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.

 Hollow wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, if DG Rhinos count as not having moved, Then does that now mean that Plague marines can ride in Rhinos, have those rhinos move, then disembark, then move, then assault?


Yippy, a return to Rhino Rush.

Not to be personal against you but this is such a toxic way of thinking... It's what has created many of the issues with the game. A rule is released and it's clear what is meant by it but there is always a "lawyering" of the rule to try and break it or reinterpret it. This is a casual tabletop game, the rules and suggestions from GW shouldn't be approached in this manner at all IMO.

It's not even a good read of the summary of the rule:


Plus we've seen before that these are summaries, not full rules.

 Hollow wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, if DG Rhinos count as not having moved, Then does that now mean that Plague marines can ride in Rhinos, have those rhinos move, then disembark, then move, then assault?


Yippy, a return to Rhino Rush.

Not to be personal against you but this is such a toxic way of thinking... It's what has created many of the issues with the game. A rule is released and it's clear what is meant by it but there is always a "lawyering" of the rule to try and break it or reinterpret it. This is a casual tabletop game, the rules and suggestions from GW shouldn't be approached in this manner at all IMO.

I think you are overreacting - the guy was just asking a question.

The rules appear very clear in written form.

Speaking of Remorseless and Leadership shenanigans, I wonder what the Plague Marine Icon of Despair will do now.
That -1 ld to enemies within 6'' is so not worth 10 points.

 Hollow wrote:
Not to be personal against you but this is such a toxic way of thinking... It's what has created many of the issues with the game. A rule is released and it's clear what is meant by it but there is always a "lawyering" of the rule to try and break it or reinterpret it. This is a casual tabletop game, the rules and suggestions from GW shouldn't be approached in this manner at all IMO.

It's in the responsibility of the rules writers to make sure their rules are properly written, and fix them if they are not. Players can be casual, a company who charges money for their rules has no excuse to not be professional.

This culture of victim blaming in GW communities always baffles me, people have been brainwashed by GW pushing the blame onto players for so long. GW is in charge of the rules, it's their responsibility to make them work for every player, both casual and competitive.

That said, in this case the rules are anything but clear:

Core Rules wrote:If a unit starts its Movement phase embarked within a TRANSPORT model, that unit can disembark in that phase so long as the model itself has not yet made a Normal Move, an Advance or has Fallen Back that phase.

Inexorable Advance wrote:This unit counts as having remained stationary if it did not advance or fall back if it did not Advance or Falls Back during its previous movement phase.

RAW:
- During T1 you have no previous movement phase. Even if you advance or fall back during that turn, you still can disembark after advancing or falling back because the transport will never count as having made a Normal Move, an Advance or as Fallen Back.
- If you do advance or fall back, you will not count as stationary in your next movement phase.
- If you remain stationary or make a Normal Move, you will count as stationary in your next movement phase, no matter what you actually in in that phase
RAI:
This most likely just wanted to give hateful volley to plague marines at all times and fix the reaper autocannon.
GW feths up the rules every time they use "counts as" and should have learned by now. If they want infantry models to shoot as if they had not moved, they should write that into the rule.

Or rhinos and other transports will not get inexorable advance so the issue doesn't come up.

Of course that would be fething terrible as it would mean Landraider wouldn't get the ignore -1 shooting in CC so I highly doubt that is the case.

As you were

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Not to be personal against you but this is such a toxic way of thinking... It's what has created many of the issues with the game. A rule is released and it's clear what is meant by it but there is always a "lawyering" of the rule to try and break it or reinterpret it. This is a casual tabletop game, the rules and suggestions from GW shouldn't be approached in this manner at all IMO.

It's in the responsibility of the rules writers to make sure their rules are properly written, and fix them if they are not. Players can be casual, a company who charges money for their rules has no excuse to not be professional.

This culture of victim blaming in GW communities always baffles me, people have been brainwashed by GW pushing the blame onto players for so long. GW is in charge of the rules, it's their responsibility to make them work for every player, both casual and competitive.

That said, in this case the rules are anything but clear:

Core Rules wrote:If a unit starts its Movement phase embarked within a TRANSPORT model, that unit can disembark in that phase so long as the model itself has not yet made a Normal Move, an Advance or has Fallen Back that phase.

Inexorable Advance wrote:This unit counts as having remained stationary if it did not advance or fall back if it did not Advance or Falls Back during its previous movement phase.

RAW:
- During T1 you have no previous movement phase. Even if you advance or fall back during that turn, you still can disembark after advancing or falling back because the transport will never count as having made a Normal Move, an Advance or as Fallen Back.
- If you do advance or fall back, you will not count as stationary in your next movement phase.
- If you remain stationary or make a Normal Move, you will count as stationary in your next movement phase, no matter what you actually in in that phase
RAI:
This most likely just wanted to give hateful volley to plague marines at all times and fix the reaper autocannon.
GW feths up the rules every time they use "counts as" and should have learned by now. If they want infantry models to shoot as if they had not moved, they should write that into the rule.

If there is no previous movement phase the rule can't take effect, disembarking is before the unit moves, regardless of whether it counts as stationary or otherwise. It seems pretty clear.

It’s clearly written as a rule that applies to shooting.

Dudeface wrote:
If there is no previous movement phase the rule can't take effect, disembarking is before the unit moves, regardless of whether it counts as stationary or otherwise. It seems pretty clear.

The rule is always on unless you do specific things in your previous movement phase. In turn 1 the answer to "did you advance of fall back in your previous movement phase?" is "No".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AduroT wrote:
It’s clearly written as a rule that applies to shooting.

"Clearly" is clearly the wrong word.

It might have been intended that way, but "shooting" doesn't even appear in the rule, so it also applies to all other phases. Whenever any rule requires you to be stationary for any reason, this will interact with it.
For example - assuming rules have stayed the same - you can use the fire frenzy stratagem on a moved helbrute, because it counts as having remained stationary.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
If there is no previous movement phase the rule can't take effect, disembarking is before the unit moves, regardless of whether it counts as stationary or otherwise. It seems pretty clear.

The rule is always on unless you do specific things in your previous movement phase. In turn 1 the answer to "did you advance of fall back in your previous movement phase?" is "No".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AduroT wrote:
It’s clearly written as a rule that applies to shooting.

"Clearly" is clearly the wrong word.

It might have been intended that way, but "shooting" doesn't even appear in the rule, so it also applies to all other phases. Whenever any rule requires you to be stationary for any reason, this will interact with it.
For example - assuming rules have stayed the same - you can use the fire frenzy stratagem on a moved helbrute, because it counts as having remained stationary.

You can't not have advanced or fallen back in a previous movement phase if there isnt a previous movement phase to relate to. I agree that is unclear and has been for years though, not the first instance of this sort of thing and will be faqd on this point.

Never the less as you say the disembark happens before a transport commences a normal move, you can't "count as" stationary without having moved. Likewise the requirement for disembark isn't a stationary vehicle, so it doesn't help there.

Ask: did the vehicle perform a normal move, if the answer is yes but I count as stationary, then the disembark rules are clear on this.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Not to be personal against you but this is such a toxic way of thinking... It's what has created many of the issues with the game. A rule is released and it's clear what is meant by it but there is always a "lawyering" of the rule to try and break it or reinterpret it. This is a casual tabletop game, the rules and suggestions from GW shouldn't be approached in this manner at all IMO.

It's in the responsibility of the rules writers to make sure their rules are properly written, and fix them if they are not. Players can be casual, a company who charges money for their rules has no excuse to not be professional.

This culture of victim blaming in GW communities always baffles me, people have been brainwashed by GW pushing the blame onto players for so long. GW is in charge of the rules, it's their responsibility to make them work for every player, both casual and competitive.

That said, in this case the rules are anything but clear:

Core Rules wrote:If a unit starts its Movement phase embarked within a TRANSPORT model, that unit can disembark in that phase so long as the model itself has not yet made a Normal Move, an Advance or has Fallen Back that phase.

Inexorable Advance wrote:This unit counts as having remained stationary if it did not advance or fall back if it did not Advance or Falls Back during its previous movement phase.

RAW:
- During T1 you have no previous movement phase. Even if you advance or fall back during that turn, you still can disembark after advancing or falling back because the transport will never count as having made a Normal Move, an Advance or as Fallen Back.
- If you do advance or fall back, you will not count as stationary in your next movement phase.
- If you remain stationary or make a Normal Move, you will count as stationary in your next movement phase, no matter what you actually in in that phase
RAI:
This most likely just wanted to give hateful volley to plague marines at all times and fix the reaper autocannon.
GW feths up the rules every time they use "counts as" and should have learned by now. If they want infantry models to shoot as if they had not moved, they should write that into the rule.

The rules summaries we've seen on WHC have failed to fully encapsulate rules in the past. Using them as a definitive guide on how the rule is written in the actual codex is just bad.

Well damn. Plague Marines looking like they're finally going to be proppa Nurgle-infused supersoldiers on the tabletop. And before someone accuses me of wanting OP units, of course they should also be appropriately priced. Thing is just that I've always felt a disconnect between the combat performance of many non-Primaris SM between the fluff and tabletop and 9th edition is finally rectifying that. Do Plague Flails still have the D3 hits per successful hit roll?

Pandabeer wrote:
Do Plague Flails still have the D3 hits per successful hit roll?

We don't know yet, we just know their strength is reduced by 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The rules summaries we've seen on WHC have failed to fully encapsulate rules in the past. Using them as a definitive guide on how the rule is written in the actual codex is just bad.

True, let's leave it at that.

I know this is not likely, but...

Since it seems that Possessed is CORE, a dedicated Nurgle Possessed upgrade (downgrade?) sprue would be dandy

I mean, I am currently kitbashing from Blightking and Maggotkin models, but "official" ones would be nice..

Pandabeer wrote:
Well damn. Plague Marines looking like they're finally going to be proppa Nurgle-infused supersoldiers on the tabletop. And before someone accuses me of wanting OP units, of course they should also be appropriately priced. Thing is just that I've always felt a disconnect between the combat performance of many non-Primaris SM between the fluff and tabletop and 9th edition is finally rectifying that. Do Plague Flails still have the D3 hits per successful hit roll?

I’m far from an expert on 40k, let alone DG, but the Bolter Drill with the always count as stationary does seem to have helped their overall damage output, which I understand was a concern (thinking being it’s fine and well being difficult to kill, but struggling to kill in return isn’t a great trade off).

Disgustingly Resilient article

Disgustingly Resilent today.

-1 to damage.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/12/10/death-guard-rules-preview-part-4-disgustingly-resilient/

So, uh, what does this do for 1 wound models like Poxwalkers? Do they simply not have it now, or possess a different version?

It does nuffink for them/

I consider this a nerf on all fronts.

This might mean something down the line when more armies have acquired more high damage weapons, but for now this is a nerf that and does nothing against D1 weapons of which there is a plethora of. I mean, this is a boost to intercessor fire as there is now no chance to ignore their fire.

Wow, this is a kick to the teeth.

 BleachHawk wrote:
Wow, this is a kick to the teeth.

Quite.

I imagine Plague Marines will now cost the same as a Tac Marine. Hell, I imagine point drops across the board now.

We are the most resilient of troops! We are the toughest in the galaxy! Except against the weakest of arms fire.

So no more protection from mortal wounds at all and poxwalkers are now completly worthless. All our little stuff is now alot easier to kill but all our big stuff is now harder to kill. So the new look DG will be deamon engines and terminators with no troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus nobody will ever super charge plasma against us again as there is no point nowr

 Eldarsif wrote:

 BleachHawk wrote:
Wow, this is a kick to the teeth.

Quite.

-1 D is good for a model with 2 wounds.

A single plasma shot will not be able to kill a Plague Marine. It will be able to kill a Primaris marine.

While I liked the way DR used to work, this is not a huge nerf. It just means they take less guaranteed damage at the upper end of the spectrum instead of randomly shrugging off damage all over.

2 wound plague marines with this vs. 1 wound plague marines with old DG still are more resilient vs. Bolters, Heavy Bolters, even Mortal Wounds, etc.. .

Seems good, and most importantly, less dice-rolling to get through stuff!!!

Just drown them in bolter fire.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 BleachHawk wrote:
Wow, this is a kick to the teeth.

Quite.

-1 D is good for a model with 2 wounds.

A single plasma shot will not be able to kill a Plague Marine. It will be able to kill a Primaris marine.

While I liked the way DR used to work, this is not a huge nerf. It just means they take less guaranteed damage at the upper end of the spectrum instead of randomly shrugging off damage all over.

The difference is that without FnP Poxwalkers are useless as they are T3 with 7+ save(hopefully they'll get something to barely survive). It also means we are now quite vulnerable to Mortal Wound gimmicks. Also, D2 weapons are not a dime a dozen even if it has been increased with the new Heavy Bolter changes. I have also not seen that great a proliferation of plasma to really fear plasma.

Ultimately this makes DG vulnerable to small arms fire.

I am not a fan of the change, but will live with it as long as we see an appropriate point drop. I just want the book now so I can see the entire picture.

I

All this said, it will be interesting to see what a Plague Surgeon does now. May give a 5++ to all CORE.

I'll wonder if this relates to daemons aswell.. 1-wound models, such as poxwalkers, cultists and plaguebearers are suffering the most

 puma713 wrote:
Just drown them in bolter fire.

So what?

Previously, you needed 3 failed saves vs. Heavy Bolters / Bolters or 3 Mortal Wounds to kill 2 Plague Marines.

Now you need 4 each.

They are 33% more resilient against these things than they were in 8th.