording.

Off the top of my head, units that can have multiple S:User melee weapons:

Deff dreads, furious dreads, carnifexes, knights, wraithlords, striking scoroions, hive tyrants.

The only reason this reading is illogical is because it creates an extremely powerful unit. The most logical reading is to give them a fixed attack value but then you're judging whether castellan are intended to be a decent unit or a very good unit when built with the melee profile. A fixed attack value of 2 or of 1 both give you a result that, mathematically, makes some sense.

My money is on 1. But this is most definitely a very strange ambiguity. And it is one that has already shown up on the Apoc reddit, with someone asking if they just need to give fists to one robot to get all 6 attacks.

stratigo wrote:
Reading attacks:user for a weapon can be seen as applying to the unit as a whole and not each individual example of that weapon.

No it can't. There is no such thing as "applying to the unit as a whole". You do not attack with a unit, you attack with a weapon. And each instance of a weapon has its own stat line and is resolved separately from any other weapons. A LRBT with three heavy bolters does not consider "the unit as a whole", it has three individual A:1 weapons. A unit with three A:User weapons does not consider "the unit as a whole", it has three individual A:User weapons and can use all of them. The ONLY reason your suggested interpretation exists is that certain people feel that specific units are overpowered if you play by RAW.

Having thought on it, and reading some other unit dataslates, I do now believe if you were to take 6 robots all with fists you would have 36 attacks in melee. You would also have an additional 6 with their feet attack for a total of 42 attacks.

If I had to guess, the fists are supposed to only be A:1, but unless it gets FAQ/Errata'd that's what it is.

Here is an oddity. The Carnifex melee bio weapon (read, scy tal) are A: User (2) and with 2 sets they have 4 melee attacks, plus their jaw (also A: User) for 6 attacks total when speced for melee.

The Screamer Killer (the melee specialist Fex) is 1Pl more expensive and has a single set of their scytal which are A: x2 with the screamer killer being A:1. It has no jaws.

So... 6 attacks on a melee built fex or 2 attacks on the screamer killer for +1 PL.

Either it should have 2 sets of the scytal or it's A: should be 2 like the other fex datasheets. Or both. Otherwise, why the feth would anyone take the Screamer Killer?

Screamer is a one gun/one melee arm carnifex with terror troops.

You take him when you want one of your carnifexes to have terror troops.

the_scotsman wrote:
Screamer is a one gun/one melee arm carnifex with terror troops.

You take him when you want one of your carnifexes to have terror troops.

Screamers have 2 pairs of scytal and a face that spits bioplasma.

The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

That was quick lol.

Yep, doesn't work by RAW.

Another couple of oddities I've noticed:

-Several of the units in the Forgeworld unit catalog actually have no melee weapons, which is something almost nothing has in the base catalog. Most notably, if you arm a Leviathan dreadnought with no melee arms, it has absolutely zero melee (It is the only dreadnought that does not get Feet when it has 2 guns)

-The tyranid Maleceptor from FW can be taken 1 to a HQ slot, or 3 to a Heavy Support slot. I'm guessing that it was originally intended to be Heavy Support. Still functional, just weird.

Not maleceptor. Malanthrope.

Its a carry over rule from base 40k. I can be taken as a hq or a heavy. As a hq its a singular model. As a heavy its like a carnifex in that they can come in a unit of 3 but become individual units on the field.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

Well, I suppose if you set up the infiltrators wholly within 24" of every unit in their detachment, you're honoring the rules because one of them will have to be the commander. But yeah, it does look like 2-am-Friday-night-rules-writing.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Infiltrators rule doesn't work.

Infiltrators: When this unit is set up on the battlefield, it can be set up anywhere that is wholly within 24" of its Detachment's Commander...

Nominating Commanders: Once both armies have been deployed, each player must nominate one unit in each of their Detachments to lead it as its Commander...

How can you set up within 24" of its Detachment's Commander if you set it up before Commanders are nominated? The only way I can see it working is if the unit also has Deep Strike.

I think I'm done with Apoc and 40k as a whole (again).

Well, I suppose if you set up the infiltrators wholly within 24" of every unit in their detachment, you're honoring the rules because one of them will have to be the commander. But yeah, it does look like 2-am-Friday-night-rules-writing.

Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

This is true. Just have to houserule the Commander Nomination to happen before, rather than after deployment I guess.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

What I meant was YOU will know what units are available for you to pick as your commanders when you make your list and you should know which unit you will actually pick by the time you are deploying. Declaring to the opponent which unit that is doesn't matter.

The commander portion of that rule only really impacts deploying outside of your deployment zone. Which yes, is an issue. But it's only an issue because they mention the commanders at all. It should simply be that a Infiltrator unit can be deployed anywhere that is wholly within 24" of their deployment zone as long as it is more than 9" away from enemy units. If you deploy out of command at that point it's just your problem. Any other unit has no restriction on distance. They can deploy 100" away from their "commander" as long as it is within your deployment zone.

To summarize, the actual simple fix is to remove the commander portion of the infiltrator rule so that they get deployed with the same flexibility and risks as any other unit.

 Lance845 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also the rules for what will be a commander are fairly strict and predictable. So its not like you wont know in list building pre deployment what is the commander.

It's not always certain, mainly when you have units with tied Ld. And the point remains Commanders don't exist when setting up the detachment.

What I meant was YOU will know what units are available for you to pick as your commanders when you make your list and you should know which unit you will actually pick by the time you are deploying. Declaring to the opponent which unit that is doesn't matter.

The commander portion of that rule only really impacts deploying outside of your deployment zone. Which yes, is an issue. But it's only an issue because they mention the commanders at all. It should simply be that a Infiltrator unit can be deployed anywhere that is wholly within 24" of their deployment zone as long as it is more than 9" away from enemy units. If you deploy out of command at that point it's just your problem. Any other unit has no restriction on distance. They can deploy 100" away from their "commander" as long as it is within your deployment zone.

To summarize, the actual simple fix is to remove the commander portion of the infiltrator rule so that they get deployed with the same flexibility and risks as any other unit.

Yeah, this is basically only going to negatively impact one person who tries to play this game.