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.

How do!

Arising from the Drop Pod thread, I wanted to start this one as a repository of oddities we’d like to be FAQ’d.

So far, the rules once you’ve digested them seem pretty tight. But there are, inevitably, some bits where it’s not entirely clear. And it’s in those areas TFG takes root and attempts to moan and bore their way to victory.

Drop Pods

Potted version? When Deep Striking, you must be 1” away from enemy units, board edges and Impassable Terrain. If you can’t? The model is a casualty. Drop Pods of course deep strikes, and must be deployed on the board, Doors Open. However, Impact Reactive Doors states that the doors/petals are ignored for all measurement. Instead, you measure solely to the main hull.

I think the intention here is the Doors/Petals are used for measuring deployment tolerances, then otherwise ignored for shooting, charging and moving past the Drop Pod. But strictly speaking, right now you’d be within the rules to ignore the Doors/Petals entirely for deployment tolerances.

Hence, I’d like this FAQ’d. And despite what I think is meant to happen, I’m not especially wedded to either outcome. It’s just something to avoid arguments with a clear answer.

Anyone else come across any? Particularly interested in those that have had a chance to get a game in, as that tends to be when the oddities crop up.

Apothecary has two special rules (Narthecium and Medic) and neither of them does anything, by RAW. And the most obvious RAI reading of Medic can leave a unit with multiple wounded models, which is very out of style with how GW usually do these things (40k 5.0 a dishonorable exception)

Just had a read, and I agree.

It says Medic! Reaction allows a unit with a Medic to make a Recovery Test at Stage 11 of shooting. But I can’t for the life of me find what a Recovery Test actually is.

Recovery Test is in a sidebar under Medic(x) in the Special Rules, but doesn't make things any better as step 11 is too late for it, it should proc at step 9 to work at all.

And Narthecium also calls for a Recovery Test (something explicitly dealing with wounds on models) in the Morale sub-phase to gain a bonus to Cool checks, which is just nonsense.

What I think Medic! is meant to do is provide a Damage Mitigation Save equal to the Medic (X). So for an Apothecary, that’s a 4+ Damage Mitigation.

Narthecium seems to allow a -2 modifier to a single Status Inflict Check?

Definitely needs a clarifying FAQ. Though I’ll check the Solar Auxilia book as well, just in case that has clearer wording.

Nope. No help there.

It's a 4+ roll, max of one per model, to reduce one hit by 1 damage, after damage has already been allocated and tallied and casualties chosen (just not physically removed).

So the most benevolent reading is, 10 bolter wounds at 10 Tacticals, for every 4+ one model is unharmed (Damage 1-1)

Weirdness when 10 D2 hits on 10 W2 Veterans, and for every 4+ one model survives on 1 wound remaining (Damage 2-1), because it's explicitly reducing damage after you've already done the "assign enough damage to kill a dude, then proceed to the next dude" part.

Narthecium calling for this off-brand "damage mitigation roll" when there's no damage to mitigate, to see if you qualify for a Cool check modifier, is just nonsense.

Indeed. Defo FAQ worthy.

Alpha Legion Headhunter Leviathal has 2 Prime Recon slots. You can choose to fill these slots with Land Raider Explorators and then give them the 'True Believers' Prime Advantage.
RAW you now have tanks who are completely immune to Tactical Statuses. Furthermore, because they have no mental stats they are immune to the usual penalty associated with True Believers.
End result is (multiple) AV14 vehicles who are completely immune to glances and the Shock special rule.

Not an FAQ but something that needs changing.

Chaplain Centurions have no special rules. No hatred, no intolerance, no zeal, no flavor.

Why?

Nice.

IW can squeeze an Arquitor in a Prime Slot also.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Not an FAQ but something that needs changing.

Chaplain Centurions have no special rules. No hatred, no intolerance, no zeal, no flavor.

Why?

their power is Cool 10. Boring, but probably strong.

Crozius is also a superior Hitting Stick, offering D2.

It's good that GW brought the same old rules problems to 30K along with the old Drop Pod kit.

It’s really not that bad so far.

Wordy? Yes. But difficult to wilfully misinterpret.

Of course difficult is not the same as impossible, hence this thread where we perhaps just need a straight Yes Or No answer. Which are of course assisted by clear, but not necessarily short, questions.

Example of Wordy But Not Unclear?

Shot Selector. A special rule belonging to Kraken Bolters, which allow you to grant either Panic (1), Suppressive (2) or Breaching (4+) to their shots. And it specifies the selection is made at Step 3 of the Shooting Attack Procedure. Which is the Step where I declare Weapons.

That of course means there can be no argument that perhaps, if you look at it in a gloomy room, wearing shades, squint a lot and have had five pints, it actually allows me to wait until I’ve rolled to hit or wound or similar.

At the moment, it can be a chore to have to flip back and forth (here from the Kraken Bolter weapon profile, to Shot Selector special rule, then to the Shooting Attack process).

But, once I’ve played a few games, the Shooting Attack process should be committed to memory, and if (I don’t currently have any, but am considering adding some) I make regular use of Kraken Bolters? I’ll again eventually lose the need to double check every time.

I’m sure other oddities will crop up, especially once a bunch of games have been played, and say, Legion Specific Rules start interacting in peculiar “well I’m not entirely sure which goes first” ways.

Or like the Medic/Narthecium it just doesn’t make sense.

Bit odd tho that the casual narrative grognard game, rather than the hyper competitive tournament e-sport that is 40k, is so worried about belligerent misinterpretation.

All in the name of just enjoying a game when I’m playing it, and not having it bogged down in rules arguments.

Even when in super duper narrative everyone-holds-hands-kumbaya gaming? TFG has the potential to exist. As do “but if my interpretation is correct, you’re stuffed. If it’s not, I’m stuffed” situations

Clear rules benefit everyone equally. Except dyed in the wool TFG. But nobody likes them anyway.

But I would argue the rules aren't clear. Adding more words, repeating the same thing multiple times in slightly differently worded ways, random reminders of things that were already explained elsewhere, and looping back (a model with X benefits from X while it has X) isn't clarity, it just adds more points where rules can be misconstrued, or even for the rules writer to lose the plot and come up with nonsense (surely we'll find more Medics when we read everything properly)

Which isn’t the point of this thread. Rather, it’s for us to list rules issues we come across where we feel an FAQ is needed.

And there’s some hope that another poster might be able to point us to the right answer.

For example, the Medic! Reaction. The issue there is a Recovery Test isn’t actually defined. We know how a unit can benefit from it (add an Apothecary, who’s Medic Trait grants the unit the Medic! Reaction). We know Medic (4+) means the Recovery Test is passed on a 4+, and when the test is made. But not what a passed Recovery Test actually does.

I’ve had a look through the obvious places such information might be held (traits, damage mitigation), but come up with nothing.

So there’s no dispute that right now, at least within this thread that requires an FAQ. But who knows? Maybe we’ll find that there is a definition for Recovery Test hidden somewhere obscure. If there is, this thread has still served its purpose by clearing an issue up, whether or not anyone has to send it in to GW as an FAQ question, or it’s found lurking among the rules.

Whether the overall rules could’ve been written more concisely is a conversation, but one for another thread. Let’s keep this one for finding the wonk and the oddities, so we can try to get a solution.

We do know what a passed Recovery test does, it's written in the explanation of what a Recovery test is. It reduces damage taken by an attack by 1 to a minimum of 0.

But that doesn't really make sense in the context of the Medic! reaction or the narthecium wargear's status thing. lord_blackfang pointed all that out earlier in this thread.

The player that wins the roll off in step 7 never gets to deploy any units.

I don't have my book infront of me, but IIRC...

Psychic Powers are, RAW, allowed to be cast multiple times by the same model with the correct convention.

Basically, from memory:

The psychic power rules state that, after a model (or unit) casts a power, it may not cast *another* power or some such. Like wise Biomantic Rage states that, whenever a friendly unit charges within 18" and the psyker is not in combat, they can cast it. So given the wording on the restrictions it seems to imply that you can recast the same power when the 'prompt' re-appears for another unit, as you are casting the same power rather than 'another' power.

Admittedly this is a kind of stringy interpretation, but it jumped out at me during my review.

There is absolutely a need for this thread and very glad one has been started.

The rulebook has given me flashbacks of poor academic writing, where you try and dress up a simple concept by describing it in as complicated a manner as possible. The very act of spelling something out two or three times can make obfuscation/misinterpretation more likely, even when the rule itself is fairly straightforward once you cut through the chaff.

 Pacific wrote:
There is absolutely a need for this thread and very glad one has been started.

The rulebook has given me flashbacks of poor academic writing, where you try and dress up a simple concept by describing it in as complicated a manner as possible. The very act of spelling something out two or three times can make obfuscation/misinterpretation more likely, even when the rule itself is fairly straightforward once you cut through the chaff.

I said this with other words in a Whatsapp chat last night. I have an MEng, I taught English in Japan for two years and now teach science so I see good writing as being concise with excellent word choice. H3resy has it so that Shooting Attacks and attacks can easily be conflated. If you read it carefully and thoroughly, it is clear that vehicle Shooting Attacks can contain multiple attacks, but the word salad does not need to exist. Why make Attacks and attacks two different things? Just call Shooting Attacks Ranged Strikes or something similar, and the possibility for confusion is all but eliminated, and probably allows a 30-40% reduction in the number of words required too.

Remember to share the wording where issues arise. Such details can help to frame the issue, and the question, accurately.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but does anyone know what a “Maelstrom Sentry Battery auxiliary detachment” is, please?
This is from the two expanded Master of Signals entries on p.44 and 45 of the Legacies of the Age of Darkness PDF.
The actual named detachment doesn’t appear to be in the legiones hereticus book, or the PDF.

It doesn't exist yet.
I believe its going to feature in an upcoming Tactical Journal book and been referneced in the Legacies PDF ahead of schedule.
Whether this was deliberate or the result of shoddily copy-pasting content into the Legacies pdf is unclear.

Mozzamanx wrote:
It doesn't exist yet.
I believe its going to feature in an upcoming Tactical Journal book and been referneced in the Legacies PDF ahead of schedule.
Whether this was deliberate or the result of shoddily copy-pasting content into the Legacies pdf is unclear.

Fair enough I suppose. I just wish they had been a bit more generic ("this model is a Master of Signals for the purposes of unlocking Auxiliary Detachments" or similar) or even had the specialist detachments trigger off a Trait.

On anther note from the same PDF, does anyone know what the Macrocarid Explorator's access point(s) are supposed to be? It's a Transport but has none listed; does that make the whole thing an access point?