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.

 

Has anyone noticed that they come with bolt pistols as well as bolters? So you can move forward, have a round of shooting, then assault.....

I'm wondering how this could be applied into strategy....

They can't actually assault, since models that are carrying rapid fire weapons may not assault in any turn where they fire.

bouyancy is correct, though I am sure GW did not intend it this way.

page 29 of the hardbound rules:


Notice how it doesnt say if it fired rapid fire weapons, but simply fire in the shooting phase which encompasses pistols.

Just another glaring indicator of how badly written and playtested this codex is.

The real irony is that Jervis himself is the largest proponent of RaW and yet RaW makes this little tactic of shooting the pistol once and assaulting invalid because they happen to carry bolters. A rule he wrote himself.

Witness how I easily suppress the urge to be overwhelmingly impressed by this "work"....

I think the general consensus is that they're still able to assault after shooting pistols.

Trying reading an implied "it" into the sentence:

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire [it] in the Shooting phase..."

It makes a heck of a lot more sense that way. GW just didn't repeat the direct object in the sentence and instead left it implied.

I agree that it is implied, but by RaW (Jervis' baby) it is illegal to do so.
I do disagree with your opinion that the implication is agreed upon by the general consensus however.

On the other hand, they do say simply carrying a rapid fire weapon (not firing "it" ) and firing in the shooting phase prevents the possibility of assaulting with that unit.
It is still quite clear that firing a pistol with a model carrying a bolter and trying to assault is a no go.

I can't stop laughing after reading that.

 

What I am getting from reading that rule is that if you are carrying a rapid fire weapon and you shoot it, you cannot assault, not that simply carrying it prevents you from doing so. Even by RaW standards, thats what the rule states.

You could get that, but thats not what it says.

What it says is:

Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire in the Shooting phase

DA with bolter and pistol are carrying a rapid fire weapon. They fire the bolt pistol, they cannot charge.

Again, I agree that it is implied that it the model is firing a rapid fire weapon, it cannot charge, but by RaW, if it simply carrys the rapid fire weapon it cannot charge if it fires at all (with any weapon).

How can you adapt "putting the Thz'uck into Tzeentch" into a Dark Angels Slogan?

You know, if someone actually pulled out that line of crap, err, reasoning about RAW, I'd simply have to pack up my stuff and find someone else to play. I just don't have the time or patience for the level of anality someone has put into a game involving little toy soldiers.

As far as tactics, I'm sure it can come into play on certain occassions, but I would imagine your overall gameplan is not based on it. It would be more of a last minute decision based on the individual situation you are presented.

I'd treat it the same way I would the way Psycannons and Turbo-Boosted Bikes: Before the game starts ask my opponent. "This is what the rules literally say, but everyone knows its stupid. How do you want to play this?"

30 seconds of foresight saves a lot of arguments later on.

RAW definitely makes the bolt pistols useless, but If I were to use the Dark Angels Codex or play against someone with it I would let them use the bolt pistols prior to assault.  Assuming that we are letting DA players do this, I could see the pistol being very useful as a counterassault tool once an enemy assault breaks through the first line of defense.  I was playing a game against a marine player recently and his tac squads had some trouble choosing between rapid firing at Daemons and being stuck in the open and liable to get charged, or else charging an unsoftened unit of Daemonettes and being safe from the rest of my fire.  In a friendly game I'd say the DA should be able to shoot and then assault.  They deserve this little boost.

Posted By Sarigar on 03/18/2007 5:31 PM
You know, if someone actually pulled out that line of crap, err, reasoning about RAW, I'd simply have to pack up my stuff and find someone else to play.

Agreed. But what can you do in an area where you dont know people (i.e. travel to a tourney) and expect RaW not to be enforced after GW themselves promote it  like "Godzorr! RaW is the sechs! I want to pee in its butt!"?

But as samwise said, they do deserve it, even if they got screwed by RaW, it just makes sense. There should be no reason as to why they gave them a pistol just to be unable to use it. Very slowed.

I mean its not like the dex is over powered or anything, its anything but that.

Unfortunately, that passage was written when no model came with more than one weapon standard (circumlocutions about bolters and heavies nonwithstanding); it assumes that a model with a rapid-fire weapon would ONLY have that weapon, and any shooting would be done with it. Here's to making assumptions in rules writing, and the myriad sins it propogates.

Posted By lord_sutekh on 03/18/2007 10:53 PM
 Here's to making assumptions in rules writing, and the myriad sins it propogates.

Joins in the toast...

I've been pretty consistently prone to defend GW, but now that I have my DA Codex in front of me, now that this RAW issue is brought up, I'm seriously running out of patience for them.

They're idiots.

I seriously cannot stomach Jervis Johnson, his endless WD articles about how hard they all work, and how fabulous their products are...

He gave the DAs Bolt Pistols so they could shoot and charge... He specifically said so... He's a RAW advocate... And the RAW won't let them shoot and charge.

He wrote a DA Codex that allows a model to carry Lightning Claws and a Bolter...

He gave all the DA characters 3A, and denied them Terminator Honors...

I found at least two typos in the DA Codex within five minutes of opening it...

I could go on, but it's a waste of time. GW needs to stop keeping morons around because they've had longstanding ties to the company. Morons are morons. Get some talent, or have the decency to fold up, sell your IP to somebody worth a damn, and get out of the damn way.

My biggest issues with the codex are the increased cost of units/items in additon to the removal of special rules that helped them out. For example, incresing the cost of a dread by 20 points, but removing the option of giving a venerable dread any skills!

The small equipment list choices and high point cost of wargear for vet sarges from every unit is very annoying.  The very small list of upgrades for non named hq's is just... unreasonable.

Not having term honors on the hq's is... a setback. But not giving them term honors when you buy term armor is just dumb. Not only do you loose the bolt pistol for a +1 attack, you cannot buy an off hand weapon to give them that +1 attack back! ( two lighting claw  deathwing grandmaster the only expction to this)

"He wrote a DA Codex that allows a model to carry Lightning Claws and a Bolter..."

Actually a bolt pistol, when challenged on this Jervis said that so long as it is modelled that is ok. I quite agree. a wrist mounted bolt pistol on a lightning claw armed marine would look good and not be imbalanced, its only one Bs5 S4 shot, two if out of charge range.

Jervis had good intantions with the DA codex, but cannot get over the monkey language problems that infest GW studio.

Posted By Hellfury on 03/18/2007 7:41 PM

Posted By Sarigar on 03/18/2007 5:31 PM
You know, if someone actually pulled out that line of crap, err, reasoning about RAW, I'd simply have to pack up my stuff and find someone else to play.

Agreed. But what can you do in an area where you dont know people (i.e. travel to a tourney) and expect RaW not to be enforced after GW themselves promote it  like "Godzorr! RaW is the sechs! I want to pee in its butt!"?

But as samwise said, they do deserve it, even if they got screwed by RaW, it just makes sense. There should be no reason as to why they gave them a pistol just to be unable to use it. Very slowed.

I mean its not like the dex is over powered or anything, its anything but that.

I've rarely encountered anyone in a tourney that would go to this extreme of silliness (akin to setting up your models so you could never be assaulted by exploitng the 1 inch rule, Terminators not wearing Terminator armor b/c it doesn't say so in their rules etc...) .  Hopefully, I won't have this truly come up as it seems pretty clear what the intention was for. (crap, I said the dreaded word, intent) 

IIRC, Jervis' article mainly boiled down to if you and your opponent truly can not come to an agreement on the rules, go exactly by RAW, and move on.

My point is if someone is really pushing the issue on this, it's probably not going to be an enjoyable game for either party.  I know we all won't agree on all the rules and I can work out amicable concessions that both can live with 99% of the time. However, if I'm playing TFG (thanks to JTS1486 for his story), then I'm going to concede the game. I'll go walk around and take pics of nicely painted armies in action. Explaining your interpretation will do no good as this type of person is going to look for every rules exploit/loop hole  he can find. I'm not going to waste my time (which I tend to have less and less of these days).

Maybe none of you guys have seen this?

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=103745

I have. And I'm glad to have it, but a thread from a message board is not something I can bring to a GT.

Actually, I probably can bring it to Adepticon next weekend, since Jervis will be there and can verify that it's for real.

If they made this into a codex FAQ and put it on the web page, it would indeed fix the issue for other events as well.

This seems like pretty basic stuff. I'm surprised they didn't clarify the Bolt Pistols thing and transport selection in the Codex.

"I have. And I'm glad to have it, but a thread from a message board is not something I can bring to a GT. "

Damn, you got me there

Well, in that thread, it says that when they release the FAQ for Dark Angels, thats pretty much the stuff thats gonna be in it. It probably wont be out for a while though :(

Posted By Colonel_Schwotz on 03/24/2007 6:43 PM

"I have. And I'm glad to have it, but a thread from a message board is not something I can bring to a GT. "

Damn, you got me there

Well, in that thread, it says that when they release the FAQ for Dark Angels, thats pretty much the stuff thats gonna be in it. It probably wont be out for a while though :(

I can understand a 6 month period to see if any people come forward with head scratching rules questions that need clarification, but after that, the company is just being lazy.

By that rationale, its getting about time for an eldar faq....

Posted By Sarigar on 03/18/2007 5:31 PM
You know, if someone actually pulled out that line of crap, err, reasoning about RAW, I'd simply have to pack up my stuff and find someone else to play. I just don't have the time or patience for the level of anality someone has put into a game involving little toy soldiers.

So if the other guy doesn't let you have your way, you'll take your ball and go home?

You go with that Captain Sportsmanship.

Posted By Colonel_Schwotz on 03/24/2007 5:54 AM

Maybe none of you guys have seen this?

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=103745

From the thread...



Ummm.... if I'm not mistaken, this is a huge change in rules for IC deployment, unless of course this is part of some DA special rule...

Yeah Low, they clarified how IC's deploy during DS and reserve, in the BGB FAQ.

Here ya Go:

"Q. Reserves and joining units/transports. When
deploying an Independent Character, on page 81 the
rule book says that “you may specify that it starts the
game already inside a unit and place it in coherency with
it”. If the character and this unit are both kept in Reserve,
can you roll for them together (i.e. only one roll applying
to both), so that they enter the game together
(particularly if they are also using a transport)? This
seems to contradict the “Each selection from the Force
Organisation chart is diced for separately” on page 84
(Reserves). Similarly, can a squad start the game in
Reserve inside a transport vehicle that is not a
dedicated transport, so that I roll only one dice for both?

A. There is a way to use these two rules so that they do
not contradict each other.
If the Reserves rules are used, you must roll separately
for all Force Organisation chart selections at the start of
the turn (including rolling separately for Independent
Characters and non-dedicated transports). Once you
worked out which units are available in that turn, you are
allowed to combine them in any legal way. For example,
if an independent character, a squad and a nondedicated
transport all become available at the
beginning of turn 3, you could deploy them all separately
as normal, or the character could join the unit and then
the unit could enter the battlefield embarked on the
transport, as long as they fit inside it. Or any other legal
combination."

Emphasis mine.

Mauleed - A does not equal B. 

And yes, to save myself aggravation if someone tried arguing this line of BS, I have no problem walking away from a game using toy soldiers.

Lordhat --

There's a big difference between the two FAQs.

The BGB faq says, basically, that if you have an IC in reserve, and it becomes available at the same time a pod and its crew does, you can put it in the pod.

The DA faq says you can deploy the IC in the drop pod, and then make one reserve roll for the pod. As well, you can apparently choose to attach the IC to the pod squad at game start time, putting him in reserves by virtue of the pod, something that otherwise isn't technically legal.

It's a very significant change.

Posted By Lowinor on 04/04/2007 5:17 AM
Lordhat --

There's a big difference between the two FAQs.

The BGB faq says, basically, that if you have an IC in reserve, and it becomes available at the same time a pod and its crew does, you can put it in the pod.

The DA faq says you can deploy the IC in the drop pod, and then make one reserve roll for the pod. As well, you can apparently choose to attach the IC to the pod squad at game start time, putting him in reserves by virtue of the pod, something that otherwise isn't technically legal.

It's a very significant change.

Of course it is a significant change.  They are trying to cover up horrendously written codex rule A with badly written rulebook rule B.

Same can be said for the bolt pistol issue.

This isnt clarification, its changing the rules to match designers intent.

Its a shame they werent written better in the first place, you shouldnt have to have some game dev standing over your shoulder explaining their own poorly written rules while changing them as he explains "What I meant was...".