Battleground Games Forum

Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Chase on June 30, 2012, 05:27:38 PM

Title: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on June 30, 2012, 05:27:38 PM
Ask them here.  It'll be good practice for us (Sam).


Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on June 30, 2012, 05:40:44 PM
ok you can delete my other post. What consitues as a "Flyer" the offical codex entries do not say they are flyers. I think Gw already put out an errata. But in the new book it has a section on flyers. Does this indicate Valks, Vendettas, Storm Talons etc? Or the forge world only flyers such as the Lightnings and the Thunderbolts?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: JWebs on June 30, 2012, 05:56:11 PM
Alrighty, I've got a few.

1) copypasted from another thread:
So the tyranid tervigon power Onslaught says that a unit may shoot and assault the turn it runs if it has fleet. Before the assault part was just to clarify confusion but now with fleet now granting assaults on runs it's less clear. I expected a FAQ update to it but... nothing

2) I've read a lot of confusion regarding Boneswords, what people seem to be stating is that they are AP3 but they still get their special rules from the Tyranid codex. They claim this includes the ignore armor saves part, but when dealing with vehicle penetration is when the AP3 comes in.

3) How do singing spears work now?

4) Does Spirit Stones grant Mastery Level 2? (Eldrad's FAQ entry really throws this one for a loop.)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on June 30, 2012, 10:49:03 PM
what page are you refering to for flyers? I cant seem to find it
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: PhoenixFire on July 01, 2012, 12:05:15 AM
Moving this over here in case anyone isn't looking at the Fortifications yes/no discussion in another thread

the current topic is FLAKK missles, are they a point upgrade? can only certain codex's use them? do they not exist because GW forgot to put them in ALL the FAQs? read below and share your thoughts

I think it's more an oversight that guard (and other armies) have nothing with skyfire.  Shouldn't the Hydra and maybe the Manticore have it?  There's also the flakk missles that can be fired from missle launchers, but they have to be bought as an upgrade.  I think GW forgot about that when they did the updates and FAQs.

Hydra does have it.  IN fact, it doesn't have other use, since it can only snapfire at ground targets.

The way I read it (going off the bestiary in the back of the BRB), Flak missiles are integral to the basic imperial Missile launcher that SM troops and devastators and IG heavy weapons squads get.  No other kind of missile launcher gets it, not even eldar, though.

The flak thing stil isnt clear to me as it looks like you need to buy that upgrade with points.

from the book verbatim "All missile launchers come with frag and krak missiles as standard, and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles. Each time a missile launcer fires, the controlling player must choose which type of missile is being fired"

it has separate entries for the typhoon and cyclone space marine missile launchers and looks like those do not get the option for flakk


As far as hydra it can fire at ground and air at normal BS because it doesnt have the interceptor rule.

A weapon with skyfire and interceptor rules is the one that can only take snap shots at ground targets
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Ian Mulligan on July 01, 2012, 04:59:12 AM
Are CSM daemon weapons subject to power weapon typing?

What profile would a glaive encarmine from the BA codex use?

What about Astaroth's Executioner Axe?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Benjamin on July 01, 2012, 06:15:14 AM
No questions from me, but I wanted to let people know there's already a copy of all FAQ/Errata sheets behind the counter in Plainville.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Mad Dok Rob on July 01, 2012, 03:48:50 PM
Just curious,

Storm Talon, Storm Raven did they get expanded to other armies?  Just wondering if I can take one of these in my Ravenwing Army.  Taking a fortification to give a bike army antiaircraft seems kind of silly.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sam on July 01, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
So far, Stormtalons and Stormravens remains part of their usual codexes. That's likely to change in the future (the Appendix lists Stormravens under the generic Codex Space Marine vehicle list), but until the FAQ says otherwise, we've got to stick to the codex.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Loranus on July 01, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=2700228-gws

Quote
Incidentally, when the Stormtalon came out, many hobbyists asked us on Facebook if they could use it in their Black Templars/Space Wolves/Blood Angels army. Well now, if you pick it as an allied unit to your main army, the answer is very happily: yes.

No plans soon until a new Codex comes out to add Flyers to those armies outside of Allies.

I think flyers right now are a little over rated I don't see why they made it so Blast Templates can't hit them. Air Bursting and a Giant Orbital Laser makes me think they should hit but I don't see all the hate for them. They are tough yes but so was Tanks all through 5th and people dealt with them.

Edit: My Answer Bikes.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 01, 2012, 04:46:52 PM
I dont need no stinking Storm Ravens. I got Storm Eagles.  8)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: KennyT on July 01, 2012, 06:14:55 PM
Two questions about skyfire.

Why does it make mention of skimmers, cause I don't see anything about them being hard to hit or what ever the rule is for fliers?

Is there any place in the rule book that says what get the skyfire or would it be in the faq? Hopping its in the book cause other wise I can't shoot at fliers very effectively but, my tanks could be awesome.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Loranus on July 01, 2012, 06:16:51 PM
In the back of the book I believe that they had put weapon profiles for every race. But I believe that everything is the same unless mentioned in you FAQ.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 01, 2012, 10:44:44 PM
this might be answered on another thread. why can Deamons of Chaos Deamon Prince fly but Chaos Marines Deamon Prince not? Also can blood Thirsters or Lords of Change and their ilk fly?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Ian Mulligan on July 01, 2012, 10:57:02 PM
The Chaos Space Marine FAQ states that their daemon princes with wings count as jump monstrous creatures. the FAQ for Chaos Daemons states that monstrous creatures with Daemonic Flight are flying.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: MM3791 on July 01, 2012, 11:34:51 PM

For Flakk missiles: Armies have the upgrade options listed in their codex and FAQ/Errate document. If the Flakk missile upgrade does not appear in either of those places, your army cannot currently take that upgrade.


This can't be accurate, as no current codex or the recent faq/errata mentions anything about Flakk missiles. They are only mentioned in the main rulebook as a sub munition for the Missile Launcher. To my knowledge; Space Marines, Chaos Marines, and Imperial Guard are the only armies with access to that weapon.

The rule book contradicts itself, it says it an upgrade but the profile for the Missile Launcher was actually changed to include Flakk rounds.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Loranus on July 01, 2012, 11:42:38 PM
Welcome to Games-Workshop here is something in the Universe that does not exist in any codex. Frag and Krak come standard Need to pay for an upgrade that does not exist to take out flyers.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 01, 2012, 11:49:29 PM
Gw needs better game testing at their R and D labs.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Benjamin on July 02, 2012, 12:04:03 AM
this might be answered on another thread. why can Deamons of Chaos Deamon Prince fly but Chaos Marines Deamon Prince not? Also can blood Thirsters or Lords of Change and their ilk fly?
Chaos Marine Daemon Princes are punk-bitch posers, that's why.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 02, 2012, 02:23:23 AM
this might be answered on another thread. why can Deamons of Chaos Deamon Prince fly but Chaos Marines Deamon Prince not? Also can blood Thirsters or Lords of Change and their ilk fly?
Chaos Marine Daemon Princes are punk-bitch posers, that's why.

Posers? we were the same codex at one time!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Benjamin on July 02, 2012, 08:05:37 AM
Posers? we were the same codex at one time!
One hangs out with the incarnations of evil. The other hangs out with soulbags.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: the_trooper on July 02, 2012, 12:24:27 PM
Posers? we were the same codex at one time!
One hangs out with the incarnations of evil. The other hangs out with soulbags.

Slaves of a god are not as awesome as mortals who have chosen the path and became blessed by their deity.

Angels < human all day long.

On a side note, are daemon weapons unusual power weapons or power weapons with additional rules?  Is the Axe Bloodfeeder +1 Strength in addition to 2d6 attacks?

Can the undivided daemon weapon (which is normally +1 strength + d6 attacks) be a Undivided Daemon Axe for +2 Strength + d6 attacks?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 02, 2012, 12:39:19 PM
If it has special rules, then it just defaults to basic powr weapon + the special rules it has. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: the_trooper on July 02, 2012, 12:56:27 PM
There is no basic power weapon now, right?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 02, 2012, 01:00:57 PM
there is.  Str: user, AP3
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: the_trooper on July 02, 2012, 01:21:46 PM
I'm totally playing semantics here but just to fully understand the rule and I don't have my book here:

I thought that was a power sword.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 02, 2012, 01:43:40 PM
I am not a fan of the power weapon changes.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Logan007 on July 02, 2012, 01:47:45 PM
I am not a fan of the power weapon changes.

I actually think it's pretty neat -- it might be too early to tell if each of them are balanced vs each other, but I like the concept.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 02, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
if I also read the rules right if you have duel power fists you get +1 attack?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Logan007 on July 02, 2012, 03:25:35 PM
if I also read the rules right if you have duel power fists you get +1 attack?
That was always the case.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: tilarium on July 02, 2012, 03:31:30 PM
Really, the only major change they did that I don't like right now is that flyers are virtually unstoppable, especially MCs.  I've sure, in time, as new codices come out that it'll change, but until then it's going to make things more difficult.  I'm already seeing new the codices including additional building options on top of the regular army choices we've come to love.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Battleground on July 02, 2012, 03:58:29 PM
Flyers do seem pretty nasty right now.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Loranus on July 02, 2012, 04:03:47 PM
Here is a Fun one.

Flyer Zooms, can move 18" - 36" and fire 4 weapons
Flyer can Skyfire or shoot at ground targets
Skyfire allows you to shoot at Flyers with normal BS, but unless you have Interceptor, you can only Snap Fire at Ground Units
Snapfire requirs BS1 and no blast, template, salvo, etc...
Machine Spirit allows you to fire one additional weapon than you normally could, and at a different target unit, and with full Ballistic Skill (assuming you didn't go flat out or use smoke)

What if you elected to "SkyFire" this turn with your BA Stormraven... and you shoot 4 weapons at a flyer (Two Blood Strikes, Lascannons, Multi-Melta). Can you have Machine Spirit(MS) use a 5th weapon to target a ground unit, and would it be at normal BS (Hurricane Bolters)?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: keithb on July 02, 2012, 04:08:31 PM
Machine spirit doesn't allow you to change your fire mode(skyfire or not skyfire).
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 02, 2012, 04:11:12 PM
I wondered much the same thing, but currently as I read it, no.

Another question is, can teh machine spirit let you fire 3 missiles, rather than just 2?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 02, 2012, 05:09:49 PM
what about super heavy flyers? Can my thunderhawk have some guns fire at Skyfire mode and some not?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: NateT on July 02, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
Alright, maybe a dumb question: can I ever take corteaz as an ally?  He and GK are only an ally of convienence for like every Imperial army, so no IC, right?  Basically, if I want an Inquisitor ally with my Ultramarines, what would I have to take?  I originally was going to take Corteaz and to Inquistorial squads of misc. henchmen as troops.  Can I just take a minor Inquistor and retinue as one allied HQ, or do I then also need to take at least one normal GK troop choice?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: PhoenixFire on July 02, 2012, 06:01:30 PM
Alright, maybe a dumb question: can I ever take corteaz as an ally?  He and GK are only an ally of convienence for like every Imperial army, so no IC, right?  Basically, if I want an Inquisitor ally with my Ultramarines, what would I have to take?  I originally was going to take Corteaz and to Inquistorial squads of misc. henchmen as troops.  Can I just take a minor Inquistor and retinue as one allied HQ, or do I then also need to take at least one normal GK troop choice?

pretty sure the wording is "named character" not IC, but you can take a plain ole Inquisitior
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 02, 2012, 06:03:50 PM
I think the "No special characters" in allies was a rumor. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: PhoenixFire on July 02, 2012, 06:23:17 PM
i just re-read it,

Battle brothers can take ICs

allies of convenience can not take ICs

i guess that potentially leaves the door open for named NON IC characters like Crowe or Mephiston...

at least unless they FAQ it
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 02, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
So unless your Brothers in Arms you can not used Named Charecters is what it's saying?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Chase on July 02, 2012, 08:45:45 PM
Steve, did you pick up a rulebook?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 02, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
Yes but I have had little time to read it cause I have been working. I have only skimmed its contents
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 02, 2012, 09:11:08 PM
i just re-read it,

Battle brothers can take ICs

allies of convenience can not take ICs

i guess that potentially leaves the door open for named NON IC characters like Crowe or Mephiston...

at least unless they FAQ it

You're misreading that slightly.  Allies of conveinence can't let ICs join their squads.  You can still take the IC, presumably including named ICs.  In fact, you would have to, since you would have to take an HQ, and almost all of them are ICs.  (there are a few exceptions). 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Benjamin on July 02, 2012, 10:28:30 PM
Yes but I have had little time to read it cause I have been reading the forums. I have only skimmed its contents
Fixed.  ;D
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Ian Mulligan on July 02, 2012, 11:39:40 PM
Yes but I have had little time to read it cause I have been reading the forums. I have only skimmed its contents
Fixed.  ;D

I lol'd REALLY hard.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Lykosan on July 03, 2012, 12:56:06 AM
Yes but I have had little time to read it cause I have been reading the forums. I have only skimmed its contents
Fixed.  ;D

This is the only time i am agreeing with Bryan, I want a like button.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 03, 2012, 01:45:05 AM
Not funny!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Loranus on July 03, 2012, 02:14:22 AM
Anyone in this Thread noticed Questions is spelt wrong in the title.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: NateT on July 03, 2012, 10:46:20 AM
I did now!  Ha!  How did I miss that?

So, special characters can be taken by allies of convienence?  I am trusting you lot to tell me, because I will not be able to read the rulebook until I get the mini one in the starter (Dark Angels?  heck yeah).

I would love some henchmen squads as troops... So now I need to buy Cortaez...
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Nathan B on July 03, 2012, 04:13:40 PM
Rules question regarding flamers:

A squad with a flamer is being assaulted. The model with the flamer is near the back of the squad. Can the model get his d3 hits against the incoming squad, or can he not fire his flamer through his own models? The rules for the overwatch firing does not mention measuring out the template, but does say that all normal rules about line of sight, etc. are followed normally.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Typhus on July 03, 2012, 05:57:28 PM
Allies of Convenience; and...Eldrad!

So, Allies of Convenience states that "Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers or have templates or blast markers placed over them"

I take Eldrad as part of my allied force.  Eldrad has Runes of Warding, which state "A Farseer can use runes of warding to throw up psychic interference to hinder his foes.  All enemy psychic tests must be taken on 3d6, suffering a perils of the Warp attack on any roll of 12 or higher"

Would my primary forces psykers be affected by the runes then?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 03, 2012, 05:58:16 PM
Sam your awesome. Keep posting answers like this. I have no more questions about 6th now
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 03, 2012, 07:26:43 PM
Allies of Convenience; and...Eldrad!

So, Allies of Convenience states that "Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers or have templates or blast markers placed over them"

I take Eldrad as part of my allied force.  Eldrad has Runes of Warding, which state "A Farseer can use runes of warding to throw up psychic interference to hinder his foes.  All enemy psychic tests must be taken on 3d6, suffering a perils of the Warp attack on any roll of 12 or higher"

Would my primary forces psykers be affected by the runes then?

Hehe, that's funny.  Makes a certain amount of sense, though.  Eldrad's like, "If you had a proper eldar brain, you wouldn't have this problem". 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 04, 2012, 02:06:15 PM
So, I have a question for Sam (and Sam rather specifically):

My GK techmarine, metal model, comes with what looks to me like an axe.  I have options, whihc I pay pts for, to switch it out for various NFW, which would be legal, and require conversions.  But changing that axe to a regular sword would be "modelling for advantage" by the same logic, right?

Furthermore, other chapters use the same model.  SInce they don't have options to switch out the main weapon, does that mean all regular techmarines have power axes now?  +1 Str, i1?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Chase on July 04, 2012, 04:44:13 PM
This topic has been split.  Almost all posts with respect to Power Weapons and that whole debate have been moved to another thread.

It's sort of a chop job, so if it doesn't make sense, too bad.  :)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 04, 2012, 05:04:33 PM
I would argue Sam, that you have made one of those "slippery slope" decisions you have previously expressed a fear of.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on July 04, 2012, 05:17:32 PM
I think that's almost definitely the case, Matt.  He's been forced to make a choice and he has.

It doesn't appear to be very cut and dry topic, but ruling the other way would probably lead to more problems and more groaning on event days.

Sam is a smart dude.  He's great with this sort of thing and I'm sure he's considered the consequences of ruling either way.

He is placing the burden of proof on GW, which IS ugly given all of the super old models that are outfitted differently, Necromunda models that are outfitted differently, convention exclusive models that are outfitted differently, etc.  Maybe we should get him to comment on how that might work.

Excuse my ignorance, but how many different units does this argument apply to?  Lots?  A handful?  Somewhere in between?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 04, 2012, 05:41:36 PM
Less than lots, but more than a few?  I havent really done an inventory. I mean there are at least a few models (such as wolf cav) that there has never been a model for or only very recently.

Really any model that has power weapons is subject to this discussion. (that's a lot). Ver few of them have ever been packaged with an axe previously (aside from some SW for thematic reasons)

Power axes were nearly nonexistent in 40k, previously. Part of why I think they meant this change to be modeling opportunity.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Zaroth on July 04, 2012, 06:29:21 PM
I have 2nd edition sm assault marines armed with axes, and still have a few axe bits.  They could take them in 2nd edition.  Since the newest assault marine box set does not include axes, do I have to use them as power swords, or can I use them as power axes, since the models came with them?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 04, 2012, 07:52:33 PM
Sam I 100% support your rulings. I think your explentation is the most logical way to go up an unfortunate slippery slope.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 04, 2012, 09:47:47 PM
I have 2nd edition sm assault marines armed with axes, and still have a few axe bits.  They could take them in 2nd edition.  Since the newest assault marine box set does not include axes, do I have to use them as power swords, or can I use them as power axes, since the models came with them?

That is Weird I have a Power Axe come in Both Assault Marine Boxes I seen open as well as A Death Company.

Now for a Really weird and very specific situation wise question about Assault. You pile in 3" on your initiative step.

Space Marine Techmarine without a Power Weapon and Servo Harness. He has 2 Initiatives he strikes at His Normal 4 and his Harness Strikes at 1.

Techmarine is with an Infantry Guard Platoon whos Initiative 3 fighting Necron Warriors Initiative 2. He manages to kill a Necron at his initiative so the Guard Pile into the spot where that Necron was at Initiative 3 and kill some more Necron. At Initiative Step 2 the Necrons manage to kill some of the guard leaving a gap where the Techmarine is not in Base Contact with a Necron Warrior or 2" of a friendly Model. DOES he Get a Pile In at Initiative Step 1 for his Servo Harness Attacks or is he Crap out of Luck?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 01:46:05 AM
Except, he doesn't   Because the techmarine model I know of, comes with an axe.  SO he's all initiaitve 1.  And according to you, Sam, I can't switch that out.  (Well, actually, I can pay for any of like 5 different NFW upgrades, but vanilla marines can't)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 05, 2012, 01:53:29 AM
Power Weapon doesn't Come Standard on a Techmarine so if I don't give him the upgrade he does not have it therefore he has 2 different Initiative Values. This comes into play with the Techmarine Gunner for a Thunderfire Cannon who has a servo-harness but does not have a power weapon.

So he does.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 02:14:30 AM
So it is.  But if you were to upgrade him, it had better be an axe!  Apparently. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 05, 2012, 02:35:11 AM
Nah I would give a Thunder Hammer.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 05, 2012, 07:38:06 AM
So, while this may tie into the Power Weapon, What Is It Good For Thread, it's also a rules question;

As previously ruled, a model with a Power Weapon must use the option as designed on the original model from Citadel.

So what type of Power Weapon is a Burna?  Since the model has no representation, do Orks get to model whatever they want on it?  Or are they going to be restricted to swords only, as a generic baseline?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
So getting away from the power weapon thing for a sec:

The language on grenades and difficult terrain and initiative 1 used to be something like "if the unit takes a difficult terrain test, it attacks at initiative 1 (unless grenades)"

Now the language has changed to "if the unit moves through difficult terrain"

Now various units, such as Wraiths and Beasts (now) ignore difficult terrain.  Jumpers, it seems like, can actually jump over terrain, if they didn't use their jump packs in the movement phase. 

In the wraiths case, it says "Wraiths are never slowed by difficult terrain"

Previously, that would have meant they don't need grenades.  But now, they're still passing though the terrain......wouldn't that make them Initiative 1?  (not always a big difference, for them) 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 05, 2012, 10:13:26 AM
units that ignore terrain, ignore it!

Units that go over, didn't go through!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 10:35:26 AM
units that ignore terrain, ignore it!

Units that go over, didn't go through!

Maybe?  I'd say you have a stonger case with beasts than wraiths.  Because wraiths don't ignore it, exactly,  they just don't take a test. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 05, 2012, 10:57:02 AM
I'd use the definition ignore = disregard, which means you substitute the terrains reality for your own, and move as if it was not there.


Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
OK, few more rules questions for Sam (besides wraith movement).

When taking Allies, do you need to take manadatory choices?  Firewarriors and Commaders for Tau (versus Kroot and ethereals) or the emperor's champion for Black Templars?

Commander Farsight attacks "as a monstrous creature in CC".  Does that mean he has Smash and AP2?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 02:31:23 PM
hehe, just though of another one:

Does the 1mm line drawn by a doom scythe count as "template"?  This matters for whether it can hit flyers.  The same ruling would apply to psychic beam attacks, I would think. 

Do beams and Novas need to roll to hit? 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on July 05, 2012, 03:02:26 PM
hehe, just though of another one:

Does the 1mm line drawn by a doom scythe count as "template"?  This matters for whether it can hit flyers.  The same ruling would apply to psychic beam attacks, I would think. 

Do beams and Novas need to roll to hit?

Beams and Novas say that they automatically hit.
Also isn't template only referring to the flame template? The other two are blast and large blast and are specified in the fliers rules as also being unable to hit. The three of them aren't all "templates".
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
OK, great.  Then all these 1mm lines and novas are a great way to hit flyers. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 05, 2012, 03:29:13 PM
Just a few notes since I think half of you are kind of off.

First and foremost Sam as I will always follow your rulings I think you are off on this Power Weapon ruling.  As you have already stated you are looking into it further I wont rehash the last 4 pages with crap.

Also just a heads up on original models etc...  Since I have been playing since Rogue Trader my original models are far different then anyone elses.  On this note EVERY space marine I have at one point came with a weapon load out of power sword, Power Axe, Chainsword, and Fist( this was on their sprues, if you like I can brinbg them in to prove it).  Newer boxes dont include this as much but then you have to look at the word "original" or even "acceptable".  Blah blah you get where im going here. 

I guess Spacewolves have it easy in this regard as all of them can use axe or sword since its in the codex...  Ahh I digress..

Now to my next point which I titally forgot so Ill have to come back to that... LOL

Oh ya as for lines you can take JOTWW for example as it is a line and is considered a template by wording on the FAQ.

Way to many crap fests I think I may have posted this the wrong place LOL
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 05, 2012, 03:33:42 PM
Well, template is a very specific thing in this case, because flyers can't be hit by templates.  But I don't see "template" used anywhere describing JOTWW in the new FAQ.  Possible I missed it. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on July 06, 2012, 12:12:35 AM
I think these are some pretty good questions.  Keep it up.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 06, 2012, 01:16:12 AM
Great.  (some of these I think I know the answer to, but just want definition on)

Commander Farsight.  His Dawnblade says "No armour saves may be taken, and he rolls 2d6+5 for armour penetration"  No further clarification was given in the FAQ.  I assume this weapon will void 2+ saves just fine?  (It's not AP2, as I don't think it would get +1 on a dmg chart)

Also, his entry says he may be taken in "Tau armies of 1500 pts or more"  Does that mean I may not take him as an ally HQ?  If I take him in a Tau army, with other allies, does the Tau component need to 1500 pts or more, or does only the whole list need to 1500 pts or more?

The other two Tau Special characters have identical stipulations.  They are the only characters that still do, I believe. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 06, 2012, 03:38:52 AM
Didn't they FAQ that a long time ago?

And as far as I am aware, if the weapon does not say "Power Weapon" or "Force Weapon", then it does not fall under the classification of "Unusual X", and as such uses its own unique rules.  Codex > Rulebook.

This would apply to Yriel's spear, Eldrad's Staff, the Banshee Exarch Mirrorblade, uh...Lillith
s weapon, etc.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Zaroth on July 06, 2012, 06:16:46 AM
hehe, just though of another one:

Does the 1mm line drawn by a doom scythe count as "template"?  This matters for whether it can hit flyers.  The same ruling would apply to psychic beam attacks, I would think. 

Do beams and Novas need to roll to hit?
Go
Beams and Novas say that they automatically hit.
Also isn't template only referring to the flame template? The other two are blast and large blast and are specified in the fliers rules as also being unable to hit. The three of them aren't all "templates".
I could be wrong, don't have the rulebook in front of me, but all non-skyfire shots at fliers count as snap fire.  Under the rules for snap fire, any weapon that does not roll to hit or automatically hits cannot be fired.  So beams, novas, jotww,  doom scyth, etc... cannot target fliers unless they somehow have skyfire.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mad Dok Rob on July 06, 2012, 09:19:05 AM
Ok, wounding question that came up last night.

Under wounds it says that a model, not a unit, that is in range in to hit is in range for the whole shooting phase.  I take that to mean, that a model that is out of range is out of range for the whole shooting phase.

ie since we have to take wounds from closest to farthest, you shoot at my mob of 20 boyz, but only 6 of them are in range of your guns, you can only kill 6 boyz.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 06, 2012, 09:38:34 AM
hehe, just though of another one:

Does the 1mm line drawn by a doom scythe count as "template"?  This matters for whether it can hit flyers.  The same ruling would apply to psychic beam attacks, I would think. 

Do beams and Novas need to roll to hit?
Go
Beams and Novas say that they automatically hit.
Also isn't template only referring to the flame template? The other two are blast and large blast and are specified in the fliers rules as also being unable to hit. The three of them aren't all "templates".
I could be wrong, don't have the rulebook in front of me, but all non-skyfire shots at fliers count as snap fire.  Under the rules for snap fire, any weapon that does not roll to hit or automatically hits cannot be fired.  So beams, novas, jotww,  doom scyth, etc... cannot target fliers unless they somehow have skyfire.

I don't believe it says that, no, it says "templates and blasts", specifically. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Zaroth on July 06, 2012, 11:39:41 PM
hehe, just though of another one:

Does the 1mm line drawn by a doom scythe count as "template"?  This matters for whether it can hit flyers.  The same ruling would apply to psychic beam attacks, I would think. 

Do beams and Novas need to roll to hit?
Go
Beams and Novas say that they automatically hit.
Also isn't template only referring to the flame template? The other two are blast and large blast and are specified in the fliers rules as also being unable to hit. The three of them aren't all "templates".
I could be wrong, don't have the rulebook in front of me, but all non-skyfire shots at fliers count as snap fire.  Under the rules for snap fire, any weapon that does not roll to hit or automatically hits cannot be fired.  So beams, novas, jotww,  doom scyth, etc... cannot target fliers unless they somehow have skyfire.

I don't believe it says that, no, it says "templates and blasts", specifically.

Page 81 "Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots."
Page 13 "It's important to note that any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill - such as the Necron Monolith's portal of exile - cannot be 'fired' as a Snap Shot."
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 07, 2012, 01:28:50 AM
You are right, I stand corrected.

Well that's annoying. They REALLY wanted to make sure you bought a bastion.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: GossWeapon on July 07, 2012, 03:13:43 AM
A little bit late on reading this, but...

Sam, I think you are 100% in error on your power weapon ruling.  If you have to use what is on the GW kit's sprue, this would mean a space marine tactical squad can never have any sergeant options beyond a plasma pistol or chainsword?  That is absurd.  What is even more disturbing to me is that following this statement, you consider allowing a necromunda model to represent something?  I am not sure what your intention was when you typed that.  The game is obviously shifting toward a more open and casual format where the hobby has impact on gameplay.  By restricting a simple weapon swap, you a restricting the overall spirit of the game, which as a judge, reflects very poorly.

My suggestion is to simply request that models equipped with a power weapon are the type you modeled them as (power axe is an axe, etc.) for the next event to ease things, and seeing how things go.  It is too easy to listen to the opinionated retards on the internet about what will be broken when none of them have more than a handful of games under their belt.  As far as modeling for advantage, the advantage is pretty simple, you get an option, an option that have you any marine character could pay extra points to have as well.  I think you are simply afraid of too much from ramblings of people before anyone has really seen a metagame or even the basic rules develop.

As far as rulings go, it is very simple, despite sales hiccups, GW has done a pretty excellent job with the FAQ and the rulebook is fairly well-written.  People, just take a deep breath, relax, grab some chips, open 'em up, and read your book and refer to errata.  Its about as self-explanatory as it can get if you use a logical approach instead of instantly whining.  There is no reason to run round calling things broken, or shady, or even confusing before you actually give things a chance.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Librarian on July 07, 2012, 08:05:40 AM
OK 7am I gotta go to bed but I thought you should know that Forgeworld has up errata/updates for apoc and regular FW minis with full rules for using superheavies and gargantuan creatures. There is also a rumor going around that FW will in the future be releaseing GW official codexs for some of the less well loved/niche armies like salamanders, death korps, and drop troops.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 07, 2012, 02:03:41 PM
Saw that.  So, a 295 LR (so about 30 pts more than I pay now) that has twice the Lascannons (2 Hvy 2, TL) five hull pts, and a transport capacity of 25 models.  So that means I could put Draigo, 10 paladins, a Libby to buff, and techmarine with crazy 'nades (who will also make sure the LR never dies) in there.

But for some reason, it has to pay 10 pts more than normal for a Multi-melta, so I delcare it balanced.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on July 07, 2012, 02:44:03 PM
Saw that.  So, a 295 LR (so about 30 pts more than I pay now) that has twice the Lascannons (2 Hvy 2, TL) five hull pts, and a transport capacity of 25 models.  So that means I could put Draigo, 10 paladins, a Libby to buff, and techmarine with crazy 'nades (who will also make sure the LR never dies) in there.

But for some reason, it has to pay 10 pts more than normal for a Multi-melta, so I delcare it balanced.

Its not usable for codex grey knights (unless you use it as a detachment from a legal chapter) but then you still wouldnt be able to use it as a transport

I did like forgeworld came out with hull points and such for all their models, i havent had a chance to look through the 6e apoc faq though
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 07, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Saw that.  So, a 295 LR (so about 30 pts more than I pay now) that has twice the Lascannons (2 Hvy 2, TL) five hull pts, and a transport capacity of 25 models.  So that means I could put Draigo, 10 paladins, a Libby to buff, and techmarine with crazy 'nades (who will also make sure the LR never dies) in there.

But for some reason, it has to pay 10 pts more than normal for a Multi-melta, so I delcare it balanced.

Its not usable for codex grey knights (unless you use it as a detachment from a legal chapter) but then you still wouldnt be able to use it as a transport

I did like forgeworld came out with hull points and such for all their models, i havent had a chance to look through the 6e apoc faq though

Don't ruin my dreams!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 07, 2012, 05:30:22 PM
A little bit late on reading this, but...

Sam, I think you are 100% in error on your power weapon ruling.  If you have to use what is on the GW kit's sprue, this would mean a space marine tactical squad can never have any sergeant options beyond a plasma pistol or chainsword?  That is absurd.  What is even more disturbing to me is that following this statement, you consider allowing a necromunda model to represent something?  I am not sure what your intention was when you typed that.  The game is obviously shifting toward a more open and casual format where the hobby has impact on gameplay.  By restricting a simple weapon swap, you a restricting the overall spirit of the game, which as a judge, reflects very poorly.

My suggestion is to simply request that models equipped with a power weapon are the type you modeled them as (power axe is an axe, etc.) for the next event to ease things, and seeing how things go.  It is too easy to listen to the opinionated retards on the internet about what will be broken when none of them have more than a handful of games under their belt.  As far as modeling for advantage, the advantage is pretty simple, you get an option, an option that have you any marine character could pay extra points to have as well.  I think you are simply afraid of too much from ramblings of people before anyone has really seen a metagame or even the basic rules develop.

As far as rulings go, it is very simple, despite sales hiccups, GW has done a pretty excellent job with the FAQ and the rulebook is fairly well-written.  People, just take a deep breath, relax, grab some chips, open 'em up, and read your book and refer to errata.  Its about as self-explanatory as it can get if you use a logical approach instead of instantly whining.  There is no reason to run round calling things broken, or shady, or even confusing before you actually give things a chance.

Dave hit the nail on the head. As much as I do not want to agree with something that lives under a bridge and eats children ;)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 07, 2012, 11:11:02 PM
I have a Psychic Power Question.

Sunburst is a Nova Pyschic Power.

Nova says it hits all enemies in range no matter if you don't have LOS they are in Combat and so on and it has a Weapon Profile.

So Sunburst has a Weapon profile of Assault 2D6. Does this mean I roll 2D6 and thats how many it hits in total. Or is it I roll 2d6 and it hits every enemy model in range 2d6 times.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 12:56:17 AM
I believe every enemy unit in range (not model) will take 2d6 hits.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 10:01:46 AM
Bastions.

They're looking mighty appealing to me, but my armies are not Imperial.

Here's the description of a Bastion from GW's website:
"Bastions can take the form of anything from reinforced ferrocrete bunkers to pyramidal tombs made of living metal. Bastions are typically resilient enough to withstand an orbital bombardment, and often form the cornerstone of a planet's defence network."

The codex entry says "4 heavy bolters, TYPICALLY one on each side".  Also, access points and firepoints are simply listed as "per model".

How much leeway do we have in building a Bastions?   

- Can we use anything other than the actual Imperial Bastion model?  (Would kinda hurt the aesthetics to be using that in like a Necron or Dark Eldar army...)
- How close do the size and shape of a homebuilt bastion need to be to the imperial model?
- Do the heavy bolters actually HAVE to be arranged in a perfect square?
- Can we make Bastions with a different  layout of access points?
- Can we make Bastions with a different  layout of fire points?
- What's the arc of fire on those heavy bolters?   I'm assuming it's sponsons meaning basically, if the heavy bolter can see a target it can fire at it?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 08, 2012, 10:14:44 AM
I have to imagine one has the exact same rules and guidelines for bastions as you would for any other custom model.

Does your custom model have approximately the same dimensions? Can you and your opponent clearly tell from where on the model the weapons are being shot? Does your model grant any unfair advantage?

As far as tournament play is concerned, it's the same. If your opponent doesn't let you use a custom model, you would need to have the original (or a darn good copy) ready to go.

Now, if you modeled a bastion with 4 Heavy Bolters on one side, and pointed that side at my army, as an opponent I'd probably have to say something negative, like no.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 10:17:13 AM
Necron Command barge flyovers: 

These can now only move 12" in the movement phase.

Are we still keeping the same ruling, where a line has to be drawn from the starting position of the barge, through the target unit, to the ending position of the barge?   If so, I think this maneuver is physically impossible to perform now (unless maybe there is a single model unit that is exactly 1" away from the barge).
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 10:23:41 AM
Necron Command barge flyovers: 

These can now only move 12" in the movement phase.

Are we still keeping the same ruling, where a line has to be drawn from the starting position of the barge, through the target unit, to the ending position of the barge?   If so, I think this maneuver is physically impossible to perform now (unless maybe there is a single model unit that is exactly 1" away from the barge).

Now, c'mon, A rhino is only like 3" across. 

I never quite agrees with the "straight line" ruling but at the same time don't really like "tag" idea, either.   Bottom line is, you have to pass "over" the model.  As in, start on one side, end up on the other,  Which now that I think about it, means you'd be able to draw a straight line, so......yeah. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 10:31:25 AM
The barge is also 3" across.  It has to start and end the turn 1" away from the rhino.  So the only way it actually fly over a rhino and end up on the other side is if a rhino comes up and "parrallel parks" next to the long edge of the barge and within 2" of it.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 10:48:27 AM
Not sure I'm following your math.  You need to start 1" away, and end 1" away.  You're 3" wide, they're 3" wide. 3+3+1+1=8 leaving you 4" of wiggle room. 

On the other hand, you can just assault the thing now, so.......so?

New edition, things change.  My Redeemer can only move 6" and have guys get out, so it's a lot harder to get my flamer templates lined up, and melta the transport before the guys assault.  So?  DE and Ork charges out of vehicles got nerfed too.

Honestly, I think you'll be ok. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 11:08:33 AM
Haha... Sir_Prometheus, try lining up 2 rhinos on the table with a ruler and you will see where your math breaks down.  The Barge needs to travel TWICE its own width to traverse the rhino and end up completely on the other side.  So it's 3+3+3+1+1 = 11"  - meaning the rhino has to be in exactly the perfect spot or it can't be done.   As for sweeping a Land Raider, that's right out.

I actually didn't use the barges even before, b/c it was too difficult to fly over even with 24" against an actual human being.  With 12", I can guarantee you that this will never ever happen except in the 41st millenium's equivalent of a monster truck show. 

Yes, Necrons will be fun (might even be the best army now), but it just bugs me that we would interpret a rule such that effectively cannot be used.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 11:35:38 AM
Shrug, "over" means "over", not "tagging".

Like I said, just charge it. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on July 08, 2012, 02:20:53 PM
How does Hammer of Wrath interact with poisoned attacks, rending attacks, etc? Smash specifically states that it doesn't work with HoW, but there is no such indication for others that I could find.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Librarian on July 08, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
One exception to taking wounds out of line of sight or range is when using.look out sir.

I am sure your not suppose to be able to do it but I can't find the rule that prevents using look out sir against perils of the warp.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 08, 2012, 04:16:18 PM
Bastions.

They're looking mighty appealing to me, but my armies are not Imperial.

Here's the description of a Bastion from GW's website:
"Bastions can take the form of anything from reinforced ferrocrete bunkers to pyramidal tombs made of living metal. Bastions are typically resilient enough to withstand an orbital bombardment, and often form the cornerstone of a planet's defence network."

The codex entry says "4 heavy bolters, TYPICALLY one on each side".  Also, access points and firepoints are simply listed as "per model".

How much leeway do we have in building a Bastions?   

- Can we use anything other than the actual Imperial Bastion model?  (Would kinda hurt the aesthetics to be using that in like a Necron or Dark Eldar army...)
- How close do the size and shape of a homebuilt bastion need to be to the imperial model?
- Do the heavy bolters actually HAVE to be arranged in a perfect square?
- Can we make Bastions with a different  layout of access points?
- Can we make Bastions with a different  layout of fire points?
- What's the arc of fire on those heavy bolters?   I'm assuming it's sponsons meaning basically, if the heavy bolter can see a target it can fire at it?

If i had a non imperial non chaos non ork army I would convert my own so fast just so i can be a cool kid with a Custom Bastion.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 06:36:29 PM
Sam (and Ben), I appreciate the spirit of your response to the question about Bastions, but I'm not sure that it answers the specific questions I asked.    I get that we shouldn't "model for advantage", but I'm asking for more specific parameters on what counts as modeling for advantage and what doesn't. 

If the book actually said, "Bastions have a total of 12 firepoints, 3 per side, and they are 4" up the side of the thing", then clearly putting the firepoints anywhere else would be modelling for advantage and shouldn't be done.   

On the other hand, if the book said "It's up to you how many access points and firepoints the bastion should have, as long as it's not more than 10 of each, and they can be anywhere on the model", then clearly putting these things in an optimal spot would be fine. 

However, what we have is sort of in between.  The book sort of hints that bastions can be customized (in the manner of an Aegis defense line), but doesn't give any guidelines.   So I think the 40k community should forge a more specific understanding about HOW customizeable these things are (if at all).  If the answer is, "it needs to have everything in pretty much the same spot as it is on the Imperial Bastion model", then when I'm scratch building my Haunted Tomb, that's what I'll keep in mind.  If more freedom is allowed, since I'm scratch building the thing anyway, I might as well put the features in more effective locations.

So - the specific questions that I don't feel like have been sufficiently answered were (and I don't expect a "snap ruling", just pointing this out as stuff that needs specific answers eventually):

- How close do the size and shape of a homebuilt bastion need to be to the imperial model?
- Do the heavy bolters actually HAVE to be arranged in a perfect square?
- Can we make Bastions with a different  layout of access points?
- Can we make Bastions with a different  layout of fire points?
- What's the arc of fire on those heavy bolters?   I'm assuming it's sponsons meaning basically, if the heavy bolter can see a target it can fire at it?
 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 08:49:00 PM
Thanks for the response Sam, I'm cool with that.

All except for the hull mounted guns thing.  Hull mounted weapons are normally put that way because the vehicle itself can move, which still lets you aim the gun.  If I were designing a bastion I wouldn't make it so that there were 4 large "blind spots" where none of the guns were able to shoot incoming bad guys.  If there are 4 guns with a 45 deg arc of fire it means that only 180 of the 360 degrees can be fired at by ANY of the guns.  So if I'm playing against a guy with a bastion I just have to approach at an angle toward any of the corners, rather than coming straight on to one of the sides, and NONE of the heavy bolters can shoot at me?

   
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 08:50:53 PM
Regarding fortifications, I'll be a little more explicit. A tournament has more stringent guidelines than casual play, and adding terrain can have a major impact on how the battle will play out. For the time being, you should keep your custom models close to the official ones in terms of size and layout. Changing the aesthetics is fine, but moving things around for in-game advantage is dancing very close to the line, and I'd rather we just avoid it. So, to address your specific questions:

"How close do the size and shape of a homebuilt bastion need to be to the imperial model?" As close as possible.

"Do the heavy bolters actually HAVE to be arranged in a perfect square?" Yes.

"Can we make Bastions with a different layout of access points?" No.

"Can we make Bastions with a different layout of fire points?" No.

"What's the arc of fire on those heavy bolters?" They appear to be the equivalent of hull-mounted weapons, which means a 45-degree arc of fire.

I would argue the heavy bolters on a bastion actually are sponsons, and have a 90 degree arc.  In this way, they are very similar to the corner weapons on a Monolith -- all points in the circle are under coverage of at least one heavy bolter, and the only way you'd get two bolters to target the same target is to have the "border" between two quadrants pointed at a particular unit.  Because a Bastion can't rotate the way a Monolith can, this is actually much more limiting.

At the same time, there are no "dead zones"  around the bastion.  As I understand it, a hull mounted, 45 degree arc would cause this, Sam.

For access points, it is simple, a Bastion has precisely one.  It doesn't really matter what face. 

Fire points get a lot more complicated, as you CAN model it different ways on the standard kit.  On the "mid-level" (top-level is the battlements) two faces have two firepoints, and two have none.  On the bottom level, each face has one, EXCEPT the face with the access point (you glue that over the slot).  So MY Bastion has one face with 3 slots, 2 with 1, and 1 with 2 (and an access point) but it Could have been 2 with 3, 1 with 1, and 1 with none, for instance. 

Also keep in mind two guns can fire out of each slot, so it's really 6, 4, 2, etc.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on July 08, 2012, 08:57:07 PM
I was mostly going by the look of the model; they always looked kind of useless to me. But after a bit of research (Planetstrike, to be precise), it seems that GW intends for them to have a 90 degree arc of fire. My bad! We'll go with that.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Zaroth on July 08, 2012, 09:01:11 PM
Just a quick question.  The aegis defense line kit comes with 2 8" sections and 4 2" sections for a total of 24".  Could you make 4it 6" sections instead or should we stick to the 2 8"sections and 4 2".
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 09:32:38 PM
Sam, question for you about Flyers and Missiles.  If a Flyer (such as a Storm Raven) enters hover mode, thus counting as a Fast Skimmer, can it fire all 4 missiles at once?

Not too important, since you said the machine SPirit would let it fire 1 more, for 3, anyway, but maybe it could be important.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 08, 2012, 09:39:43 PM
Sam, question for you about Flyers and Missiles.  If a Flyer (such as a Storm Raven) enters hover mode, thus counting as a Fast Skimmer, can it fire all 4 missiles at once?

Not too important, since you said the machine SPirit would let it fire 1 more, for 3, anyway, but maybe it could be important.

Actually that makes quite a large difference to the Dark Eldar.  Firing 4 large blast missiles at one unit in one turn was standard operating procedure for the Razorwing Jetfighter in 5th. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 09:47:08 PM
I don't think the DE flyers have a hover mode, so it wouldn't matter to them.  Could be wrong. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 08, 2012, 10:24:35 PM
"How does Hammer of Wrath interact with poisoned attacks, rending attacks, etc?" Hammer of Wrath is resolved with a specific Strength and AP, so the usual close combat bonuses do not apply (you're just kicking a dude in the head). Ignore poison and other effects when resolving Hammer of Wrath.

"Can 'Look Out, Sir!' saves be taken against Perils of the Warp?" Perils of the Warp does not allow saves of any kind. I consider Look Out, Sir! to be a type of save (since it's a sidebar on the page of the rulebook dealing with saves), so a desperate Psyker character may not pawn the daemons off on some unsuspecting grunt.

True.  You can't push your psyker out of the way of his brain exploding.

But, you totally can Feel No Pain a Perils of the Warp, because FNP specifically says it is not a saving throw.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 08, 2012, 10:30:01 PM
Just a quick question.  The aegis defense line kit comes with 2 8" sections and 4 2" sections for a total of 24".  Could you make 4it 6" sections instead or should we stick to the 2 8"sections and 4 2".

I believe you have to stick with what the kit has.  The Aegis is 4 5" sections, and 4 2" sections for 28", customizable to whatever design you want.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Librarian on July 08, 2012, 10:59:09 PM
reading up on warseer I found the explination that you cant Look out sir perils of the warp, for the same reason you can't use it for a dangerous terrain test. it has nothing to do with saving throws but its because look out sir is used when wounds are assinged, and that dose not happen when you suffer perils that model just suffers a wound so there is no sub phase to use it in.

I woulden't think the defense lines sections matter they are split up that way for ease of use as long as its no more than 28 inches and your able to place on the table without any other problems it wont grant any real advantage if its four 6 inch sections and two 2 inch ones. now the rules do say up to 4 short and 4 long sections but you have to have them touching each other so it will not matter how you built them they will allways cover the same area.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 08, 2012, 11:11:20 PM
Yeah, basically Look Out, Sir! I would argue cannot be used on a Perils of the Warp wound as the wound is never allocated.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 08, 2012, 11:22:32 PM
Sam, question for you about Flyers and Missiles.  If a Flyer (such as a Storm Raven) enters hover mode, thus counting as a Fast Skimmer, can it fire all 4 missiles at once?

Not too important, since you said the machine SPirit would let it fire 1 more, for 3, anyway, but maybe it could be important.
Rulebook seems pretty explicit on this point. Page 81, "A maximum of two missiles can be fired per Shooting phase, and they count towards the number of weapons fired that turn." The bold print is theirs, not mine. I'd argue PotMS would let you shoot something else, but not a third missile.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 08, 2012, 11:28:00 PM
Well he already ruled on that one. SR can fire 3 missiles. Anyway, argument can be made the whole restriction only applies to "flyers", and a flyer in hover mode is fast skimmer, not a flyer.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Serring on July 09, 2012, 02:38:26 AM
A flyer is always a flyer, and he made a ruling w/o hearing what Ben just said. I'm sure he'll change his mind when he sees it, after all, its strait forward with no loops that you can hop through.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 09, 2012, 08:54:20 AM
Except Power of Machine Spirit says "Can fire one more weapon at its Full Ballistic Skill than is normally permitted".  Ergo,you are permitted 2 missiles per phase, Power let's you fire a third.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 09, 2012, 11:56:59 AM
Normally I would just agree with you Typhus, but the flier restriction is a different type than previous 5th ed wording.  I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as past issues.

PoTMS lets you fire an additional weapon more than is allowed, it doesn't let you fire a weapon you already shot again, nor does it let you exceed the RoF of a weapon (IE my autocannon doesn't get 5 shots via machine spirit.)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 09, 2012, 12:10:12 PM
ok, but this isn't any of those things (well, they are one shot, but there's four of them)  This is no different than "may only shoot 1 weapon when moving 12" or heck, "may shoot no weapons". 

For whatever reason, a flyer may only fire 2 missiles a turn.  POTMS let's you fire 1 more weapon than usual.  That makes 3.

And anyway, that is a completely different question (and one that has already been answered) from "does the restriction still apply while no longer a flyer, i.e. hover mode). 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 09, 2012, 12:51:50 PM
OK, I am ready to concede this point, as pointed out by a commenter on 3++

Quote
"Pg 81 'Special Weapon Systems 'Missiles can be used while Hovering or Zooming'. This established that Special Weapon Systems is not a subset of the Zooming section alone, therefore regardless of flight mode you can only fire 2 missiles per Shooting phase, as no exception is given for hover mode which in the missile subsection."

POTMS still works fine, dangit. 

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mike_k on July 09, 2012, 01:57:02 PM
OK so basically to get you to agree we need an outside source from the internet? Check
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 09, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Noo.....you need a convincing argument.  Those CAN be found on the internet, believe it or not. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Moosifer on July 09, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
yea but 3++ is kinda lame and by kinda I mean completely lame.

Sam, how fast can a laden flyer go in 6th edition?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 09, 2012, 06:42:05 PM
African or European?

Flyers have to go at LEAST 18", and can go up to 36" in Movement.  They can then forgo all shooting and move flat out, which is an additional 12-24"
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: cryptoron on July 09, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
"Do beams/novas automatically hit fliers?" Nope. Shots against Zooming fliers are Snap Shots, and any shooting attack that does not roll to hit cannot be fired as a Snap Shot. Hat tip to Zaroth for catching this one."

Just one question about this, If the beam is fired from a flyer who has chosen to skyfire this turn, is it still a "snap-shot".  Example: Doomscythe (a flyer) is Zooming and decides to shoot at another flyer so it switches weapons to skyfire mode, can it hit the other flyer with the beam?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 09, 2012, 07:37:20 PM
So a buddy and I were discussing that.  It makes sense that the doomscythe can hit other flyers.....but it has to choose to hit one or the other.  I.e., if it's skyfiring, the beam won't also hit any ground troops it happens to pass over.

But it's basically one, guaranteed hit a against a flyer, which has something like a 39-50% chance to kill most of them. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 09, 2012, 10:36:45 PM
I'm pretty sure the rule book says that if you don't roll to hit you cannot use it to hit flyers, or something similar, I'd have to double check the wording.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 10, 2012, 03:31:38 AM
It's if you don't roll to hit, you can't snap fire.  But if you're sky firing, you're not snap firing.  That's why you can only hit ground or air. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 10, 2012, 12:15:22 PM
Is the beam considered a template?  Albeit a 1mm thick template?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 10, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
I think "template" always means exactly the same thing:  flame template. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 10, 2012, 02:07:53 PM
I don't see why you need death ray to hit flyers necrons have warriors they can take care of flyers all by themselves. Death ray works though so should blood lance. The way I look at it is you need to measure to the hull and since you pick points on the ground you never reach the elevation of the hull.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 10, 2012, 03:09:39 PM
In order to target the flyer, you need to snapfire.  Can't snapfire somethig that doesn't roll to hit.

Unless you're saying you DON"T need to have skyfire to hit the flyer? 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on July 10, 2012, 03:23:19 PM
Wasn't this covered somewhere else?

I was pretty sure the conclusion was that the Death Ray (or whatever) can't target a flyer.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 10, 2012, 03:30:26 PM
It got conflated (by me) with beam psychic powers.  Thing is, as a lfyer, a doomscythe cna skyfire if it wants it.  So it should be able to hit a flyer while a ground bsed psyker can't. 

If you shoot at a flyer, you're snapfiring, and you can't snapfire these beam attacks.  That means a doom scythe can hit a flyer with one, while the psyker can't.  Unless the psyker has skyfire, which I don't know how that would happen, currently.  (well, skyfire nexus random objective thingie). 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Moosifer on July 10, 2012, 04:37:12 PM
I think it is silly to say that a flyer's weapons cannot be used to shoot at other flyers but whatever.  Can we get split fire for the unit then because we have weapons that we CAN fire but are not allowed to?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Banosby on July 10, 2012, 05:09:07 PM
How do blast weapons interact with units that the firing squad cannot see at all?

For example, suppose I have a Land Raider. On one side of the LR is a squad and on the opposite side is an enemy squad with a Plasma Cannon, no members of which can see any members of my squad. The Plasma Cannon squad targets the Land Raider and the blast template is placed so that it covers several members of my squad and does not scatter.

The way I am reading it, the template can wound the models in my squad per the "Blast/Large Blast" rules. But then all the wounds are lost because all of my models are out of LoS of the enemy squad. Am I getting anything wrong here?

Also, does anything change if I am hiding a Rhino behind my LR instead of a squad?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 10, 2012, 05:55:27 PM
I think it is silly to say that a flyer's weapons cannot be used to shoot at other flyers but whatever.  Can we get split fire for the unit then because we have weapons that we CAN fire but are not allowed to?

Says in the 6th ed book Flyers can switch weapons to Skyfire mode.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 10, 2012, 06:01:30 PM
How do blast weapons interact with units that the firing squad cannot see at all?

For example, suppose I have a Land Raider. On one side of the LR is a squad and on the opposite side is an enemy squad with a Plasma Cannon, no members of which can see any members of my squad. The Plasma Cannon squad targets the Land Raider and the blast template is placed so that it covers several members of my squad and does not scatter.

The way I am reading it, the template can wound the models in my squad per the "Blast/Large Blast" rules. But then all the wounds are lost because all of my models are out of LoS of the enemy squad. Am I getting anything wrong here?

Also, does anything change if I am hiding a Rhino behind my LR instead of a squad?

I think you are correct about the wounds.  I don't know that there's a similar rule for vehicles, however, I know the 5th ed FAQ said that you can shoot vehicles with templates that you cannot see, at all. I would expect similar. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 10, 2012, 07:12:28 PM
All Skyfire does is modify the BS of the firing model when shooting at certain types (p 42). Since a Zooming Flyer can only be fired as if it were a Snap Shot (p 81), the BS-less beam would not be a valid weapon (p 13).

Flyers with Skyfire can shoot at other Flyers, provided that those weapons use Ballistic Skill.

... at least that's how it is reading to me.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 10, 2012, 07:30:22 PM
All Skyfire does is modify the BS of the firing model when shooting at certain types (p 42).

Kinda, but not quite.  If you are shooting at a flyer, but do not have skyfire, you are making a snap shot.  BS-less shots cannot be shot as snapshots.

If you have skyfire (which all flyers may choose to, on a particular round) then shooting at flyers is not a snapshot.  Now, this makes BS-less shots fine.

But with skyfire, you are snapshotting against ground targets.  Which means your BS-less weapon can't be used on them now. 

Make sense? 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 10, 2012, 07:44:36 PM
Make sense?
Not really. :) The first part is fine, but the second...

"Skyfire. A model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires when using its normal Ballistic Skill when shooting at Flyers, Flying Monstrous creatures and Skimmers. Unless it also has the Interceptor special rule, it can only fire snap shots against other targets."

The rule just says that the model with the Skyfire may use its normal BS. Nowhere in there does it say the Snap Shot at a Flyer is no longer a Snap Shot. So I read it as the model using its normal BS when making the Snap Shot at the Flyer.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 10, 2012, 07:53:58 PM
Ok, see your point, but I think this is where we run up against the imprecision of GWs language.  It's kinda like how they had 3 different ways to say "killed" or "unsaved wound" in 5th edition.  (might still, haven't paid enough attention.

I will argue, that in GW fuzz language land, "normal BS" does in fact mean "no longer a snap shot".

In fact, I can even think of an example.  LR redeemer, with flamestorm cannons, and POTMS.  POTMS lets you fire "one more weapon than normal at full BS".  Now, I'm quite sure that POTMS will let you fire that template after moving 12".  If ti was still technically a snap shot, you could not.  But that's clearly not how they mean it to work.

Same thing when it's moving 6" or less, you can fire 1 weapon (plus POTMS or other special rules) at full BS and the other weapons as a snapshot.  It's not that they're all snapshots, and you're just lucky enough to shoot one at full BS, despite that. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on July 10, 2012, 07:54:22 PM
Make sense?
Not really. :) The first part is fine, but the second...

"Skyfire. A model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires when using its normal Ballistic Skill when shooting at Flyers, Flying Monstrous creatures and Skimmers. Unless it also has the Interceptor special rule, it can only fire snap shots against other targets."

The rule just says that the model with the Skyfire may use its normal BS. Nowhere in there does it say the Snap Shot at a Flyer is no longer a Snap Shot. So I read it as the model using its normal BS when making the Snap Shot at the Flyer.

Ben,

If im rembering right any flyer can CHOOSE to use their weapons in either normal or skyfire mode each turn

There was some debating about using potms to fire a weapon in the other mode but i belive the consensus is potms lets you shoot another weapon, not shoot in another mode

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 10, 2012, 08:00:11 PM
Yes, I think that "at full Ballistic skill" is used to mean "not a Snap Shot".   There is no other specific  term used anywhere for "not a snap shot".
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 10, 2012, 08:16:07 PM
Ok. I figured this out looking at the Necron Codex and the FAQ.

Reading the rule you must select a point on the battlefield for the Death Ray to originate from and another point on the battlefield for it to end within 3d6" . following this wording the Death Ray can only hit stuff on the battlefield because it travels in a straight line along the ground to cover that distance. Following True LoS if you used a string to travel along the path of a Death Ray from the gun it physically can not hit a flyer model's hull at all without diverging from that path especially with a maximum range of 30" away from the Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe and other Flyer are at the Same Elevation model wise as well if you mark the Elevation of the Doom Scythe as A and the Maximum distance away B and the Actual Path the Ray travels as Line C you can see that Line C does not a point on that can achieve an Elevation higher than point A Outside of when Line C ends at Point A. Since you can not hit yourself with your own Death Ray you can not hit another flyer. Since its worded that it must elect 2 positions on the battlefield and not in the air above the battlefield you can not shoot the Death Ray at Flyers.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 10, 2012, 08:21:53 PM
Yes, I think that "at full Ballistic skill" is used to mean "not a Snap Shot".   There is no other specific  term used anywhere for "not a snap shot".
... which is also evidence that removing the Snap Shot status is currently impossible.

I'm currently of the belief that Games Workshop has a daemonic pact to be paid in full using the tears of frustrated gamers.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 10, 2012, 09:02:14 PM
Yes, I think that "at full Ballistic skill" is used to mean "not a Snap Shot".   There is no other specific  term used anywhere for "not a snap shot".
... which is also evidence that removing the Snap Shot status is currently impossible.

I'm currently of the belief that Games Workshop has a daemonic pact to be paid in full using the tears of frustrated gamers.

That or GW has a pact with the Asprin companies to sell more headache relief.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on July 10, 2012, 09:04:41 PM
Ok. I figured this out looking at the Necron Codex and the FAQ.

Reading the rule you must select a point on the battlefield for the Death Ray to originate from and another point on the battlefield for it to end within 3d6" . following this wording the Death Ray can only hit stuff on the battlefield because it travels in a straight line along the ground to cover that distance. Following True LoS if you used a string to travel along the path of a Death Ray from the gun it physically can not hit a flyer model's hull at all without diverging from that path especially with a maximum range of 30" away from the Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe and other Flyer are at the Same Elevation model wise as well if you mark the Elevation of the Doom Scythe as A and the Maximum distance away B and the Actual Path the Ray travels as Line C you can see that Line C does not a point on that can achieve an Elevation higher than point A Outside of when Line C ends at Point A. Since you can not hit yourself with your own Death Ray you can not hit another flyer. Since its worded that it must elect 2 positions on the battlefield and not in the air above the battlefield you can not shoot the Death Ray at Flyers.

Q.E.D.

There are two ways for this particular chain of logic to work out. Either you mean that nothing not on the ground can be hit (like a skimmer). Or, you mean that if a piece of the hull of a flier is below the plane created parallel to the ground at the level of the death ray than the flier may be hit. Since this is a rather confusing way to rule it and QED is such a near and dear statement to me, I shall have to disagree. I think rather than visualize as simply a line drawn by the death ray it is better seen as a plane perpendicular to the battlefield with the intersecting line segment being the one drawn by the ray.

The real determination as to whether or not it can hit a flier comes down to what Ben is asking. Is it still a "snapshot" albeit one at full BS. If it is, then it cannot hit.
Personally I think that once a flier elects to fire in skyfire mode it is no longer a snapshot at the air but instead one at the ground. Otherwise we may end up with someone trying to throw out that it cannot fire at the ground ever either due to it not having the "snapshot" rule removed by ground firing.

Edit: and there, while I typed out my long winded reply, Sam went ahead and said it wasn't a snapshot while skyfiring.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on July 10, 2012, 09:15:50 PM
2 more Tyranid related questions.

1) Deathleaper: "What was that?" All enemy infantry units within 12" roll one less dice (to a min of one) when moving through difficult terrain.
Assaulting through cover now requires units to roll 3D6 and discard the highest.
Does this mean a unit now rolls 2D6 and discards the highest when charging the deathleaper?

2) Back to your ruling on special characters being characters, ymgarl genestealers are specified as special characters in the FAQ. Does this mean that every member of the squad is a character?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 10, 2012, 09:44:04 PM
Ok. I figured this out looking at the Necron Codex and the FAQ.

Reading the rule you must select a point on the battlefield for the Death Ray to originate from and another point on the battlefield for it to end within 3d6" . following this wording the Death Ray can only hit stuff on the battlefield because it travels in a straight line along the ground to cover that distance. Following True LoS if you used a string to travel along the path of a Death Ray from the gun it physically can not hit a flyer model's hull at all without diverging from that path especially with a maximum range of 30" away from the Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe and other Flyer are at the Same Elevation model wise as well if you mark the Elevation of the Doom Scythe as A and the Maximum distance away B and the Actual Path the Ray travels as Line C you can see that Line C does not a point on that can achieve an Elevation higher than point A Outside of when Line C ends at Point A. Since you can not hit yourself with your own Death Ray you can not hit another flyer. Since its worded that it must elect 2 positions on the battlefield and not in the air above the battlefield you can not shoot the Death Ray at Flyers.

Q.E.D.

There are two ways for this particular chain of logic to work out. Either you mean that nothing not on the ground can be hit (like a skimmer). Or, you mean that if a piece of the hull of a flier is below the plane created parallel to the ground at the level of the death ray than the flier may be hit. Since this is a rather confusing way to rule it and QED is such a near and dear statement to me, I shall have to disagree. I think rather than visualize as simply a line drawn by the death ray it is better seen as a plane perpendicular to the battlefield with the intersecting line segment being the one drawn by the ray.

The real determination as to whether or not it can hit a flier comes down to what Ben is asking. Is it still a "snapshot" albeit one at full BS. If it is, then it cannot hit.
Personally I think that once a flier elects to fire in skyfire mode it is no longer a snapshot at the air but instead one at the ground. Otherwise we may end up with someone trying to throw out that it cannot fire at the ground ever either due to it not having the "snapshot" rule removed by ground firing.

Edit: and there, while I typed out my long winded reply, Sam went ahead and said it wasn't a snapshot while skyfiring.

Well the thing about the Skimmer is that it is still low enough to the ground for it to be hit by the line.  the line went over the skimmer it would hit Based on what I am thinking/saying. Even then its exploding and ripping apart the ground below it possibly wrecking them.

(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x363/Loronus/Diagram.png)

This is a Direct Side view what I am thinking and since 2 points need to be designated on the ground and since when your skyfiring it is a Snapshot picking those places on the ground you wouldn't be able to select them while firing something in the air.


Sam does that mean the Death Ray can be used against flyers cause then I think Necrons are just geared too well for anything now.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on July 10, 2012, 09:59:52 PM
And in your example there if the doom scythe were closer the stormtalon would both be hit by line c and above point b. In addition, if it were further away the skimmer would not be hit by your line c.
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the rulebook giving a specific elevation to the models, there aren't differing heights of flying. The beam will hit either way the only ruling that matters is whether or not it is a snapfire, which when electing to skyfire Sam has just said it is not. So a Doom scythe may shoot and hit either only sky units or only ground units ina turn.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 10, 2012, 10:06:47 PM
Yes, of course we're all talking out of our asses about this stuff, but to me it looks like Necron flyer spam will be the new "WTF am I supposed to do about this" army. 

That is, until someone figures out WTF to do about it, or another release comes out (which it already did, Aeronautica, and according to rumors GW may soon declare that FW stuff is to be used in normal games of 40k). 

You can't decide rules based on the power level of 1 model though.  See Death Cult Assassins & modelling power weapons.

You're doing a great job Sam!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on July 10, 2012, 10:12:43 PM
"Do enemy units roll 2D6 and discard the highest when charging the deathleaper?" Oddly enough, units charging through cover normally roll 3d6 and use the two lowest (not discard the highest). So when charging through terrain near Deathleaper, the unit just rolls 2d6 and keeps what they roll. Bizarre, I know, but them's the breaks.

Ah, rereading the top part you are correct. I only read the excerpt at the bottom of 22 where it does say to discard the highest, gotta love GW changing their terminology on the same page!

Follow up to the characters question, Deathleaper/Doom/Swarmlord/Old one eye are all in the same category as the stealers in the faq, since only the Swarmlord is based on a unit that is a character is he the only one that is? Not trying to harp on the fact, just confused to where the line is drawn for special characters=characters. The specifically mention Mephiston in the rulebook, but don't bother to list any others.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 10, 2012, 11:00:43 PM
Yes, of course we're all talking out of our asses about this stuff, but to me it looks like Necron flyer spam will be the new "WTF am I supposed to do about this" army. 
IG Master of the Fleet, and some other "dick reserves" character that eludes me at the moment?

And it looks like I'm totally going to have Sam yell at me in full caps Thursday. I never know where the line is between reading the rules and reading too much into the rules. If part of me didn't think it funny, I'd probably make the mistake less often.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 10, 2012, 11:08:23 PM
"
"Wait, so Death Rays again." A UNIT/WEAPON WITH SKYFIRE CAN USE A SHOT THAT DOESN'T ROLL TO HIT TO ATTACK FLIERS, BUT NOT GROUND UNITS. A UNIT WITHOUT SKYFIRE CAN USE A SHOT THAT DOESN'T ROLL TO HIT TO ATTACK GROUND UNITS, BUT NOT FLIERS. I can type it again in larger font, if necessary.
Wait, Sky fire states, uses its normal ballistic skill, as beams don't use BS how do they benefit? Please explain this one to me? Feel free to skip the caps though.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on July 10, 2012, 11:35:52 PM
It's not about what Skyfire says, it's about what the "Hard to Hit" rule for fliers says. That rule states that anyone without Skyfire can only make Snap Shots at fliers. The BS doesn't matter in this case; the fact that Skyfire provides an exception to the Hard to Hit rule allows beams and the like to fire normally at fliers. Make sense?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Moosifer on July 11, 2012, 12:08:32 AM
I think part of the confusion lays in the fact that a beam weapon is such a "weird" concept.  Templates blasts and large blasts cannot hurt flayers in zoom mode but nothing is said about beams.  Good call Sam.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Quetions
Post by: Mad Dok Rob on July 11, 2012, 12:26:56 AM
Two questions about skyfire.

Why does it make mention of skimmers, cause I don't see anything about them being hard to hit or what ever the rule is for fliers?

Is there any place in the rule book that says what get the skyfire or would it be in the faq? Hopping its in the book cause other wise I can't shoot at fliers very effectively but, my tanks could be awesome.

not sure about other races, but I know when da Boyz do a strafing run (flyer attack on ground units), if it floats (skimmer and jump infantry) it is harder for us to hit...unless we have an ace like the Krimson Baron....
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 11, 2012, 12:48:12 AM
I did google it and people are taking it 3 ways. It hits everything no matter what.  It only hits ground or air units it must be declared at the Beginning of the shooting phase if it is going to Skyfire at air with its weapons. And the case of it only hits ground units because of the wording that you choose points on the battlefield.

In my satire I posted something on Games-Workshop North American Facebook Page noone responded yet but.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 11, 2012, 01:27:57 AM
Yes, of course we're all talking out of our asses about this stuff, but to me it looks like Necron flyer spam will be the new "WTF am I supposed to do about this" army. 

Honestly, it's not that bad.  If you take a billion flyers, that means you have...5 dudes per unit to score.  And, once you get more than 3 flyers on the board, it's actually really hard to maneuver them all around.  Combined with the fact that you can only reserve Flyers, but 1/2 of your army *cannot* reserve, means you're putting some of those 5 dudes on the ground to get shot at.  And the minute you have no models on the board, you lose, so....
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 11, 2012, 01:59:04 AM
1 Necron Overlord with Warscythe, 3 Doom Scythes, 2 20 man Warrior Squads, 1 15 Man Warrior Squad, and 1 9 Man Immortals Squad with Tesla Carbines at 1500 points. That is a Lot more than 5 dudes per a scoring unit and all those squads can take out flyers, Vehicles,  or massive amounts of troops with just volume of fire.

I still think Necrons are stupid
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 11, 2012, 03:10:26 AM
1 Necron Overlord with Warscythe, 3 Doom Scythes, 2 20 man Warrior Squads, 1 15 Man Warrior Squad, and 1 9 Man Immortals Squad with Tesla Carbines at 1500 points. That is a Lot more than 5 dudes per a scoring unit and all those squads can take out flyers, Vehicles,  or massive amounts of troops with just volume of fire.

I still think Necrons are stupid

Pat's right on this one.  Good luck killing 20 man Necron units.  Meanwhile, the doomscythes and the douche canoe are having an easy time killing all your stuff. 

Worse lists can be made, I think. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 11, 2012, 07:59:35 AM
It's not about what Skyfire says, it's about what the "Hard to Hit" rule for fliers says. That rule states that anyone without Skyfire can only make Snap Shots at fliers. The BS doesn't matter in this case; the fact that Skyfire provides an exception to the Hard to Hit rule allows beams and the like to fire normally at fliers. Make sense?
When you explain it, yes.

GW could have said instead, "Models with the Skyfire rule are allowed to shoot at a Flyer as if the Flyer did not have the Hard to Hit rule," or even "Skyfire negates the target's Hard to Hit rule." And then repeated it clearly under the Skyfire rule as well. Writing clearly isn't rocket surgery.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 11, 2012, 09:26:52 AM
It's not about what Skyfire says, it's about what the "Hard to Hit" rule for fliers says. That rule states that anyone without Skyfire can only make Snap Shots at fliers. The BS doesn't matter in this case; the fact that Skyfire provides an exception to the Hard to Hit rule allows beams and the like to fire normally at fliers. Make sense?

It does indeed, RAW is pretty simple actually.

Cool thanks.
Alan
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 11, 2012, 12:54:54 PM
1 Necron Overlord with Warscythe, 3 Doom Scythes, 2 20 man Warrior Squads, 1 15 Man Warrior Squad, and 1 9 Man Immortals Squad with Tesla Carbines at 1500 points. That is a Lot more than 5 dudes per a scoring unit and all those squads can take out flyers, Vehicles,  or massive amounts of troops with just volume of fire.

I still think Necrons are stupid

So you have an overlord with no gear, 4 scoring units that have a max of 24" fire, no mobility, no support, and then 3 heavy flyers that can at most hit 3 targets before they are blown out of the sky, and 500 points to spend on 1 court, wargear, and then an elite or fast.

This army does not scare me in the slightest.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 11, 2012, 12:57:09 PM
It's not about what Skyfire says, it's about what the "Hard to Hit" rule for fliers says. That rule states that anyone without Skyfire can only make Snap Shots at fliers. The BS doesn't matter in this case; the fact that Skyfire provides an exception to the Hard to Hit rule allows beams and the like to fire normally at fliers. Make sense?
When you explain it, yes.

GW could have said instead, "Models with the Skyfire rule are allowed to shoot at a Flyer as if the Flyer did not have the Hard to Hit rule," or even "Skyfire negates the target's Hard to Hit rule." And then repeated it clearly under the Skyfire rule as well. Writing clearly isn't rocket surgery.

Hehe, rocket surgery. 

But no seriously, GW just doesn't seem to get that they really need to use a keyword based system, the way Wizards of the coast does.  That leaked codex in January gave me hope, as it looked like an amateur stab at such a system, but no.  One of my great disappointments with 6th is continued lack of clear language.  I just felt sure, that by now they would finally get it.

But no, they're a "model company, not a rules company".

It's clear that to them "shoot at normal BS" meant exactly the same thing as "not a snapshot".  But as Benjamin pointed out, it doesn't quite, does it?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 11, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
1 Necron Overlord with Warscythe, 3 Doom Scythes, 2 20 man Warrior Squads, 1 15 Man Warrior Squad, and 1 9 Man Immortals Squad with Tesla Carbines at 1500 points. That is a Lot more than 5 dudes per a scoring unit and all those squads can take out flyers, Vehicles,  or massive amounts of troops with just volume of fire.

I still think Necrons are stupid

So you have an overlord with no gear, 4 scoring units that have a max of 24" fire, no mobility, no support, and then 3 heavy flyers that can at most hit 3 targets before they are blown out of the sky, and 500 points to spend on 1 court, wargear, and then an elite or fast.

This army does not scare me in the slightest.

3 Doomscythes doesn't scare you....?  Oh buddy, you'll find out, I think.

Anyway, I wasn't going to quibble with the guys list, it was just for illustrative purposes.  But yeah, drop the squads down in number a bit, maybe drop the douche canoe to have the lord on foot with one 20 man squad, add in a veil, and then buy a few nightscythes (because you know, more flyers) and you're good.

And this is only 1500 pts.  Point is, I think. Just like 1 20 man block will take you quite a while to get rid off.  Necrons are durable, yo.  Then the flyers come in and beat your face. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on July 11, 2012, 01:57:42 PM
Before this turns into an endless back and forth of lists and counter-lists, please remember the point of this thread, guys. I need this spot to zero in on new rules questions as they arise. Feel free to post challenge lists in a new thread, but let's keep this one on target. Thanks!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Moosifer on July 11, 2012, 02:06:16 PM
I got one more point about that list before I sign off.  15 model limit in the night scythes so lists need to be adjusted.

Have you answered any questions about Night Scythes being destroyed and the contents going into reserve before or after s10 hits?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 11, 2012, 03:25:37 PM
Noooooo.....I demand they take like, transdemensional warp microwave taco damage, or something. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: cryptoron on July 11, 2012, 11:12:56 PM
As a Necron player I'd stay away from the 20 man squads, I used one in the last BG-Plainville Tournament and the longest it lasted was turn 3.  That was with a lord and Res Orb.  Basically to get rid of it all you had to do was charge it.  Then if any models were alive at the end, it ran away.  I keep my troops in the Ghost Arks now.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 11, 2012, 11:50:45 PM
Yeah yeah. But that's not the point. Point is it'll last until the flyers show up.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 13, 2012, 12:05:41 AM
So, back to serious questions:

Sam, I asked you tonight, but you didn't have a solidified opinion yet, so after you've had a chance to think about it:

Can a Necron command barge sweep attack a flyer?  Is this the same as a Flying Monstrous Creature's Vector strike?  Should it be?  (the attacks have slightly different mechanics, but nothing is said about it in either case.  Of course, the FMC is flying, and the chariot is not.....)

While we're at it, do FMC's get skyfire?  (I don't see it anywhere, but it seems like they should)

Can Haywire (and EMP) affect Fortifications?  There is an argument, by some, that a Building is not the same thing as a Vehicle. (I was going to ask about gauss, but Buildings don't have hull points)

When Coteaz turns in his powers for random powers from the book, does he give up hammerhand?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 13, 2012, 11:13:43 AM
Chanllenges:

In a challenge, no one else from the engaged units can damage the challengers.  However, the internets have pointed out, there is nothing stopping wounds from the challenge spilling over onto the unit.  (likely, say when Mephiston or a Tyrant challenges)

This seems to remove a lot of the tactics of challenges (defensive challenges are impossible, powerful characters just want to challenge all the time) and it seems safe to assume they meant it to work exactly like Fantasy challenges.  Thoughts?  (Also, though, there is no mention of a parallel to overkill for combat rez)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 13, 2012, 02:07:22 PM
My take on using "defensive challenges" to prevent a much stronger character from hurting the rest of your squad is that it's a loophole and is not in the spirit of the challenge rules.

Picture this if you will:
Bloodthirster charges a unit of 5 Necron Warriors with 2 Lance Crypteks attached to it.

Combat turn 1:  Cryptek challenges the Bloodthirster and dies.  Warriors lose by 1, most likely pass and are locked in combat.
Combat turn 2:  Cryptek challenges the Bloodthirster and dies.  Warriors lose by 1, most likely pass and are locked in combat.
Combat turn 3:  If either cryptek passed its resurrection protocols, see above.
Etc.

Lame.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 13, 2012, 02:15:17 PM
Ok, I get you, even agree with you, but let's look at the converse:

Hive tyrant charges Tac w/ Fist Sarg.  Challenges.  If he accepts, the sarge dies, plus like 4 other guys die, and the rest of the squad can't hurt the tyrant.  If he doesn't, then then turn the sarg away, and 5 other guys die.  Either way, it's a free bonus the combat monster didn't really need. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 13, 2012, 02:19:07 PM
@ andalucien,  That is exactly how it works in fantasy.  Yes, this limits solo charging a crazy combat single model to go crush entire units.


@ Matt.   If the HT is by himeself... he only has 4 wounds... shouldn't be too hard to deal with.  If he is with guard, you can wail on them.   Not much of a change.

It was/is horrendously stupid for a HT/Bloodthirster/whatever to charge into a unit and NOT BE ABLE to attack/hinder the one model in 10 that can hurt him back.  CC needed a bit of a boost.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 13, 2012, 02:34:22 PM
Yes, Sir_Prometheus, of those 2 scenarios, I would say mine sounds a lot more absurd...
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 13, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
@ Matt.   If the HT is by himeself... he only has 4 wounds... shouldn't be too hard to deal with.  If he is with guard, you can wail on them.   Not much of a change.

Sigh.  I had a feeling, if I used a tyrant example, you would use as an opportunity to dry for your tyranids.  But I didn't want to mention a Dread Knight, as, y'know, it "isn't all about GK".

Anyway, I would like a ruling one way or the other from Sam, as it will matter, a lot.  RAW it seems wounds can overflow, but I do seriously doubt that was their intention. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 13, 2012, 03:02:41 PM
Same thing for a dreadknight.  I really don't see CC focused MCs being good at CC being an issue....   You can still hurt them, and kill them with shooting, and TH/SS termies are still a pretty good answer.

All the flying or jump pack MCs are max of 4 wounds.  Not to mention units can now just tag them with grenades.

I don't know about the ruling, but I don't see it being a balance problem either way.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 13, 2012, 03:11:20 PM
Great, Mephiston, or Celestine, then.  Who frankly DO need nerfing.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 13, 2012, 03:28:06 PM
It was always bad that Mephiston, the Swarmlord, Whoever, could not swing at the actual guy in the unit who could hurt him.

Did it ever make sense to you?   


Mephiston flies into battle with a tactical squad of Ultramarines, taking down four of them before they can do anything and 5 more counterattack to no avail as they cannot seem to hurt him.  Out of the corner of his eye. Mephiston sees some movement and spins around,  but its too late!  The one guy with a giant fist punches him square in the jaw.   

Rocked by this, Mephiston turns around and takes out more regular guys who can't hurt him.  Then gets punched in the face again!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: blantyr on July 14, 2012, 10:14:46 AM
It was always bad that Mephiston, the Swarmlord, Whoever, could not swing at the actual guy in the unit who could hurt him.

Did it ever make sense to you?   

A lot of 40K doesn't make sense.  In the old days, a transport could come charging across the field, the guys could crawl out the door, walk up to the guy with the lascannon, and punch him in the face before he gets a chance to pull the trigger.

There have been some token attempts at common sense this time around.  Most versions, guys with swords seem to have an edge over guys with guns.  The ranges, speeds and relative strengths of swords and guns are usually balanced such that shooting armies and bashing armies are fairly evenly balanced, with perhaps something of an edge to sword armies as it's more fun to mix it up face to face.  This time around, we're seeing dominant shooting armies, at least in these early days.  Visiting Plainville last Thursday I saw an Orc army with nothing but shooters, and a Bug army with lots of gun gaunts, no claw gaunts.

But is it fun to go with common sense, that in the real world sword were made obsolete by guns?  Or is it more fun to have the game rigged that both swords and guns have a significant place in the game?

Yes, when a high toughness character meets a squad where only one person can hurt him, it makes sense to take out that character first.  I vaguely recall a version of the rules way back when when one could do that.  People would put lots of points into high toughness monstrosities as they could only be taken out by other high toughness monstrosities.  If the oversized demon prince was within 6 inches of a squad, you had to shoot the squad, you couldn't shoot the monster.  I think the phrase was Herohammer.  Those were days when there was lots of talk of "cheese," when it was clearly optimal to tool out a few potent models, where the armies they commanded had a lesser role.  This was when the 'comp' system was invented, when the competitive Americans needed a band aid to keep down the points spent on HQs while the less competitive British thought they were just having fun.

Well....  Some things don't change.

Giving squads a chance by not allowing the monstrosities pick out the guy with the cool weapon might not be realistic, but is Mephiston realistic?  The feel of the game changes significantly if the guy with the power fist dies trivially.  Been there.  Done that.  Didn't work so well.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 14, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
I can see pros and cons to both methods.  However, it seems like it offers a lot more tactically interesting and fun if cheap sarges can indeed sacrifice themselves to tie up a combat monster for a turn. 

As a consolation Keith, that might often be a good thing....sarge ties you up 1 turn, and then you break 'em in their turn. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: cryptoron on July 14, 2012, 06:42:02 PM
Not sure if this has come up yet, but......
In a Necron army, if you take a court, that is a group of Crypteks and Lords without assigning them as squad leaders, do they have to stay with the Overlord.  For example, if you have one Overlord in a command barge, and two squads of warriors and a court of 5 Crypteks and 5 Lords, If you elect to keep the court on its own, must the overlord accompany them or can the lord go in the Barge and leave the court to fight as their own group?  I think they should be able to, but I just wanted to make sure.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 15, 2012, 04:35:36 AM
Not sure if this has come up yet, but......
In a Necron army, if you take a court, that is a group of Crypteks and Lords without assigning them as squad leaders, do they have to stay with the Overlord.  For example, if you have one Overlord in a command barge, and two squads of warriors and a court of 5 Crypteks and 5 Lords, If you elect to keep the court on its own, must the overlord accompany them or can the lord go in the Barge and leave the court to fight as their own group?  I think they should be able to, but I just wanted to make sure.

I believe any court members you do not assign to units pre-deployment become their own court unit.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 15, 2012, 04:42:10 AM
"In a challenge, do wounds in excess of the number required to kill the challenger/challengee carry over into the rest of the squad?" The rules state that the two characters in a challenge can only be struck by each other, but does not limit wound allocation in any other way. By the current rules, excess wounds will go into the squad.

So while I (and of course, everyone else will abide by Sam's ruling), I just want to point out a specific thing about this in a rebuttal;

Per the book, the models in the challenge are "considered" (as phrased in the book) to be in Base to Base; ie per wound allocation, the wounds have to go closest so start in Base to Base.  The line under Slain Combatants say "blah blah if slain, you are "considered" to be still in the challenge till the end of phase.  ie, if you are "considered to still be in the challenge, you are "considered" to be in base to base with the (now) dead challenger...so even if he has 0 wounds, per allocation, they still go to him.  Call it stupid, dumb for having to Teabag a Corpse, but if you are considered to still be in the challenge, and in a challenge you are still considered to be in base to base, then that's the way it goes.

I only point out that both rules for position within the challenge and the rule for slain combatant use the exact same wording.  Because as is, if wounds carry over?  Then I see absolutely no point to EVER accept a challenge, since you're going to mop into my squad anyway, so why would I want to blindly sacrifice a model?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on July 15, 2012, 04:58:27 AM
A solid rebuttal.  I'm interested to see where this goes.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 15, 2012, 11:57:19 AM
I don't think it's clear from the rules as written that "The challenge lasts until the end of the turn" is intended to override the more universal (and taken for granted) rule that if a model dies, you are no longer in base-to-base with it (it's removed from the table).  If this override WAS supposed to happen, it would be explicitly stated that wounds are still allocated to the dead model even though it has been removed. 

I don't think that what actually happens is clearly described in the rulebook.  For clear RAW we'll need to wait for a FAQ. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 15, 2012, 02:09:42 PM
I don't think it's clear from the rules as written that "The challenge lasts until the end of the turn" is intended to override the more universal (and taken for granted) rule that if a model dies, you are no longer in base-to-base with it (it's removed from the table).  If this override WAS supposed to happen, it would be explicitly stated that wounds are still allocated to the dead model even though it has been removed. 

I don't think that what actually happens is clearly described in the rulebook.  For clear RAW we'll need to wait for a FAQ.

RAW completely overrides a universal/taken for granted rule, because in a permissive ruleset, it *explicitly* states what happens in a given scenario.  IE Codex overrides Rulebook, FAQ/Errata overrides Codex and so on.  Below, I will outline;

Then by this logic, you throw a Bloodthirster at my unit of 10 Marines.  You challenge, I accept.  You kill my Sarge with a Fist and say 5 guys.  I have just lost my Fist, and 5 guys.  Same scenario.  You challenge, I refuse.  Sarge goes to the back, you kill 6 guys.  I break, run, you don't catch me, I auto-regroup and still have my power fist.  What happens if I have a sergeant, my Librarian, and 4 marines?  The whole point of challenging is that you throw one model so that the rest of the unit is unaffected; otherwise by your logic, I challenge and the the Thirster wipes out my entire unit, including the HQ I was trying to protect.

Why would I ever accept a challenge with anyone knowing that no matter what, my squad is going to take wounds?  It completely invalidates the whole idea of challenging, then.

Now, let's here's my reasoning;

a) The rules under "Fighting in a Challenge" are very specific in what happens once you accept a challenge in regards to positioning.  You have to get into Base to Base (disregarding any difficult or dangerous terrain) with each other, even if 1) it means swapping a rank and file guy for the challenger, 2) swapping a rank and file guy for the challengee, 3) baring that, assuming that the two are in base to base for the purposes of the ensuing fight.
b) For the duration (one round, two rounds, the entire game) of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base to base contact *only* with each other. - This is direct from the book.  Note the use of the word "are" and "only".  These words specifically dictate the positioning of the challengers relative to the rest of the unit.
c) When one combatant in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of a phase.

EXAMPLE:  A techmarine has both a power weapon (I4), and then at Initiative 1 gets his Servo-Arm attack,  Sam has previously stated that the techmarine normally would get a pile in move at I4 (his base), and then again at I1.  I challenge your sergeant and at I4, I kill him.  So, now, (by your logic), since he is no longer there, I can then make a Pile-In move at I1 and Servo-Attack your unit.

Except I can't, because I am "considered" to be in base contact until the end of the Phase, and I cannot make a pile-in move, since I am "considered" to be in base contact already.

So I think that this is pretty specific in regards to positioning of a model within a challenge.  If you accept a challenge, you are in base contact *no matter where you are in the unit*.  For the duration of the combat (IE multiple rounds), you are in base *only* with each other.  And if you kill one, you are *still* in the challenge for the rest of the phase, which then means the duration is extended to the end of the phase, and you are *still* only in base with each other.  The dead model may be removed from table, but you are still considered to be in the challenge, and all the positioning rules apply. 

0 wounds, taken off table, removed from game, removed as casualty, thrown against the wall, put into a food processor, whatever you want to call it; as RAW, I am still considered to be in base contact for the duration of the challenge with a combatant in a challenge and no matter how much I want to overflow wounds, by virtue of allocation, by virtue of the pile-in rule I can do neither, so I sit on my ass and wait.

This is RAW.

Now, let's look at the units themselves;

a) I will cede that RAW, it doesn't not *explicitly* say that wounds do not overflow.  But, it also does not *explicitly* say they do.  Permissive Ruleset then applies.
b) wounds from other models cannot be allocated against the challengers - resolve the wound allocation step "as if the two characters were not there".
c) You cannot allocate wounds with Look Out Sir.
d) The Moral Support rule - by your logic, if wounds overflow, then legally, it's not a challenge because "the bystanders can be affected", which negates the "assume that such bystanders are cheering their leader on" and "...your character receives on re-roll for every five models forced to watch in this manner"

This then, with the bystanders not being allowed to be affected per the Moral Support rule, the "assume the two characters were not there for the Unit's wound allocation step" and the inability to take a Look Out Sir test leads to the fact that It is a complete and separate combat from the challenge for the purposes of positioning

Move on to Assault results; "Unsaved wounds caused by a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters units" - That's a clear differentiation.

It just doesn't happen.  You cannot overflow models from a challenge, based upon the rules for positioning within a challenge, the rules for what happens if a model is slain, the rules for Moral Support, and the rules for Pile-In.  By the logic presented above, you would be breaking 4 already established rules in order to overflow wounds, and that cannot happen.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 15, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
My problem is, nothing that you described here alters the normal overflow process.  You're right, he continues to be in BtB, and that prevents a pile in move.  But wounds still continue to be allocated to the next clsoest model.

It's not what I think they intended.  It's not what I want.  But it is what I think it currently says. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 15, 2012, 03:35:36 PM
My problem is, nothing that you described here alters the normal overflow process.  You're right, he continues to be in BtB, and that prevents a pile in move.  But wounds still continue to be allocated to the next clsoest model.

It's not what I think they intended.  It's not what I want.  But it is what I think it currently says.

Continues to be in Base To Base.  Wounds allocate to closest (which is base to base).  You are *only* in base to base with the challenger.  Not "I am considered to be in base to base with the challenger and models in his unit", the rules specifically state "You are considered to be in base contact with only each other"

Ergo, all your wounds per allocation rules have to allocate to him, as he is the closest model, by the virtue of being the *only* model in base to base, which I hope I have proven above, lasts the entire challenge.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 15, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
My problem is, nothing that you described here alters the normal overflow process.  You're right, he continues to be in BtB, and that prevents a pile in move.  But wounds still continue to be allocated to the next clsoest model.

It's not what I think they intended.  It's not what I want.  But it is what I think it currently says.

Continues to be in Base To Base.  Wounds allocate to closest (which is base to base).  You are *only* in base to base with the challenger.  Not "I am considered to be in base to base with the challenger and models in his unit", the rules specifically state "You are considered to be in base contact with only each other"

Ergo, all your wounds per allocation rules have to allocate to him, as he is the closest model, by the virtue of being the *only* model in base to base, which I hope I have proven above, lasts the entire challenge.

Right...there's a huge logically leap there, between your first and second paragraph.  If he was in BtB with the "challenger and models in his unit" he'd be litterally touching every other model in the opposing unit, something that almost never happens anyway.  That has nothing to do with how wounds are allocated.

Let me put it another way.  It is totally possible, after charging, for two units to wind up in contact only at the intersection guys.  Only two models are touching.  No challenge is involved in this case.  If one of those models does 3 unsaved wounds to other unit, the guy that's in BtB is the closest model, and dies.  But does it end there?  No, you follow the wound allocation process, and the two next closest guys behind him are gonna die too. First wound goes to closest model, until wounds are reduced to zero, and once they are, you proceed to the next closest model.

Nothing about a challenge, none of the language on those two pages, alters that wound allocation process.  "still in BtB" is exactly the same as the scenario presented above.  "the challenge continues until end of phase" really just means that the rest of the unit still can't affect the model in the challenge. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 15, 2012, 04:04:11 PM
I see what Typhus is saying and I agree with it. It is like the issue with Look out Sir and wound allocation. You apply wounds to models closest to you and your in Base to Base with only the other character and not in combat with the rest of the squad.

Wounds are Saved the unsaved wounds are applied to the model in Base to base. Your in Base to Base even if he has no wounds. The way to look at it also is if he has a Different Armor save than the rest of the squad. Example would be a Captain with Artificer Armour in a Squad of Tactical Marines. He makes all his saves against a power sword on a 2+ against the wounds in combat in a challenge meaning all those wounds go on him even if he failed cause not a single tactical marine had to make a save even though they wouldn't get it. Another Example reversing it to a better save would be a Terminatour Sergeant with Lightning Claws getting hit by a Power Axe while the rest of his squad has Storm Shields they don't get to make 3+ invuln saves against the weapon he has to make a 5+ on. In such a case they would not be taking wounds cause of the different armour and invuln saves cause they never had to make those saves in the first place.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 15, 2012, 04:28:24 PM
My problem is, nothing that you described here alters the normal overflow process.  You're right, he continues to be in BtB, and that prevents a pile in move.  But wounds still continue to be allocated to the next clsoest model.

It's not what I think they intended.  It's not what I want.  But it is what I think it currently says.

Continues to be in Base To Base.  Wounds allocate to closest (which is base to base).  You are *only* in base to base with the challenger.  Not "I am considered to be in base to base with the challenger and models in his unit", the rules specifically state "You are considered to be in base contact with only each other"

Ergo, all your wounds per allocation rules have to allocate to him, as he is the closest model, by the virtue of being the *only* model in base to base, which I hope I have proven above, lasts the entire challenge.

Right...there's a huge logically leap there, between your first and second paragraph.  If he was in BtB with the "challenger and models in his unit" he'd be litterally touching every other model in the opposing unit, something that almost never happens anyway.  That has nothing to do with how wounds are allocated.

Let me put it another way.  It is totally possible, after charging, for two units to wind up in contact only at the intersection guys.  Only two models are touching.  No challenge is involved in this case.  If one of those models does 3 unsaved wounds to other unit, the guy that's in BtB is the closest model, and dies.  But does it end there?  No, you follow the wound allocation process, and the two next closest guys behind him are gonna die too. First wound goes to closest model, until wounds are reduced to zero, and once they are, you proceed to the next closest model.

Nothing about a challenge, none of the language on those two pages, alters that wound allocation process.  "still in BtB" is exactly the same as the scenario presented above.  "the challenge continues until end of phase" really just means that the rest of the unit still can't affect the model in the challenge.

Ok, so;

We have established that even if you slay a challenger, you are still considered to be in base contact with that model until the end of the phase in which it is slain, per the Challenge rules.

I am in base to base with a challenged model (his unit is around me).  I do three unsaved wounds. 

"If one of those models does 3 unsaved wounds to other unit, the guy that's in BtB is the closest model, and dies" - Ok.

"No, you follow the wound allocation process" -Ok.

Wound allocation process goes closest to closest.  So in the above example, the model in base to base is allocated a wound.

Page 25: Wounds are allocated and resolved with the closest model, just like in the Shooting Phase;  The bullet points;

-A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step...Roll the model's saving throw (if it has one), and remove the casualty (if necessary);

-If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step, the wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model...etc.

Per Wound allocation, the process of order is follows

Is there a model in Base Contact.  If Yes, remove Model.  Go to next wound to allocate
Is there a model in Base Contact.  If No, remove next closest model.

So you are in a challenge.  You do 3 wounds.  Follow process of order;

Is there a model in Base Contact.  Yes.
-Allocate wound and remove model.  Go to next wound to allocate
Is there a model in Base Contact.  Yes, by virtue of the rules in a challenge that state you are considered to be in base contact only with each other which persists through death until the end of the phase.
-Allocate wound and remove model.  Go to next wound to allocate
Is there a model in Base Contact.  Yes, by virtue of the rules in a challenge that state you are considered to be in base contact only with each other which persists through death until the end of the phase.
-Allocate wound and remove model.  Go to next wound to allocate

That's how it works.  That is RAW wound allocation.  You cannot allocate an unsaved wound to the next closest model as long as you are in base contact with a model.  Per the rules of the Challenge, you considered to only ever in base contact with challenger, and that consideration lasts until the end of the phase.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 15, 2012, 04:54:18 PM
Oooohhhhh......you are saying that in this case, the dead challenger is "still there" and essentailly acting a zero wound sponge.

"If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step"  is the missing logical leap.

Yeah, ok, I concede.  Wounds do not overflow from challenges.  Happy to lose.  :)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 15, 2012, 05:02:43 PM
Oooohhhhh......you are saying that in this case, the dead challenger is "still there" and essentailly acting a zero wound sponge.

"If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step"  is the missing logical leap.

Yeah, ok, I concede.  Wounds do not overflow from challenges.  Happy to lose.  :)

Yeah, that's my point;  even if the model is gone, he's still a sponge.  I mean, look at it from not a rules point, but from a theory point;

As the argument was stating, I challenge you, you accept, I murder you and your unit which cannot attack me.

I challenge you, you refuse, you are still in base with me (but cannot strike blows), and I murder you and your unit, which now can attack me. 

The only difference then is that the Challenger gets to strike the unit with impunity, so if you are going to lose either way, why would you ever accept a challenge?  It'd be better off to refuse all the time so you get to strike wounds into the Challenger.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 15, 2012, 05:12:36 PM
Sam?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 15, 2012, 05:58:12 PM
I think the key phrase that's missing from the rules is Wound Pool. It seems like it would be better written as, "Wounds caused in a challenge create a Wound Pool from which wounds can be allocated only to the model in the challenge." The concept of a Wound Pool logically resolves the rest of the issues, I think... But then again to this point, every word I've uttered trying to understand 6th has been wrong.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 15, 2012, 09:02:04 PM
The only difference then is that the Challenger gets to strike the unit with impunity, so if you are going to lose either way, why would you ever accept a challenge?  It'd be better off to refuse all the time so you get to strike wounds into the Challenger.

Well, first of all, let's look into the phrase, "if you know you're going to lose".  I think that GW definitely intended "not accepting the challenge" to be the default response if you know you're going to lose.   

If we're trying to discern the Rules as Intended, well, it's pretty obvious that challenges are meant to be be undertaken when you think you have a chance at winning the fight.  How do I know that's what's intended?  Well, it's printed at the top of the "challenges" page in the rulebook:

"Characters, no matter their rank or race, crave the chance to prove their battle skill. There is no more certain a way to do this than to vanquish enemy characters- preferably in full sight of one's allies."

So, I don't see how anyone can argue that "but if overflow exists, it might mean my weak character would  decline most challenges, and that's just crazy".   It think it actually makes perfect sense.

Also, it's simply not true that it's ALWAYS correct to reject the challenge if you think you're going to lose.  If you even think you have a chance at inflicting a wound against a stronger opponent, it could easily be better to accept the challenge than to decline.  If your sargeant with a power weapon declines, he doesn't get any close combat attacks against ANYONE.  If he accepts, at least he might do a wound to the Necron Overlord (or whoever the stronger challenger is).
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 15, 2012, 11:19:57 PM
Not sure I can get my head around the challenge discussion. It seems pretty simple that challengers are on their own.

They're only in B2B with each other
They cannot be attacked except by the character they are in combat with.
No look out sir.
All unsaved wounds in the challenge count to the result.

So nasty a bugger kills poor sgt jones of the xxv guard, hitting him 4 times and wounding him three of which he saves 1, 2 unsaved wounds. Sarge dies, and the combat result is now +2 from the challenge. No extra guardsmen die, but the result affects over all combat.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 16, 2012, 02:41:16 AM
Precision Shots are they allocated one at a time like regular shots? Example would be I get 3 Precision shots and I want to place them on a Character until he is dead if that takes 2 I can still allocate the last one to a special or heavy weapon model.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 16, 2012, 02:51:44 AM
Not sure I can get my head around the challenge discussion. It seems pretty simple that challengers are on their own.

They're only in B2B with each other
They cannot be attacked except by the character they are in combat with.
No look out sir.
All unsaved wounds in the challenge count to the result.

So nasty a bugger kills poor sgt jones of the xxv guard, hitting him 4 times and wounding him three of which he saves 1, 2 unsaved wounds. Sarge dies, and the combat result is now +2 from the challenge. No extra guardsmen die, but the result affects over all combat.

So are we saying the archon murders the marine sergeant, he only kills the sergeant, but the extra wounds still count towards combat resolution?  That would be exactly like Fantasy, but I'd need you to walk me through it, cuz I'm not sure I see it in the rules. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 16, 2012, 07:43:57 AM
Precision Shots are they allocated one at a time like regular shots? Example would be I get 3 Precision shots and I want to place them on a Character until he is dead if that takes 2 I can still allocate the last one to a special or heavy weapon model.

Wounds happen at the same time, so you would have to declare which ones go on which model before you roll them all.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 16, 2012, 11:21:05 AM
So nasty a bugger kills poor sgt jones of the xxv guard, hitting him 4 times and wounding him three of which he saves 1, 2 unsaved wounds. Sarge dies, and the combat result is now +2 from the challenge. No extra guardsmen die, but the result affects over all combat.

So are we saying the archon murders the marine sergeant, he only kills the sergeant, but the extra wounds still count towards combat resolution?  That would be exactly like Fantasy, but I'd need you to walk me through it, cuz I'm not sure I see it in the rules.

Sure, page 65, under Assault result, "Any unsave wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved wounds from the rest of the characters units"

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: BrianP on July 16, 2012, 01:27:09 PM

We have established that even if you slay a challenger, you are still considered to be in base contact with that model until the end of the phase in which it is slain, per the Challenge rules.

I do not think this is true - the rule states that, For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other.

That is not the same as saying "For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to be in base to base contact" or ""For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to always be in base to base contact with each other"

The challengers are not always in base contact, they are just never in base contact with anything else - thus, if one challenger dies the other is no longer in base contact with anyone else and wounds are allocated following the "nearest model" rules.

The fact that there is a "wound sponge" for the duration of the challenge is predicated on the fact that the two challengers are always in base to base contact, which is a grammatical misinterpretation of what is written in the rules.

There is a huge debate on this on practically every 40k forum currently... we are lucky enough to have Sam to make a decision we all agree to until the next FAQ comes out in August (and hopefully addresses this).
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 16, 2012, 02:42:55 PM
I'm a bit at a loss as to why this is a problem as I believe it to be simple RAW.

Before I break this down, remember this little rule: Page 7, basic vs. Advanced "where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they alway override any contradicting basic rules"

Assault rules == basic (pages 10 -31)
Challenge == Advanced.

Moving along based on the challenge rules on page 64 and 65.

1. A challenge is made
2. Assume accept Move challenger and challengee next to each other.
          Now per Outside forces section: no attacks can be resolved against either character, resolve attacks as if they are not there.
3. Assume nasty Archon butcherd Sgt Fred, fred's dead at Init 6/7
      per combatant slain, challenge is assumed to be ongoing until end of phase, so ignore the archon for anything until combat result is determined.
4. Everyone else fights, assuming there's guardsment left to make it worthwhile.

5. Per Assault result determine the result: DE unit + Archons Unsaved wounds caused = DE result. Guardsman unit + Sgt Freds Unsaved wounds caused = Guard result.

5a: Archon caused 3 unsaved wounds on sgt. Unit killed 4 more guard they score 7, Guard wiff, and have to test at -7.
5b: (my favorite) archon caused 3 unsaved woulds, DE Wiff, they score 3: Guard kick the crap outta pointy ears, and score 4. DE now tests at -1.

B2B doesn't really seem to matter beyond making the lines straight and keeping everyone fighting next to each other. What is missing that is causing an issue?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 16, 2012, 04:35:47 PM
Precision Shots are they allocated one at a time like regular shots? Example would be I get 3 Precision shots and I want to place them on a Character until he is dead if that takes 2 I can still allocate the last one to a special or heavy weapon model.

Wounds happen at the same time, so you would have to declare which ones go on which model before you roll them all.

Wounds don't happen at the same time for normal shots though everyone seems to forget or misunderstand this. Regular shots are applied to a unit one wound at a time to the model closest to the firing squad. My Question is simply do Precision shots follow the same ruling as such you only apply one wound at a time this way you can maximize the potential of Precision shots or do you waste shots if you happen to kill a guy in one shot by putting all 3 on him? The confusion for me is the sentence saying rather than following the normal rules for wound allocation sentence does this just apply to you being able to choose them and not the one at a time basis or the fact you can choose who they go on and they must go on that person even if you waste precision shots?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 16, 2012, 04:49:37 PM
I'm pretty sure you resolve them one at a time.  Really, ALL wounds are resolved one at atime, and there's just methods to speed it up.  Lout out sirs! are resolved one at a time
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 16, 2012, 05:42:30 PM
Sam, can we get a re-ruling on the challenge overflow thing?  I feel like Jared had a pretty convincing case. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 16, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
I'm pretty sure you resolve them one at a time.  Really, ALL wounds are resolved one at atime, and there's just methods to speed it up.  Lout out sirs! are resolved one at a time

You may resolve them one at a time, but I'm pretty sure you have to allocate them at the same time.  I think what he's trying to say is that he shoots, gets say 10 bolter shots from his unit, and 3 shots at precision shot.  He wants to be able to go "I allocate the first lascannon shot"  and if it misses, goes "Ok then since that missed I want to allocate the 2nd shot", and so on.

While wounds may be rolled one at a time, I think you still would need to allocate shots to create the wound pool. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 16, 2012, 08:41:41 PM

We have established that even if you slay a challenger, you are still considered to be in base contact with that model until the end of the phase in which it is slain, per the Challenge rules.

I do not think this is true - the rule states that, For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other.

That is not the same as saying "For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to be in base to base contact" or ""For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to always be in base to base contact with each other"

The challengers are not always in base contact, they are just never in base contact with anything else - thus, if one challenger dies the other is no longer in base contact with anyone else and wounds are allocated following the "nearest model" rules.

The fact that there is a "wound sponge" for the duration of the challenge is predicated on the fact that the two challengers are always in base to base contact, which is a grammatical misinterpretation of what is written in the rules.

There is a huge debate on this on practically every 40k forum currently... we are lucky enough to have Sam to make a decision we all agree to until the next FAQ comes out in August (and hopefully addresses this).

Look to the first paragraph under Challenge.  It explicitly states that the models must be positioned in base to base combat, and if you cannot, then you *assume* that they are in base to base.  They are in base to base the moment the challenge is issued until one is dead.

"If a challenge has been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other.  Note that these moves cannot be used to move a character out of unit coherency.  If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee.  If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contract with the challenger.  If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight....for the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Show me how that they are not always in base contact, and only with each other.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on July 16, 2012, 08:45:28 PM
Sam may or may not see this until Wednesday.  As far as I know he rarely checks the boards unless he's at work.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 16, 2012, 09:21:38 PM
Sam may or may not see this until Wednesday.  As far as I know he rarely checks the boards unless he's at work.
He rarely checks the boards even when he's at work. :P
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 16, 2012, 10:09:58 PM
Can someone consolidate all the questions and Sams answers into a sticky locked thread please?

Ploughing through this thread to find the questions and answers is getting rough.

thanks,
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 16, 2012, 10:54:36 PM
Can someone consolidate all the questions and Sams answers into a sticky locked thread please?
This is a good idea, a SAMFAQ without all the debate in between. And Sam can change the answers as people change his mind.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on July 17, 2012, 05:21:00 AM
I'll add that to my never ending list of things to do.  :)


In the mean time, here's some questions re: Feast of Blades that I've been asked.


1)  Will you guys be allowing [edit] psychic powers to be used on friendly [edit] allies?  The codex specifically says "friendly [edit] units" so I'm not really sure how to interpret it.

2)  Involving Night Fight from the Scenarios.  Are the Night Fight rules automatically in effect on the specified turns?  Or do they follow the rules from the Rulebook and it is only Night Fight on a 4+?


Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 17, 2012, 07:59:11 AM
I'll add that to my never ending list of things to do.  :)


In the mean time, here's some questions re: Feast of Blades that I've been asked.


1)  Will you guys be allowing [edit] psychic powers to be used on friendly [edit] allies?  The codex specifically says "friendly [edit] units" so I'm not really sure how to interpret it.

2)  Involving Night Fight from the Scenarios.  Are the Night Fight rules automatically in effect on the specified turns?  Or do they follow the rules from the Rulebook and it is only Night Fight on a 4+?
1) Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units, everyone else no. (p. 112)
2) Night Fighting rules, page 124. The first and second FoB scenarios have Night Fighting turn 1. The last scenario, which must be the one in question, has Night Fighting Turns 5-7. I would assume that the Feast of Blades scenario overrides the BRB and that Night Fighting is in automatically.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on July 17, 2012, 08:46:41 AM
I'll add that to my never ending list of things to do.  :)


In the mean time, here's some questions re: Feast of Blades that I've been asked.


1)  Will you guys be allowing [edit] psychic powers to be used on friendly [edit] allies?  The codex specifically says "friendly [edit] units" so I'm not really sure how to interpret it.

1) Brothers are treated as friendly units, everyone else no. (p. 112)


Just remember, they get very specific about codex specific stuff (depending on codex) in each of the FAQs like Blood Angels' Sanguinary Priests only giving feel no pain to Blood Angels.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mike_k on July 17, 2012, 09:18:22 AM
Wounds etc are not resolved one at a time, only if there is mixed armor saves involved.

If you have 10 marines with a 3+ save, you take 10 wounds, you roll 10 dice, fail 5 saves you then pull the 5 closest models, you dont roll 1 save after another until you fail. That would make the game absurd time wise.

If you have mixed armor I am pretty sure you cant start resolving against a different AV unless that model is the closest. So if you have 10 marines 9@ 3+ and 1 @ 2+ and the 2+ is in the front, if you take 10 wounds you then roll them 1 at a time against the 2+ until he fails then you roll the remaining saves and remove the next closest models as casualties. This is ignoring LoS roles if its a character, you toll until he fails then you LoS and if it passes you then continue rolling until he fails again etc.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 17, 2012, 09:56:22 AM
That is essentially, just the way to "fast roll" the dice.  SInce all the saves are the same, you can roll them all at once.  You're still resolving each wound one at a time, however.  This means you can make look out sirs! one at a time, etc.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: BrianP on July 17, 2012, 08:52:08 PM

We have established that even if you slay a challenger, you are still considered to be in base contact with that model until the end of the phase in which it is slain, per the Challenge rules.

I do not think this is true - the rule states that, For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other.

That is not the same as saying "For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to be in base to base contact" or ""For the duration of a challenge, the two combatants are considered to always be in base to base contact with each other"

The challengers are not always in base contact, they are just never in base contact with anything else - thus, if one challenger dies the other is no longer in base contact with anyone else and wounds are allocated following the "nearest model" rules.

The fact that there is a "wound sponge" for the duration of the challenge is predicated on the fact that the two challengers are always in base to base contact, which is a grammatical misinterpretation of what is written in the rules.

There is a huge debate on this on practically every 40k forum currently... we are lucky enough to have Sam to make a decision we all agree to until the next FAQ comes out in August (and hopefully addresses this).

Look to the first paragraph under Challenge.  It explicitly states that the models must be positioned in base to base combat, and if you cannot, then you *assume* that they are in base to base.  They are in base to base the moment the challenge is issued until one is dead.

"If a challenge has been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other.  Note that these moves cannot be used to move a character out of unit coherency.  If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee.  If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contract with the challenger.  If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight....for the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Show me how that they are not always in base contact, and only with each other.

I did in my last post. I do not want to belabor the point. The sentence about being in base contact only with each other has a misplaced modifier making it technically not true that the models are always in base with each other. It is incredibly easy to misread the sentence and infer that the models are always in base contact, people ignore such misplaced modifiers in speech all the time-but because "only" comes before the preposition "with" rather than after it you cannot just cleave off the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence (which is necessary for the models to both be always in base contact AND in base contact with only each other). Because of that, you are technically not allowed to infer "always" in base contact, only that the models can never be in base contact with other models for the duration of the challenge.

I will happily agree that is probably not the intention, and the debate will likely be FAQ'd away, but at this very second the sentence does not mean the models are always in base to base contact due to poor grammar. The only thing that sentence confirms is that no other model may be in base to base with the challengers for the duration of the challenge.  ;D
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 17, 2012, 09:40:28 PM
GW has and apparently always will use horribly imprecise language.

Your grammar nitpickings are quite meaningless. Please stop. Figuring out their miswrote rules is hard enough as it is.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 17, 2012, 09:56:13 PM
OK.  If we're NOT debating the grammar, and we're trying to define Rules as Intended,  I would again encourage people to read the top of the Challenges section in the rulebook, which explicitly states the intent.

"Characters, no matter their rank or race, crave the chance to prove their battle skill. There is no more certain a way to do this than to vanquish enemy characters- preferably in full sight of one's allies."

To the extent that challenges in 40k games consist of a strong character issuing a challenge and weak characters running from those challenges (or throwing their bodies in the way of the oncoming freight train in the desperate hope to somehow wound him), the challenge rules are intuitive and work as intended.

To the extent that challenges in 40k game consist of WEAK characters intentionally calling out challenges that they know they will lose, in order to block strong characters from being able to do what they are "paid to do", the challenge rules are counterintuitive and not working as intended.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 17, 2012, 10:32:08 PM
Except that's exactly how it works in fantasy.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 17, 2012, 10:33:31 PM
To the extent that challenges in 40k game consist of WEAK characters intentionally calling out challenges that they know they will lose, in order to block strong characters from being able to do what they are "paid to do", the challenge rules are counterintuitive and not working as intended.

Why in gods name would you do that? Throwing a weak character into a stronger one is giving away points towards combat resolution and makes no sense.

Remember if the big nasty butchers your guy for 4 unsaved wounds, they all count during the tally at the end, and you cannot hit the character back with the squad. Why do this? You want someone who can survive and maybe even wound the other guy in the challenge, failure to do so will hurt your cause. Seems pretty simple and inline with the challenges section.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 17, 2012, 11:40:14 PM
We're officially at the point of pointless back and forth regarding combat challenges.

I have a question in general about Gets Hot. If a model fires two plasma shots and one of them Gets Hot resulting in the death of the firing model, the other shot is still resolved as normal, yes?

Follow up question, if a vehicle with two plasma cannons fires and one of them Gets Hot, with the glance taking off the last Hull Point, does the other plasma cannon even get to fire as Gets Hot rolls happen before rolling To Hit?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 18, 2012, 12:33:56 AM
In response to Ben's Question it is similar to how Perils of the Warp works you roll Double 1s if it would kill the Psyker the Power Still goes off. You would Resolve any hits as normal since they are fired all at the same time.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 18, 2012, 01:48:53 AM
In response to Ben's Question it is similar to how Perils of the Warp works you roll Double 1s if it would kill the Psyker the Power Still goes off. You would Resolve any hits as normal since they are fired all at the same time.

Not so.  Perils of the Warp specifically states that the power is still used, even if the psyker is killed or wounded.  Get Hot makes no such determination.  As such, you go to process of order.

"When firing a weapon that Gets Hot, roll To Hit as normal.  For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armor saves or invulnerable saves can be taken). 

As this happens when you roll to hit, and before you roll to wound, the model dies before you can inflict the wounds on your target, and as such, the 2nd shot does not get a chance to roll to wound, as the firing model is dead before that can happen.

Same goes with a Vehicle.  The wound (or glancing hit) is suffered immediately after you roll to hit, but before you roll to wound.  As you are dead/wrecked before you get to that point, you cannot make the "to wound" roll.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 18, 2012, 01:54:28 AM
To the extent that challenges in 40k game consist of WEAK characters intentionally calling out challenges that they know they will lose, in order to block strong characters from being able to do what they are "paid to do", the challenge rules are counterintuitive and not working as intended.

Why in gods name would you do that? Throwing a weak character into a stronger one is giving away points towards combat resolution and makes no sense.

Remember if the big nasty butchers your guy for 4 unsaved wounds, they all count during the tally at the end, and you cannot hit the character back with the squad. Why do this? You want someone who can survive and maybe even wound the other guy in the challenge, failure to do so will hurt your cause. Seems pretty simple and inline with the challenges section.

Not at all?

In Fantasy, I have my lord, and I have a unit champion.  You challenge me with your big nasty, I accept with my unit champion, who is weaker.  You do 4 unsaved wounds, while my lord butchers the easier to hit and wound models in your unit, and I win combat on resolution.

Happens all the time.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 18, 2012, 02:01:54 AM
In response to Ben's Question it is similar to how Perils of the Warp works you roll Double 1s if it would kill the Psyker the Power Still goes off. You would Resolve any hits as normal since they are fired all at the same time.

Not so.  Perils of the Warp specifically states that the power is still used, even if the psyker is killed or wounded.  Get Hot makes no such determination.  As such, you go to process of order.

"When firing a weapon that Gets Hot, roll To Hit as normal.  For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armor saves or invulnerable saves can be taken). 

As this happens when you roll to hit, and before you roll to wound, the model dies before you can inflict the wounds on your target, and as such, the 2nd shot does not get a chance to roll to wound, as the firing model is dead before that can happen.

Same goes with a Vehicle.  The wound (or glancing hit) is suffered immediately after you roll to hit, but before you roll to wound.  As you are dead/wrecked before you get to that point, you cannot make the "to wound" roll.

Actually, I disagree.  All these shots occur simultaneously (by GW law).  So if one of two shots kills the model (infantry or vehicle, I don't see the difference) well then he's dead, but the other shot still goes off.  It was launched and hit by a model that was, at that moment, still alive.

There has to been precedent for this, people could rapid fire plasma in 5th. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 18, 2012, 02:10:08 AM
In response to Ben's Question it is similar to how Perils of the Warp works you roll Double 1s if it would kill the Psyker the Power Still goes off. You would Resolve any hits as normal since they are fired all at the same time.

Not so.  Perils of the Warp specifically states that the power is still used, even if the psyker is killed or wounded.  Get Hot makes no such determination.  As such, you go to process of order.

"When firing a weapon that Gets Hot, roll To Hit as normal.  For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armor saves or invulnerable saves can be taken). 

As this happens when you roll to hit, and before you roll to wound, the model dies before you can inflict the wounds on your target, and as such, the 2nd shot does not get a chance to roll to wound, as the firing model is dead before that can happen.

Same goes with a Vehicle.  The wound (or glancing hit) is suffered immediately after you roll to hit, but before you roll to wound.  As you are dead/wrecked before you get to that point, you cannot make the "to wound" roll.

But it is the closest situation in which we can relate to this happening. You roll a Success the Success still happens even if a Failure causes the loss of Model. You already fired the shot and hit it doesn't suddenly fizzle because your guy died.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on July 18, 2012, 07:27:35 AM
To the extent that challenges in 40k game consist of WEAK characters intentionally calling out challenges that they know they will lose, in order to block strong characters from being able to do what they are "paid to do", the challenge rules are counterintuitive and not working as intended.

Why in gods name would you do that? Throwing a weak character into a stronger one is giving away points towards combat resolution and makes no sense.

Remember if the big nasty butchers your guy for 4 unsaved wounds, they all count during the tally at the end, and you cannot hit the character back with the squad. Why do this? You want someone who can survive and maybe even wound the other guy in the challenge, failure to do so will hurt your cause. Seems pretty simple and inline with the challenges section.

Not at all?

In Fantasy, I have my lord, and I have a unit champion.  You challenge me with your big nasty, I accept with my unit champion, who is weaker.  You do 4 unsaved wounds, while my lord butchers the easier to hit and wound models in your unit, and I win combat on resolution.

Happens all the time.

Well In fantasy, you have rank bonuses, banners, bonuses for charging, and more bonuses for where where you charge.  You can actually get a whole boat load of combat resolution without killing anything. You can essentially negate a characters combat bonus with ranks if you do it right.

But wait!
This isn't Fantasy and the mechanics, while similar are not the same, because we don't use those things....

try again, but this time in context. 40k,
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 18, 2012, 07:53:48 AM
Actually, I disagree.  All these shots occur simultaneously (by GW law).  So if one of two shots kills the model (infantry or vehicle, I don't see the difference) well then he's dead, but the other shot still goes off.  It was launched and hit by a model that was, at that moment, still alive.

There has to been precedent for this, people could rapid fire plasma in 5th.
The difference is in the Gets Hot rule for BS-less weapons, as it is determined immediately before you roll To Hit. If a vehicle has two Plasma Cannons, then what? It would seem that the plasma cannons blow up the vehicle before it actually fires, which is different than infantry plasma.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 18, 2012, 09:13:40 AM
Actually, I disagree.  All these shots occur simultaneously (by GW law).  So if one of two shots kills the model (infantry or vehicle, I don't see the difference) well then he's dead, but the other shot still goes off.  It was launched and hit by a model that was, at that moment, still alive.

There has to been precedent for this, people could rapid fire plasma in 5th.
The difference is in the Gets Hot rule for BS-less weapons, as it is determined immediately before you roll To Hit. If a vehicle has two Plasma Cannons, then what? It would seem that the plasma cannons blow up the vehicle before it actually fires, which is different than infantry plasma.

So:

Infantry, Vehicle with a BS using Plasma weapon (ie Razorback with Las/Twin Plasma Gun) - Get Hot check is when you Roll To Hit.  You Roll To Hit (firing twice), Getting Hot once, and hitting with the other.  You immediately roll your own armor save and fail, killing you/glancing hit.  But you have successfully hit, so you are allowed to roll to wound your target.

I cede this, based on the fact that it you've passed the To Hit stage, and can now Roll To Wound.  This is even stated "roll to Hit as normal" under Gets Hot.

Infantry, Vehicle without a BS using a Plasma Weapon (ostensibly a Plasma Cannon) - "Roll a d6 immediately before firing".  So, how do you fire a blast weapon?

"When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit.  Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the relevant blast marker with the hole..."

As stated, the act of placing the blast marker counts as firing the weapon.  As you roll "immediately before", you make the check before you place the template, ergo it is entirely possible to blow yoursellf up before you shoot.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 18, 2012, 09:29:05 AM
With a plasma cannon, the extra d6 is a surrogate for missing, so it's an extra step.  It's an "extra" chance to miss.  That's why you roll it first.

It's still all really happening simultaneously.  An entire units shooting happens at the same time.  This is a rule. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 18, 2012, 08:47:19 PM
I don't have a dog in the fight one way or the other. But it seemed oddly inconsistent. It would be simple enough to say, "Roll a die along with your shot. If this die is a 1, your weapon overheats." I think they say to roll a die before so that you don't waste time placing a blast marker... 1 out of every 6 times.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 18, 2012, 08:49:45 PM
So, what you are saying is that you would like GW to use precise, consistent, language?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 18, 2012, 09:04:37 PM
So, what you are saying is that you would like GW to use precise, consistent, language?
Only some of the time.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 18, 2012, 09:11:52 PM
No!  No soup for you!

But seriously, I actually think this is one of the more clear cut examples.  All shooting (from 1 unit) occurs simultaneously.  Both bullets (or plasma bolts) are travelling down the barrel at the same time, silly as that is.  One kills him, the other hits the enemy. 

It's same for Plasma cannons, and you really can't try to get too technical with GW's language, or you'll break it.  The d6 is just a stand-in for the BS roll of a regular weapon, since they had no better way to apply Gets Hot!

I got better a question for you.....why is a Twin-linked Plasma Rifle 1/6th as likely to overheat as a single Plasma Rifle?  Shouldn't it be about twice as likely (at least)?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 18, 2012, 09:50:34 PM
It's same for Plasma cannons, and you really can't try to get too technical with GW's language, or you'll break it.
It's true. I've had Magic on the brain alot, so words like "immediately" may have a different connotation. I'm pretty sure GW means for a side-sponson plasma cannon to still fire even if the other one wrecks the vehicle. But I still think its balls-awesome for the cannons to just explode... in my imagination.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: minimag47 on July 23, 2012, 05:14:31 PM
This is more of an FAQ question.

In the newest Blood Angel FAQ they mention how the Skies of Blood works considering 6th edition. The Grey Knight FAQ makes no mention of how to use it in 6th. The Grey Knight rule specifies that you use it if the vehicle moves Flat Out. Was this just an oversight on GW's end or do you think they mean to make a distinction between the two vehicles?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 23, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
Sigh.

I think in this case, we can say with some surety that you would use the Blood Angel language for GK Stormraven's as well.

But wow, that was sloppy. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ahrimaneus on July 24, 2012, 02:06:23 AM
I have two rules conundrums regarding the Feel No Pain special rule.

#1: If a model has the Eternal Warrior special rule, it is thereby "immune to the effects of Instant Death."  Does this mean that FnP can be taken against ID wounds on a model that has Eternal Warrior?

#2: If a model with a Shadowfield fails its 2++ save, the rules for a Shadowfield state that "if this save is ever failed, the Shadowfield is destroyed."  However, under the rules for FnP, it states, at the end, that if the FnP save is made, "the unsaved wound is discounted - TREAT IT AS HAVING BEEN SAVED."  So, does this mean that the Shadowfield is still intact if you make your FnP save??
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 24, 2012, 10:20:06 AM
1)  Far as I can tell, yes, same way a Force weapon would void FNP (with no eternal warrior).

2) All same arguements happened in 5th, is FNP a saved wound, etc.  I think everyone agreed that it was.  But not matter what, the shadowfield still failed its save. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 25, 2012, 02:59:10 PM
"In the newest Blood Angel FAQ they mention how the Skies of Blood works considering 6th edition. The Grey Knight FAQ makes no mention of how to use it in 6th. The Grey Knight rule specifies that you use it if the vehicle moves Flat Out. Was this just an oversight on GW's end or do you think they mean to make a distinction between the two vehicles?" Oversight. Grey Knights can't suddenly Deep Strike in the shooting phase. Consider the wording of the two rules to be identical where they are identical in the codexes (so apart from the jump pack/personal teleporter deal).

"If a model has the Eternal Warrior special rule, it is thereby 'immune to the effects of Instant Death.'  Does this mean that FnP can be taken against ID wounds on a model that has Eternal Warrior?" Yes. Nurglings are badass.

"If a model with a Shadowfield fails its 2++ save, the rules for a Shadowfield state that 'if this save is ever failed, the Shadowfield is destroyed.'  However, under the rules for FnP, it states, at the end, that if the FnP save is made, 'the unsaved wound is discounted - TREAT IT AS HAVING BEEN SAVED.'  So, does this mean that the Shadowfield is still intact if you make your FnP save?" The model took two saves: a 2+ invulnerable save, and a Feel No Pain save. If the first save fails and the second succeeds, the wound has been saved by the second save, not the first. The invulnerable save failed, and the Shadowfield shuts down.

Just a thought;

a) EW makes the model immune to ID (ie cannot be removed from play as a result of Instant Death), but the nature of the wound itself is still Instant Death which would negate FNP (as a result of the special rule applied to the wound).  But, I like that Nurglings are Badass, so either way.

b) Sam's right, but for note FnP is specifically stated to not be a save, so the failed save removes the protection of the Shadowfield, but FNP would negate the wound inflicted.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ahrimaneus on July 25, 2012, 03:36:06 PM
Shadowfield: yeah that's how I had been playing it, but naturally the language of the FnP rule changed to be possibly applicable.  Stupid GW and inconsistent language.  Doesn't really matter that much since I'll be using Fortune for my 2++ re-rollable save  :o
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 25, 2012, 04:25:06 PM
Can't.  Fortune doesn't affect eldar units.  No, you can't get around that by putting the archon in an eldar unit.  It then affects the unit, not him. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 25, 2012, 04:33:39 PM
They are dark what?  Eldar.   It does not say it affects only Codex: Eldar units.    Eldar is a race.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 25, 2012, 04:38:37 PM
Has the Necron doom scythe been discussed with its uber cannon firing with Sky Fire? Rules as written it seems it can but fluff text says it cant something about the beam traveling on the ground not the sky. Personaly I think the RAW of it is very easily abused allowing it to demolish any flyer in the game.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 25, 2012, 04:47:51 PM
Sam's ruling (and this sounds correct to me) is that if the doomscythe uses skyfire, yes, it can hit flyers, but then it can't ground uses.

You can't use an attack that doesn't use BS as a snap attack.  But if you're using skyfire, then you're not snap attacking.

Basically the game has two levels, ground and flyer height.  Pick one. 

It's still powerful, but probably not any worse than say, a Stormravens melta to the face. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on July 25, 2012, 05:11:39 PM
Has the Necron doom scythe been discussed with its uber cannon firing with Sky Fire? Rules as written it seems it can but fluff text says it cant something about the beam traveling on the ground not the sky. Personaly I think the RAW of it is very easily abused allowing it to demolish any flyer in the game.

I don't think that's "abuse"... that's just what the weapon does.  Before the flyer rules, it would demolish any vehicle in the game (at least, almost as much as a multi-melta would).  After the flyer rules, it does exactly the same thing. 

Using a stormraven's multi-melta will destroy another flyer even more consistently, and that's not "abuse", right?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on July 25, 2012, 05:22:39 PM
But a Melta can hit only one vehicle and has to be rolled to hit. Right now it is as people say You declare Skyfire at the beginning of the Shooting Phase it can only hit flyers. If you do not it can only hit Ground Units.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 25, 2012, 05:38:56 PM
Question - Can a Zooming StormRaven still deepstrike its contents?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 25, 2012, 05:45:44 PM
We just answered that. Yes you can.

But a Melta can hit only one vehicle and has to be rolled to hit.

How often do you think you'll be able to get 2 flyers with 1 deathray?  Not often I think.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Banosby on July 25, 2012, 05:46:45 PM
How dare you not reply:

Is that a GK Stormraven or a BA Stormraven?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 25, 2012, 06:28:32 PM
Because Sam said they were the same. Is he kinda ignoring RAW?  Yeah, but in this case, perhaps like no other, we know what was intended.

GW is sloppy as shit. I'm tired of pretending that should have in-game consequences.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Banosby on July 25, 2012, 06:46:39 PM
No, cause like 'an African Swallow or European Swallow' and nerds and stuff. Such a missed opportunity.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 25, 2012, 06:54:31 PM
And then......somebody gets hit with a coconut. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mad Dok Rob on July 25, 2012, 07:58:06 PM
No, cause like 'an African Swallow or European Swallow' and nerds and stuff. Such a missed opportunity.

This was a question on the Fluid Dynamics final I gave in the spring.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ahrimaneus on July 25, 2012, 11:29:04 PM
I originally e-mailed Chase about the Fortune on Dark Eldar units, and he told me he asked Sam and my response was that, since they are Battle Brothers, it works.  Just FYI.

If this isn't the case and Sam doesn't agree with that, please let me know so I don't do that and waste the points on Fortune.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 26, 2012, 12:07:53 AM
I originally e-mailed Chase about the Fortune on Dark Eldar units, and he told me he asked Sam and my response was that, since they are Battle Brothers, it works.  Just FYI.

If this isn't the case and Sam doesn't agree with that, please let me know so I don't do that and waste the points on Fortune.

So Battle Brothers count as friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities, and so on;  This is to say that for the BRB powers, you can have your Farseer cast them in a DE unit.

The Eldar codex states that powers such as Conceal, Embolden and Enhance effect the Warlock and his unit.  Fortune specifically states "Eldar" units, which are units purchased from the Eldar codex;  Dark Eldar units are purchased from the Dark Eldar codex.

This is why in all the lists you see with the Farseer/Harlequin/Archon rerollable 2++ save, the Harlies are purchased from the Eldar side, so that you can legally cast Fortune on them.  If you were to purchase them from the DE codex, then technically they are DE units.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 12:21:14 AM
Yeah, but if you ask me, that's a bullshit loophole.  Sure, you can cast it on the harleguins, but the power won't affect the archon. Or alternatively, you can't cast it on the harlequins because it's not an "eldar unit" as long as it has the archon inside.  It's an "eldar and Dark Eldar unit" or something. 

Can we all agree a rerollable 2+ is a bad thing?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 26, 2012, 08:58:07 AM
Yeah, but if you ask me, that's a bullshit loophole.  Sure, you can cast it on the harleguins, but the power won't affect the archon. Or alternatively, you can't cast it on the harlequins because it's not an "eldar unit" as long as it has the archon inside.  It's an "eldar and Dark Eldar unit" or something. 

Can we all agree a rerollable 2+ is a bad thing?

Since when does adding a character to a unit suddenly make it not part of the unit? 

While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes though he still follows the rules for characters; pg 39

It may be a bad thing, but it's perfectly legal.  Like my trade blockade of Naboo.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 09:27:05 AM
It is a GK Storm Raven And rule for Shadow Skies and Skies of Blood I would assume are different.  So the real question is does Zooming count as moving flat out?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on July 26, 2012, 09:51:09 AM
It is a GK Storm Raven And rule for Shadow Skies and Skies of Blood I would assume are different.  So the real question is does Zooming count as moving flat out?

As far as I can see, just looking at both rules, they are worded the same (with the exception that it says Jump Packs for BA [and they can use DoA to scatter less], and Personal Teleporters for GK.

Technically, Zooming flyers are Zooming, and you Flat Out in your shooting phase, so a literal RAW interpretation (pre BA FAQ), would be that you Zoom in, forgo your shooting and Flat Out, and then during that extra "Flat Out" movement would be when you Shadow Sky/Sky of Blood out.

The BA FAQ says "“If the Stormraven has moved more than 6", passengers can still disembark, but they
must do so as follows.”

Which makes absolutely no sense because a Zooming Flyer *has* to move 18" or it blows up.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Actually the BA FAQ makes total sense it would replace the moving flat out comment so they can deep strike when its zooming bcause t moed more then 6"  Very clearly worded.  Now as for the GK version thats a whole different story.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 11:01:52 AM
Just an FYI this was on the NOVA FAQ

Clarification – Battle Brother IC’s – When an Independent Character joins a unit, it is counted as a part of the unit for all rules purposes. For example, if a Dark Eldar Archon joins an Eldar Harlequin unit, the unit is still considered an Eldar Unit (and so could be, for instance, Fortuned).
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 01:02:11 PM
Actually the BA FAQ makes total sense it would replace the moving flat out comment so they can deep strike when its zooming bcause t moed more then 6"  Very clearly worded.  Now as for the GK version thats a whole different story.

Right, that's been settled we're using the BA FAQ for the GK SR.

Just an FYI this was on the NOVA FAQ

Clarification – Battle Brother IC’s – When an Independent Character joins a unit, it is counted as a part of the unit for all rules purposes. For example, if a Dark Eldar Archon joins an Eldar Harlequin unit, the unit is still considered an Eldar Unit (and so could be, for instance, Fortuned).

Yes, I saw that, and I could not disagree in stronger terms.  Fortune is clearly only meant to affect eldar, not dark eldar. 

Fortunately, BG doesn't use the NOVA FAQ. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 26, 2012, 01:10:18 PM
regardless of your opinion, the NOVA ruling for now is correct. 

Also, again, Dark _____????  Eldar.   If GW wanted to limit it to CODEX:ELDAR, they would have erratta'd it the same way they did other books.

It is still an Eldar unit regardless. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 01:16:52 PM
regardless of your opinion, the NOVA ruling for now is correct. 

Also, again, Dark _____????  Eldar.   If GW wanted to limit it to CODEX:ELDAR, they would have erratta'd it the same way they did other books.

It is still an Eldar unit regardless.

Except not, becuae we don't use the NOVA FAQ around here.

And what the hell are you talking about?  Eldar =/= Dark Eldar. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ahrimaneus on July 26, 2012, 01:54:38 PM
Thanks for the clarification Sam!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 02:10:27 PM
OK, but I wasn't sure it was that clear.  It sounds like you're saying you cannot get fortune on a DE archon?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 02:22:29 PM
Matt as my world does not revolve around Sams' ruleing I am offering different perspectives so he can make an educated decision.  As for the Raven decision I agree with it.  As for the Eldar decision I actually think Keith and NOVA have it right as well.  Does it suck?  Is it difficult to deal with?  Yes but so are a 10 man unit of Paladins that are all characters with look out sir bullshit FNP etc..
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 26, 2012, 03:27:06 PM
OK, but I wasn't sure it was that clear.  It sounds like you're saying you cannot get fortune on a DE archon?

No he is saying you cannot target a DE unit.  Not that  DE character cannot be affected while IN an eldar unit.

Battle brothers CAN target/affect each other with psychic powers.   Fortune specifically has an additional restriction, of only being able to target an eldar unit.   An eldar unit with an attached character is still an eldar unit.  We have nothing to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 26, 2012, 03:47:12 PM
2. "Eldar" refers to the racial identity of the Eldar and Dark Eldar, meaning Fortune can be cast on Dark Eldar, but immediately ends if the opposing player has an Eldar or Dark Eldar army (since the effects of Fortune last "until the start of the next Eldar turn").

This would still be true with ruling 1 if both players are playing eldar.  Is that how you intend for it to be played sam?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 04:16:45 PM
OK, but I wasn't sure it was that clear.  It sounds like you're saying you cannot get fortune on a DE archon?

No he is saying you cannot target a DE unit.  Not that  DE character cannot be affected while IN an eldar unit.

Battle brothers CAN target/affect each other with psychic powers.   Fortune specifically has an additional restriction, of only being able to target an eldar unit.   An eldar unit with an attached character is still an eldar unit.  We have nothing to suggest otherwise.

Yeah, I understand that's your argument.  But no, that's not what he said.

He only confirmed eldar =/= dark eldar or at least that's what he was leaning towards.  He did not address whether an archon in an eldar unit can be affected.  It is my proposition that it cannot, because it is not an eldar model.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 04:18:21 PM
Ruling one said that Eldar "refers specifically to Codex: Eldar as it is being used by this player". In most cases, then the name of the army appears in a codex, it refers to that codex and the player's army. So, no, it is not my intention to have Fortune end immediately when fighting Eldar. If you wish to argue that such an outcome should be the case, feel free! Might be amusing in a casual game (PSYKER THUMB WAR), but I'm not going to run tournaments that way.

Sam, still not quite understanding what you're referring to.  "end when fighting eldar"?  We're talking about eldar and DE allying.  I.e., the DE archon goes in a eldar unit, can the archon benefit from Fortune, which says it can only be cast on eldar units?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 04:18:59 PM
However Matt if you read the IC rules once a IC joins a unit it is part of the unit.  And with the BB rules an IC can join an ally unit.  So therefore the Archon becomes part of the Eldar unit hence getting the fortune result....
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 04:33:11 PM
Except it's still not an eldar.  So it doesn't get the benefit.

This even has a precedent, of sorts.  If an IC joins a unit after the power was cast on them, he doesn't get the benefit, just the unit does. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 04:44:39 PM
When an IC joins a unit is he part of the unit?  or is the unit part of him?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 04:50:40 PM
He is part of the unit.

But, if an IC joins a unit that has an effect going on already, he doesn't get that benefit.  That's in the main rulebook.

So it's not like there's some IC=unit thing going on.  A power doesn't have to affect both. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on July 26, 2012, 04:59:40 PM
Ok but what happens if hes in the unit and the power is cast?  He is part of the unit so therefore gets the benefit.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on July 26, 2012, 05:01:25 PM
Matt, the restriction on Fortune is only for Targeting purposes.  Once it is on a unit it affects all models in the unit, so your argument makes no sense.

The only question is if fortune cannot target an eldar unit with a noneldar IC attached to it.   There is nothing anywhere to suggest that an IC joining the unit stops the unit from being an eldar unit.  Therefore fortune can be placed on them.  As there is no restriction as to which models in a unit can benefit from fortune once in play, it affects everyone in the unit that is present when cast.

I will concede that DE units cannot be fortuned.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 26, 2012, 05:15:47 PM
Well, at least it's an answer. Thank you Sam. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 29, 2012, 07:57:17 PM
Maybe we covered this already, but to be clear, a barrage weapon may not target a unit outside 36" during nightfight, irrespective of the fact that you do not need LOS, right? 

It seems pretty clear from the wording of nightfight ("Units outside 36 may not be targeted") but it came up at a tourney yesterday, and was contentious. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on July 29, 2012, 08:05:15 PM
Maybe we covered this already, but to be clear, a barrage weapon may not target a unit outside 36" during nightfight, irrespective of the fact that you do not need LOS, right? 

It seems pretty clear from the wording of nightfight ("Units outside 36 may not be targeted") but it came up at a tourney yesterday, and was contentious.

Unfortuently yes, makes me want to take crypteks with my imperial guard, the only question mark for me would be black sun filter with tau as i'm not sure how that is worded
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on July 29, 2012, 09:23:14 PM
Maybe we covered this already, but to be clear, a barrage weapon may not target a unit outside 36" during nightfight, irrespective of the fact that you do not need LOS, right? 

It seems pretty clear from the wording of nightfight ("Units outside 36 may not be targeted") but it came up at a tourney yesterday, and was contentious.
Yeah, I can see how that would contentious. The ol' standard of specific vs general doesn't help when there's a specific scenario with a specific type of weapon.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Librarian on July 29, 2012, 09:39:22 PM
I would stick with no. You may not need to have line of sight to them to shoot them but you have to atleast know they are there to shoot at. Night fight is rather clear that models over 36 away are impossible to see at all. No declaring artillery strikes over there in the darkness cause there might be enemies there.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 29, 2012, 09:44:17 PM
Maybe we covered this already, but to be clear, a barrage weapon may not target a unit outside 36" during nightfight, irrespective of the fact that you do not need LOS, right? 

It seems pretty clear from the wording of nightfight ("Units outside 36 may not be targeted") but it came up at a tourney yesterday, and was contentious.

Unfortuently yes, makes me want to take crypteks with my imperial guard, the only question mark for me would be black sun filter with tau as i'm not sure how that is worded

Blacksun=nightvision, and Nightvision says "ignore the rules of night fight".  So they just don't exist for that unit, it's daylight for them.  So Tau are free to hit you clear across the table with their broadsides at night. 

Maybe we covered this already, but to be clear, a barrage weapon may not target a unit outside 36" during nightfight, irrespective of the fact that you do not need LOS, right? 

It seems pretty clear from the wording of nightfight ("Units outside 36 may not be targeted") but it came up at a tourney yesterday, and was contentious.
Yeah, I can see how that would contentious. The ol' standard of specific vs general doesn't help when there's a specific scenario with a specific type of weapon.

Yeah, but it's two specific rules that are pretty straightforward.

Barrage says "does not need LOS" and nightfight says "cannot target outside of 36"".  Now, if nightfight said, "you have no LOS to units outside 36"" ok, fine, you can obviously use barrage.  But it doesn't, it says "cannot target" so you cannot.  Now, it also didn't say "cannot hit" so there's nothing stopping you from targetting something at 35" and hoping it scatters.



Now as an aside.  the judge just 4+'d it, and the die said you could.  SO fine, I get hit.  But the mission had a special rule where a unit on an objective could shoot a large blast that did not need LOS.  I said "fine, I wasn't going to cuz it's night fight, but since you can target things outside 36", Imagonna use it. "

The dude said, "No, that's completely different" and made me get the judge over again to rule that I could.  WTF?!?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on July 30, 2012, 06:03:34 PM
OK, I got still more.

Can you FNP a perils of the warp result (FNP is specifically not a save)?

What is the cover save on top of a bastion?  (I would have said 4+, but someone pointed out that fortifications are 3+)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on July 30, 2012, 07:55:08 PM
I want to make a small artillery traitor guard unit in the future so in night fight Griffons and Basilisks pretty much cant fire if i read this right?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: corporaptor primus on July 30, 2012, 08:42:53 PM
For a regular & heavy venom cannon there's a -1 applied to the vehicle damage table. Does the -1 also apply to the building damage table?

Can the Eldar Vibro cannon hit a flier?

Broodlord has a BS of 0. Can he still use a nova psychic power? How about a beam psychic power?

When shooting at a flier your BS is considered 1. Does that mean a Broodlord's BS improves to 1 to shoot at a flier?

(I already had this answered seperately but wanted to put this out there for others) Does a Tervigon with Gate of Infinity psychic power breed before teleporting, after teleporting or not at all?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on August 01, 2012, 05:03:53 PM
Response thread updated.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on August 01, 2012, 05:35:32 PM
"What is the cover save on top of a bastion?" Ambiguous. Decide with your opponent before the game begins.


I think we need an actual ruling on this, since it could influence whether to purchase a bastion in one's army list (I know it would directly impact whether I personally bring a bastion to a tournament). 

Page 18, which is the only place that describes which terrain provides which cover, says " Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save."  It repeats this again in the table that enumerates the different types of cover saves.

What is the argument for it being anything other than a 3+?   
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on August 01, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
A fortification, according to the rulebook, is one of several buildings that can be added to your army list. An Aegis Defense Line is also a fortification; it is terrain type: Battlefield Debris, which grants a 4+ cover save. So being a fortification does not automatically grant 3+ cover save status. This issue will likely be covered in the new round of FAQs in September. If the status of that cover save will determine whether or not you purchase a bastion, I would assume you would rather find out what cover save it will grant for the next several years, not the next several weeks. Hence my recommendation to decide it with your opponent before each game.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on August 01, 2012, 06:07:07 PM
Haha, Sam... I have already PURCHASED a Bastion (using dollars).  I'm talking about deciding whether to purchase it for a given tournament (using points) in the sense of including it in my army list.  To make THAT decision, I should know how it's going to be played, right?   It's either that, or I can go through this same argument with each opponent before the round begins, and then inevitably we'll come up to you asking for a ruling during the tournement anyway (unless the other guy happens to agree with me that it should be a 3+)...

Hmm, I see your point about the Aegis defense line.  It specifically says that it counts as Battlefield Debris...  and conceptually it is still a fortification... so I admit that this isn't as cut and dried as I thought.

However, I still think that the evidence points toward it being a 3+.  The Aegis' decription classifies it as a terrain type which has an associated cover save (in the Battlefield Debris section).  The Bastion doesn't classify it as any terrain type.   So you have to look elsewhere to figure out what type of terrain it is.   Of the various types of terrain for which a cover save is defined, Fortification seems like the front-runner there...     

Anyway.  That's my pitch for it being a 3+.  But while I would disagree with a ruling that called it 4+, I would much rather have such a ruling than have to discuss before every game in a tournament setting.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on August 01, 2012, 06:15:40 PM
Honestly (as an owner of a bastion I just painted up) 3+ seems a bit much.  It's just a metal waist-high wall.  Doesn't seem like it should be much tougher than a ruin. 

I think "fortifications" the area terrain is reserved for bunkers.  Y'know, the concrete things with a firing slot. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on August 01, 2012, 06:19:18 PM
I just read the pinned and locked Sam's rulings. I thought we figured out the Power Weapon thing? So as I read it my marines on foot cant use power axes or swords for that matter because it doesnt come on their sprue? Im a bit confused.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on August 01, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
That's why I said the situation is ambiguous; there isn't a clear answer in the text. In the case of something truly ambiguous, you should agree with your opponent. If no agreement can be had, roll for it. The rules are in a state of flux right now, so a lot of stuff is going to be ambiguous. I would rather apply the first rule in the book (roll off if there's a disagreement) than have everyone in the room asking for me to arbitrarily decide on something that manifestly has no actual answer right now. A lot of this sort of problem will go away once we get a main rulebook FAQ, but for now, we have to do what we can with what we have.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on August 01, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Steve, the final power weapon ruling is in the power weapon thread. I should have a link to it on my ruling thread somewhere. Keep looking.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on August 01, 2012, 06:40:13 PM
no I think what is confusing me is we can not swap from a different set? Example the space marine Tac Squad as far as I can recall does not come with a power weapon. So I can not say, take a power weapon from the assult marine sprue you linked?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on August 01, 2012, 07:27:11 PM
To be clear, Sam ruled in the end that a power weapon CAN be switched out to be either a sword, axe, maul or lance. You can take that bit from any set you wish.

Not that somethings, such as hellgaives, at not power weapons, but a specific type, in that case swords.

Sam, I do have to say in some ways your "clarification" thread was a little unclear, as it included some transitory rulings along the way, and at least in the power weapon case, did not include the final ruling.   
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grand Master Steve on August 01, 2012, 10:12:08 PM
Yeah when I read it I said "Wha?" Because all my Marine Sargents are definently using power weapons from other kits since the tac squad box doesnt come with them.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on August 01, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
OK, I hear you on the ambiguity Sam.  However, my take on it is that MOST of the rulings we are getting to here are necessary because the rulebook & FAQ's are ambiguous about them.  I don't see anything fundamentally different about this one.  As with other ambiguous rules like the power weapon one, even if the decision is totally arbitrary, I would prefer that the "active rule" for any given event be known in advance. 

But, if the policy should be that I will try to convince someone that it has a 3+ cover save, and they are not swayed, we'll dice off for it, well, at least that's a policy and it's better than no policy.  I just think it's weird that in one game, the bastion might be giving a 3+ save, and in the next game it might be 4+.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Librarian on August 02, 2012, 02:37:46 AM
the top of the bastion as well as many sections of the fortress greatly resemble the aegis defense lines. The defense lines have the terrain type: battlefield debris (Defense Line) which is defined as a 4+ cover save that grants +2 to your cover save when you go to ground behind it.

this is probably the easiest way to rule it till a FAQ shows up.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on August 02, 2012, 08:47:23 AM
OK, I hear you on the ambiguity Sam.  However, my take on it is that MOST of the rulings we are getting to here are necessary because the rulebook & FAQ's are ambiguous about them.  I don't see anything fundamentally different about this one.  As with other ambiguous rules like the power weapon one, even if the decision is totally arbitrary, I would prefer that the "active rule" for any given event be known in advance.
I agree whole-heartedly. I would prefer to have a definitive ruling in place for an event, even if it is arbitrary and even it is later overturned.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on August 02, 2012, 09:12:31 AM
Yeah, I would also prefer a ruling.  Bias will abound, since often one player will have a bstion, and the other won't.

I also don't see any reason why it should have a better save than the aegis defense line.  It shouldn't have a special "duck behind" rule, though.  Special rules are special. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ian Mulligan on August 02, 2012, 11:14:40 AM
The rulebook lists walls and barriers as generating a 4+ cover save. I don't see why that wouldn't be applicable here.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on August 02, 2012, 11:34:21 AM
So, what exactly is a fortification?  Can anyone post an example picture?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on August 02, 2012, 12:26:46 PM
You know those octagonal bunkers at plainville?  Something like that. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on August 02, 2012, 12:27:39 PM
Quick questionas I am a little unsure of the wording. For GK inquisitors can a Malleus Inq Lord in TA have a Daemonblade?

In the wargear section it states he can replace bolt pistol and or chainsword with a daemon blade.

The TA secton says replaces armor bolt pistol and chainsword with TA and a daemon hammer.

So does this mean I can then replace the daemon hammer with a daemonblade for 15 points?

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on August 02, 2012, 12:38:54 PM
Quick questionas I am a little unsure of the wording. For GK inquisitors can a Malleus Inq Lord in TA have a Daemonblade?

In the wargear section it states he can replace bolt pistol and or chainsword with a daemon blade.

The TA secton says replaces armor bolt pistol and chainsword with TA and a daemon hammer.

So does this mean I can then replace the daemon hammer with a daemonblade for 15 points?

There used to be a thing in the FAQ specifically saying you didn't have to switch it out.  But they removed that. 

Now there's a section saying that all of them may switchit it out for a force weapon but nothing else.

It's a little stupid, but RAW, no, I think. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ahrimaneus on August 03, 2012, 12:30:09 PM
Personally guys, I don't really see how the fortification 3+ cover save is ambiguous at all in the case of the bastion. It's a fortification, therefore it's 3+.

In the case of the aegis defense line, it defines its terrain type as something other than fortification, and therefore abides by that ruling.

What else would the bastion be? It's not a ruin, it's not a defense line, it's not a crater or battlefield debris or anything else. It's a fortification.

If you don't like the 3+ cover save, shoot the building instead and bypass it. Don't really see any ground for this debate at all IMHO
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on August 03, 2012, 01:34:53 PM
I heard 40k sucks now?  True/False?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on August 03, 2012, 02:10:29 PM
Nah, 40k is way betta now :)

Just some additional info to be taken at face value  - Mike Brandt ruled that bastions are 3+ for the Nova.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on August 08, 2012, 06:52:25 PM
Real quick, before D&D Encounters: the final power weapon ruling is here.

http://www.battlegroundgames.com/forum/index.php?topic=4388.msg40527#msg40527

Pertinent quote: "For each undefined power weapon in your army, you may select one of the four options presented in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. The weapon must be modeled appropriately, and your selection MUST be included on your army list. Any power weapon not specified on your printed army list will be treated as a generic power sword."

I'll get to this other stuff tomorrow, time permitting.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on August 11, 2012, 12:22:18 AM
A question I am having trouble dealing with right now.

Interceptor allows you to shoot at a unit that arrives in from reserves at the end of the movement phase.

Say a Rhino comes in from reserve you have 2 units with an Interceptor Weapon and one wrekcs the Rhino can the second Interceptor fire at the Units that have emergency Disembarked from the Rhino?

Now say a Drop Pod deep strikes with a Unit inside of it the Unit Disembarks after the Drop Pod Arrives from Reserves. Does the Interceptor get the choice to shoot at the Unit and not the drop pod?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on August 13, 2012, 08:54:56 AM
I believe the answer is no for your first question shooting happens simo so if you blew up the rhino you are done. 

As for the second question im to tired to answer it so maybe someone else can elaborate
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Logan007 on August 13, 2012, 12:36:17 PM
A question I am having trouble dealing with right now.

Interceptor allows you to shoot at a unit that arrives in from reserves at the end of the movement phase.

Say a Rhino comes in from reserve you have 2 units with an Interceptor Weapon and one wrekcs the Rhino can the second Interceptor fire at the Units that have emergency Disembarked from the Rhino?

Now say a Drop Pod deep strikes with a Unit inside of it the Unit Disembarks after the Drop Pod Arrives from Reserves. Does the Interceptor get the choice to shoot at the Unit and not the drop pod?

I'd say the answer to the questions, as you've worded it, is yes. But I don't have the rulebook to look at the RAW right now until I get home
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Rurouni Benshin on August 13, 2012, 01:06:46 PM
Interceptor:  "At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from reserve within its range and line of sight".

In the case of the Drop Pod, going by RAW, I'd say you can shoot at either the vehicle or the unit that has disembarked from it, since models must be disembarked by the end of the phase from a Drop Pod when it lands. 

In the case of the Rhino, it's a little more vague, since the embarked models weren't a legal target until the end of the Movement phase "sub-phase".  However, I'd still say you can shoot at them, since the models embarked still arrived from reserve.  So as long as they're still within range and line of sight of the weapon that's shooting at them, I'd say "Yes" to both questions as well.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on September 02, 2012, 11:56:16 AM
I have a unit with an Apothecary in assault. Another appropriate character in the same unit is locked in a challenge. Is the other appropriate character still granted Feel No Pain?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Logan007 on September 02, 2012, 09:23:36 PM
Yes, as that character is still part of the unit.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on September 03, 2012, 10:45:18 AM
Yes
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Seth on September 04, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
yes as long as he joined the unit in the movement phase or before.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on October 12, 2012, 01:42:59 AM
Under the Scout special rule, when it says a model with Scout may redeploy, does that model have to redeploy in a deployment zone?

It seems like a silly question, but we talked ourselves into a corner tonight and cursed GW again for not clearly defining the terms of the game.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Erich on October 12, 2012, 08:20:50 AM
Under the Scout special rule, when it says a model with Scout may redeploy, does that model have to redeploy in a deployment zone?

It seems like a silly question, but we talked ourselves into a corner tonight and cursed GW again for not clearly defining the terms of the game.

Was under they impression their redeploy was more of a slight "shuffle" from their current position and, as long as none of the redeploy restrictions are broken, it seems they would be able to "shuffle" out of a deployment zone. The unit simply moves a bit from where it was initially deployed.

Scout
If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position. During this redeployment, Scouts must remain more than 12" away from any enemy unit.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on October 12, 2012, 11:54:41 AM
A question I am having trouble dealing with right now.

Interceptor allows you to shoot at a unit that arrives in from reserves at the end of the movement phase.

Say a Rhino comes in from reserve you have 2 units with an Interceptor Weapon and one wrekcs the Rhino can the second Interceptor fire at the Units that have emergency Disembarked from the Rhino?

Now say a Drop Pod deep strikes with a Unit inside of it the Unit Disembarks after the Drop Pod Arrives from Reserves. Does the Interceptor get the choice to shoot at the Unit and not the drop pod?

As the FAQ for "I've been expecting you" for Inquisitor Coteaz specifically states that units inside dedicated transports that arrive from reserve, *also* count as coming out of reserve, then yes, I'd say you can totally shoot whatever you want.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on October 12, 2012, 11:57:13 AM
Under the Scout special rule, when it says a model with Scout may redeploy, does that model have to redeploy in a deployment zone?

It seems like a silly question, but we talked ourselves into a corner tonight and cursed GW again for not clearly defining the terms of the game.

Was under they impression their redeploy was more of a slight "shuffle" from their current position and, as long as none of the redeploy restrictions are broken, it seems they would be able to "shuffle" out of a deployment zone. The unit simply moves a bit from where it was initially deployed.

Scout
If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position. During this redeployment, Scouts must remain more than 12" away from any enemy unit.

You can most certainly scout rule out of your deployment zone.  The only time it specifically denotes not being able to redeploy out is under the Warlord Trait (the last table, on a 6), and maybe the C'tan Illusion power.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on October 12, 2012, 11:59:01 AM
A question I am having trouble dealing with right now.

Interceptor allows you to shoot at a unit that arrives in from reserves at the end of the movement phase.

Say a Rhino comes in from reserve you have 2 units with an Interceptor Weapon and one wrekcs the Rhino can the second Interceptor fire at the Units that have emergency Disembarked from the Rhino?

Now say a Drop Pod deep strikes with a Unit inside of it the Unit Disembarks after the Drop Pod Arrives from Reserves. Does the Interceptor get the choice to shoot at the Unit and not the drop pod?

1 Interceptor gun blows up the Rhino.  2nd Gun shoots at the Troops;  It's just like a normal shooting phase - You can totally shoot at guys that pop out of a tank once it's cracked open.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on October 12, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
You can most certainly scout rule out of your deployment zone.
That's what I thought.

Why they use the term "redeploy", where "deployment" is a very specific term, is beyond me.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on November 04, 2012, 10:43:22 PM
What happens when both players roll "Night Attacker" for a Strategic Warlord trait and only one of them wants Night Fight? (Page 111)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on November 04, 2012, 10:47:36 PM
You roll for it as per normal.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on November 04, 2012, 10:48:28 PM
You roll for it as per normal.
Source? Or do players 4+ it?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on November 05, 2012, 12:08:05 AM
I just thought of when you had Null Zone and Fateweaver. Technically you would pick up all the dice and re-roll but you just roll once to save time therefore they cancel each other out. In the case of it automatically happening and not would be along the same lines. So they would cancel each other out causing you to use the original rule so you would roll it as normal.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on November 05, 2012, 08:16:22 AM
Technically, Null Zone and Fateweaver do not cancel each other out. One re-rolls successes and another re-rolls failures.

Quote
A: Whilst you should technically roll all the dice and then re-roll them, just roll the saves once and apply the results to save time."

In my question of Night Attacker, there's a clear example of contradiction. I'm thinking it gets a 4+ roll, since that's what the book says to do. But I'm wondering if there's another solution or interpretation. Logically, they should cancel each other, but it doesn't actually say it and we all know the danger or presuming with GW rules.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on November 05, 2012, 01:52:09 PM
A question I am having trouble dealing with right now.

Interceptor allows you to shoot at a unit that arrives in from reserves at the end of the movement phase.

Say a Rhino comes in from reserve you have 2 units with an Interceptor Weapon and one wrekcs the Rhino can the second Interceptor fire at the Units that have emergency Disembarked from the Rhino?

Now say a Drop Pod deep strikes with a Unit inside of it the Unit Disembarks after the Drop Pod Arrives from Reserves. Does the Interceptor get the choice to shoot at the Unit and not the drop pod?

1 Interceptor gun blows up the Rhino.  2nd Gun shoots at the Troops;  It's just like a normal shooting phase - You can totally shoot at guys that pop out of a tank once it's cracked open.

For that matter, If a guy comes down in a Drop pod (or vendetta) troops get out, you only have 1 gun....you can totally choose to shoot the troops that get out. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on November 05, 2012, 08:10:01 PM
Yeah, I'd argue the transport is part of the unit, just as the Troops are. All parts of the unit would be available for Interceptor target practice.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Seth on November 05, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
i am pretty sure i read somewhere that it all happens at the same time so there for the unit isn't an eligible target. only the tank is. also the tank and unit once they get out are 2 separate targets not the same unit. i am looking for what i read.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: keithb on November 06, 2012, 10:24:05 AM
Yeah, I'd argue the transport is part of the unit, just as the Troops are. All parts of the unit would be available for Interceptor target practice.

It doesn't matter, one unit, two.  They both arrived from reserve.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Erich on November 06, 2012, 10:38:00 AM
Yeah, I'd argue the transport is part of the unit, just as the Troops are. All parts of the unit would be available for Interceptor target practice.

It doesn't matter, one unit, two.  They both arrived from reserve.

Right, though you cannot shoot at a unit inside of a vehicle. If you have one interceptor weapon then it can shoot at the vehicle. If you have two the first can shoot at the vehicle and then second, provided the first destroyed the vehicle and forced the unit inside to disembark, can shoot at the unit that was inside the vehicle.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on November 06, 2012, 11:41:01 AM
There is an argument in Erich's favor, all this shooting happens at the end of the opponents movement phase.  Which you could be forgiven for thinking that meant it was simultaneous.  But I don't believe it, it is sequential, much like Deep Strike all happens at the beginning of the phase, yet one unit can mishap if lands on a unit that landed "earlier". 

Still though, I believe a signal interceptor gun can only shoot at one target, whether that's the transport or the transported.  Unlike Coteaz.  Coteaz gets to do everything, all the time.  :)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: King of the Elves on November 18, 2012, 02:53:51 AM
What is allowed for slots as far as allies go? (Allies of convenience) Is it 1 HQ and 1 troop or is it any HQ and any other slot? Thanks in advance, king
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Moosifer on November 18, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
1HQ
1-2 Troops
1 FA
1 Elite
1 Heavy
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: King of the Elves on November 19, 2012, 07:48:36 PM
Cool thanks
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: BrianP on January 11, 2013, 11:42:31 PM
So I went back and forth about resurrecting this thread or starting a new one... if future rules questions should be posted separately instead of here, just let me know and I can oblige  ;D

I've spent arguably too much time reading both sides to each of these questions, so at this point I'm just looking for Sam to chime in on these and let me know how Battleground events will handle them. I realize he does not check the forums regularly, so if anyone can poke him and/or convey his response it would be most appreciated!

First:
Bastions and blast weapons. If a blast weapon targets a unit on the battlements, does the entire bastion get hit too? When Jason and I played at the invitational we both thought it made sense that when he blasted Coteaz on the battlements with a manticore missile, the bastion took a hit too. However, I just finished reading a battle report that did not resolve a similar situation that way... and reading around apparently the FAQ stated that the battlements are a separate building? So, because of that, people are playing that blasts to the battlements do not hurt the bastion itself? I can see it going both ways, just looking for Sam to chime in.

Second:
Vendettas and IG infantry platoons. Normally, if you want to reserve part of a platoon, you have to reserve the entire platoon. However, the FAQ now states that for platoons, "Any units in reserve that are embarked upon a non-dedicated transport are instead rolled for separately". Given a Vendetta is a non-dedicated transport, does that mean you can deploy the platoon on the table, but put one squad inside the Vendetta and have just that squad start in reserve (because it has to)?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on January 12, 2013, 12:07:27 AM
This will be passed along to him... now.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on January 12, 2013, 11:36:29 AM
Battlements don't have armor values, so they couldn't be targeted/hit separately from the bastion itself. Let's go with this: blasts hitting a unit on the battlements of a building may also hit the building itself.

The bit about rolling for the embarked unit separately is a follow-up to the guidelines for when the platoon is in reserve, so you can't split the unit between the table and reserve. The entire platoon would have to be in reserve, but the embarked unit would have its own reserve roll.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: BrianP on January 12, 2013, 06:34:08 PM
Awesome, thanks for the clarity Sam!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on January 13, 2013, 01:31:10 AM
Time to ask an Iffy one.

Quote
Pg. 104 Comms Relay.

Any player with an unengaged model within 2" of a comms relay can re-roll Reserves rolls. If a model is in cover behind a comms relay, it has a 5+ cover save.

If an enemy model is 2" away from the Comms Relay and you have a model 2" away from the Comms Relay on the other side and they are both unengaged does this mean you both can re-roll reserve rolls?

And say in a Doubles game your partner and yourself are both 2" away from it does that mean both of you can re-roll reserve rolls?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on January 15, 2013, 09:38:08 AM
Looks like GW has a made a call on the necron thing... in the digital codex at least. Hopefully the FAQ wont be far behind

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/01/changes-found-in-digital-codices.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Faeit212+%28Faeit+212%29
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on January 15, 2013, 11:07:45 AM
The bit about rolling for the embarked unit separately is a follow-up to the guidelines for when the platoon is in reserve, so you can't split the unit between the table and reserve. The entire platoon would have to be in reserve, but the embarked unit would have its own reserve roll.

Not an IG expert, but you are specifically allowed to reserve (usually DS) half a combat squadded marine unit.  Not sure why IG would work differently, and if they are, it sounds like the vendetta thing (only non-dedicated transport IG have, I think) would be an exception to that. 

Most people just use veterans for them, anyway, so it's not an issue. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on January 16, 2013, 11:10:57 PM
I concur.  I don't think IG are meant to be be restricted to deploying or reserving every possible element of a platoon together.  They just get to deploy them all if there's a special mission which limits how many units can be deployed, and they roll for them together if reserved (only rolling separately for any units embarked onto non-dedicated transports). 

I agree that Combat Squads are an illustrative parallel case.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on January 24, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
So I got a question for the group/Sam, at least until they FAQ it.  DOES the DA Devastation banner work on Hurricane bolters?  FOr those unfamiliar, there are fundamentally two possible answers. 

1)  A hurricane bolter is nothing more than bank of 3 twinlinked bolters.

2) That's just a fluff description, it's really it's own thing, just like a storm bolter is different than a boltgun. 

I tend to favor the latter interpretation, because after all, a weapon destroyed result would take away the whole hurricane bolter, not just one of them, and likewise, when you use Power of the Machine Spirit to fire an extra weapon, you fire the whole thing.  THat, to me, means it is its own distinct entity.  But on the other hand, they do call it  "3 twinlinked bolters", you're even asked to extrapolate it's number of shots, range etc, that way, and GW has totally used fluff to drive rules before, going so far as to label even mandrakes "demons".

But then again, Sternguard can't use their special ammo in stormbolters, even though you gotta figure they fire the same rounds. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on January 24, 2013, 03:37:48 PM
So I got a question for the grown/Sam, at least until they FAQ it.  DOES the DA Devastation banner work on Hurricane bolters?  FOr those unfamiliar, there are fundamentally two possible answers. 

1)  A hurricane bolter is nothing more than bank of 3 twinlinked bolters.

2) That's just a fluff description, it's really it's own thing, just like a storm bolter is different than a boltgun. 

I tend to favor the latter interpretation, because after all, a weapon destroyed result would take away the whole hurricane bolter, not just one of them, and likewise, when you use Power of the Machine Spirit to fire an extra weapon, you fire the whole thing.  THat, to me, means it is its own distinct entity.  But on the other hand, they do call it  "3 twinlinked bolters", you're even asked to extrapolate it's number of shots, range etc, that way, and GW has totally used fluff to drive rules before, going so far as to label even mandrakes "demons".

But then again, Sternguard can't use their special ammo in stormbolters, even though you gotta figure they fire the same rounds.

I think we can agree it doesnt effect bolt pistols, storm bolters, heavy bolters, etc

Now i dont think it was INTENDED to effect hurricane bolters however...

I dont have my DA codex in front of me but i know for a fact the GK codex doesnt have a seperate entry for hurricane bolters, it just says 3 TL "boltguns"

So i would argue banner of devestation DOES affect hurricane bolters if they do not have their own statline and are instead going off the "3 TL boltguns entry"

I really don't see this coming up much personally as i dont think fielding LRs is very effective for this codex and if somebody brings a flyer with the hurricane bolters that starts the arguement of "well hes up in the air so it's not 6 inches to his hull"

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: GossWeapon on January 24, 2013, 03:52:26 PM
None of these arguments are really worth a second breath.  The banner effects bolters.  A hurricane bolter is three twin-linked bolters, it does not have a unique stat line, unlike storm bolters or heavy bolters, which have a separately listed stat line.  Plus, who is really that upset about someone using this anyways?

The issue of the flier is one that shouldn't come up, as odd as it sounds that a banner effects a flier, it will by the rules for measuring.  If you didn't, then many weapons would not be able to target fliers, which already can/are.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on January 24, 2013, 04:34:16 PM
Oh, no.  Did you just say, in effect, "there's no question", when clearly, people are having questions?

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on February 06, 2013, 12:03:45 AM
http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/cheese-hunters-allies-convenience-super-cheese/
 (http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/cheese-hunters-allies-convenience-super-cheese/)

Reference video. Allies of Convenience: They are treated as Enemies does this mean they can deny points of yours since they are treated as Enemy Unit and can Allies of Convenience Troop choices even hold a point since they are enemies of your primary of detachment for all purposes.

Pg.112 ally rules.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on February 06, 2013, 01:28:29 AM
The Allies of Convenience rules aren't clear about their scoring/denial status.

Unless you read on to the Desperate Allies rules, which say that they work exactly like Allies of Convenience except for two things: the 6" "roll-a-1-and-your-unit-does-nothing" rule, and the fact that they're not Scoring or Denial.  Which makes pretty darn clear that AoC are indeed scoring or denial like other units in your army.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on February 06, 2013, 02:16:14 AM
The difference between Desperate and Convenience is yes they specify that Desperate are neither Scoring  or Denial units. But that means you can not deny an objective or score an objective like a vehicle with Desperate allies at all. A denial unit is any unit that doesn't fall under those characteristics listed for it. The issue being that if you had an Ally of Convenience you treat it as an enemy as well. An enemy scoring/denial unit would deny you an objective if it was 3" of one you control. The issue comes up of where does it stop being an enemy which is never. Now say your ally of convenience is holding an objective it would deny itself cause its an enemy. Your enemies can not hold objectives for you.

I think it is an interesting bit of Cheese that has come up now because it could change the way allies are taken in the tournament scene. Thought I would bring it up.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on February 06, 2013, 10:59:07 AM
"Your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army". - Allied Detachments.

"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart" - Scoring Units.

So it stands to reason that an Allied troop choice can score given the rules for Scoring.  Nothing says anything anywhere that modifies this under Allies of Convenience.

a) Unit comes from Troop Selection (even the Allied Detachment's mini-FOC), or Heavy/Fast (Big Guns/Scouring)
b) Is not a Vehicle
c) Is not a Swarm
d) Does not have a special rule specifying that it never counts as scoring (Death Company/Allies of Desperation)
e) Is not currently falling back

As far as Denying your own army;

AoC are part of your list.  They are in fact, completely neutral;  Neither Friendly to your units nor an Enemy unit *to your army list*;

It specifically states under AoC how to treat them - As enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers.  Notice under the next line it states "scattering Blast weapons...they will be affected along with any friendly or enemy units."    Not "affected along with any friendly units."

The language in AoC is almost identical to the language under Battle Brothers and in fact uses the same words - the classification of "enemy" is there to denote that you cannot affect them the same way you would Battle Brothers in terms of targeting/joining units/casting blessings on.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: BrianP on February 06, 2013, 11:02:42 AM
The way I have played, and seen it played, is that Allies of Convenience are denial units for your primary detachment, as they are clearly labeled enemy forces (in addition to acting as typical scoring and denial units). They can own or contest objectives as explained by Mannahnin, but the trick is when they are not on their own.

If I have my dreadknight within 3" of an objective my SoB are trying to capture I am contesting against myself (since I have an enemy unit next to my scoring unit). If I have a GKSS on its own elsewhere on the board it is scoring a-ok, as it is still a scoring unit (and an enemy of the Sisters primary detachment, not of itself).

Update because Typhus snuck in there: Doesn't labeling your AoC as an "enemy force" explicitly make them denial units? I don't have the rulebook in front of me, what is the language for what makes a unit a denial unit?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on February 06, 2013, 12:45:10 PM
Update because Typhus snuck in there: Doesn't labeling your AoC as an "enemy force" explicitly make them denial units? I don't have the rulebook in front of me, what is the language for what makes a unit a denial unit?

"Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy from
controlling an objective. In the Eternal W'ar missions, all units
(including troops) are denial units, save for a few exceptions
given below:
. If it is a vehicle, or is a unit currently embarked on a
transport vehicle, or is occupying a building.
. If it has the Swarms special rule.
. If it has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a
denial unit.
. If it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it
immediately reverts to being a denial unit again)."

AoC units are not *an enemy to your list*, as they are a part of it.  This is why Desperation has a specific ruling for non-scoring, non-denial units.  So let's be more specific;

Quote
It specifically states under AoC how to treat them - As enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers.  Notice under the next line it states "scattering Blast weapons...they will be affected along with any friendly or enemy units."    Not "affected along with any friendly units."

My enemies are not the same as my units' enemies. The rules distinguish between the two. So when page 123 says, "You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it," whose enemies are we talking about - mine, or my units'?

I think the answer has to be mine (i.e., the player's). Since the rule says "your" scoring units (i.e., the player's), it's most natural to assume that the enemies referred to are the player's as well.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on February 06, 2013, 01:36:40 PM
I would like to remind everyone, again, that GW does not write technical rules such as Privateer Press or Wizards of the COast does (though unfortunately they sometimes ape them, giving that appearance) and the rules break apart when technical standards are applied.   (see the argument on "is a demon a demon" of two years ago)

The fairly easy, common sense interpretation is that yes, Allies of Convenience score and do everything else normally, otherwise there would be no reason to distinguish that for allies of desperation.  Fortunately I've seen anyone actually argue about this outside of a forum.  :)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on February 06, 2013, 01:50:44 PM
Quote
It specifically states under AoC how to treat them - As enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers.  Notice under the next line it states "scattering Blast weapons...they will be affected along with any friendly or enemy units."    Not "affected along with any friendly units."

I am going to look at this a different way just for the point.

As Enemy Units- Means they are enemy units except for you cannot charge them, you can't shoot them, or Target them with psychic powers. This means for any other reason they would be treated as enemy units.

As for the Blast weapon that I feel your taking into a different context they are clarifying basically that they will be affected by blast weapons even though you can not target them initially. Example I have a blast weapon it scatter and lands on them well you can not target them so the blast doesn't effect them. They are just clarifying in that example they would be affected normally.

I am not trying to target you but
Quote
AoC are part of your list.  They are in fact, completely neutral;  Neither Friendly to your units nor an Enemy unit *to your army list*;

Is a contradiction to the RAW that states they are treated as enemy units in your army.

As for the Desperate having a specific ruling that is about Desperate Allies not AOC because your AOC can deny your Opponent's Objective. Desperate allies can not do that where AOC can.

Page 123 Controlling Objectives.

Quote
You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it.

So now your AOC are treated as Enemy units are within 3" that one of your troop choices holding and they are a Denial Unit would deny you the point. With Desperate allies that are Enemies as well but are not denial units they can not deny that point so you hold it.

In no place in the BRB does it say to treat AOC as Neutral Units for any purposes only as Enemy Units. It also says nowhere that if an Opponent's Models are within 3" it says Enemy units. It could be argued that because a Scoring Unit comes from the Troops Choice of your FOC that the Allies Chart is part of your FOC so they could score for you as long as they are the only ones at the point. It needs to be clarified otherwise.

Update:

The fairly easy, common sense interpretation is that yes, Allies of Convenience score and do everything else normally, otherwise there would be no reason to distinguish that for allies of desperation.  Fortunately I've seen anyone actually argue about this outside of a forum.  :)

If common sense prevailed though we wouldn't have had Scarab Conga Lines. Or the idea that you can ground a Flying Monstrous Creature with a Marker Light shot that does no physical damage.  :D
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on February 06, 2013, 02:10:37 PM
You are over thinking it.  Stop. 

Quote
If common sense prevailed though we wouldn't have had Scarab Conga Lines.

We didn't, really. :)  They FAQed it reasonably quickly to the obvious RAI.  I think everyone would have been a lot happier had they played the obvious RAI from the beginning.  I am coming down to the idea that because GW is so imprecise, RAI should > RAW when it's clear enough. 

Quote
Or the idea that you can ground a Flying Monstrous Creature with a Marker Light shot that does no physical damage

I maintain that makes perfect sense.  We put people in jail today for shining laser pointers at airliners, after all. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: GossWeapon on February 06, 2013, 03:33:11 PM
Hey babe, hows 40k?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on February 06, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."

You.  Not your units.  You.  Your Army.  Not Your Mans.  Not the little plastic dudes on the table, but you.  You, and Your Army.  Allies of Convenience are not Enemies to YOU.  You simply treat them as enemies for the purpose of targeting.

This is the important distinction that the guys in that video are missing.  Friendly/Enemy are relative to the player.

Because if you want to play RAW/RAI games, the Objectives section says "An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart" and last I checked the Allied Detachment is not the troops selection of the Force Organization Chart so by RAW no allied unit can score, Battle Brother/Allies/Desperation at all.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on February 07, 2013, 12:02:44 AM
I am coming down to the idea that because GW is so imprecise, RAI should > RAW when it's clear enough.
Just so long as everyone agrees with the rules as you believe them to be intended, right?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Ian Mulligan on February 07, 2013, 03:46:30 AM
Just so long as everyone agrees with the rules as you believe them to be intended, right?

THAT BURN WAS A 5 ALARM FIRE
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: BrianP on February 07, 2013, 08:12:50 AM
Shitting up the Abington Doubles thread is one thing, but please keep the trolling, flaming, instigating, whatever distractions, out of this rules thread so it remains somewhat on topic and easy to follow.


@Typhus -->
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."

You.  Not your units.  You.  Your Army.  Not Your Mans.  Not the little plastic dudes on the table, but you.  You, and Your Army.  Allies of Convenience are not Enemies to YOU.  You simply treat them as enemies for the purpose of targeting.

This is the important distinction that the guys in that video are missing.  Friendly/Enemy are relative to the player.

Because if you want to play RAW/RAI games, the Objectives section says "An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart" and last I checked the Allied Detachment is not the troops selection of the Force Organization Chart so by RAW no allied unit can score, Battle Brother/Allies/Desperation at all.
This is an interesting distinction. I do not buy your last point, allied detachments still have a troops section, but the difference between what is an enemy to me vs my models is interesting.

Basically instead of getting caught up on the word "enemy" in:
Quote
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."
you are reading it to be more like:
Quote
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from opponent's denial units, within 3" of it."
which makes sense.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Achillius on February 07, 2013, 09:25:32 AM
I have to say I'd not even considered the AOC question until I read it here. To me its always been that AOC will contest an objective against its enemies, your primary detatchment and the little (pick color) men across the table.

They are declared as enemy with a few exceptions, RAW, so that made sense. Fluff wise it fit too, "we've got this objective its ours, nooo, its ours we got here first, ...." and so on.

It makes sense and I'd argue its simply written and intended, after all, the ability to ally with another race for some benefit should come with some constraint...

Cheers,
Alan
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on February 07, 2013, 12:08:09 PM
This is an interesting distinction. I do not buy your last point, allied detachments still have a troops section, but the difference between what is an enemy to me vs my models is interesting.

Right, I was just pointing out the extremes in a RAW/RAI discussion.

Basically instead of getting caught up on the word "enemy" in:
Quote
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."
you are reading it to be more like:
Quote
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from opponent's denial units, within 3" of it."
which makes sense.
[/quote]

That's basically it.  Everything in the allied section refers to "your army" not "individual units".
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on March 20, 2013, 11:49:07 AM
Thread-o-mancy?

So, Chaos bikes... Can you switch out the bike's bolter for a different weapon?

Quote from: Bay Area Open FAQ
Models with a Chaos bike may use their twin linked bolter as the replacement when the Chaos Wargear Lists says, “a model can replace one weapon with…”
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 20, 2013, 12:23:43 PM
Yes.  Leaving you the bonus attack from the pistol.  It's probably a little noticed but important buff compared to other bikes. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 20, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
Oh, and it'n threadomacy, that's what this thread is for.  :)


Serious question for Sam:  What IS the cover save behind a Bastion?  Not on the battlements, but a tank hunkered mostly behind it or similar.

I won't go through the special reasons for each of the possible answers, any ruling is fine, just so I never have to argue about it in a game again.  :)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on March 21, 2013, 07:33:21 PM
4+.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on March 22, 2013, 12:17:30 AM
Best rules question in a long time tonight, posed by our youngest Thursday 40k regular Argo.

"Does a Relic held by a model embarked in a Night Scythe go into Reserve with the model holding it after the Night Scythe inevitably crashes?"

Really, RAW doesn't address this specific situation at all, so it could go either way.

The ruling, made by Sam after ten minutes of poring over books, is that the Relic could not be placed "reserve" space as it is effectively impassible. So we follow the procedure for the Relic ending in impassible terrain and then scatter the Relic 1" from the vehicle.

So a question and an answer.

Edit: Whoops, missed an important "not" in that explanation.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on March 22, 2013, 01:31:37 AM
Thread-o-mancy?

So, Chaos bikes... Can you switch out the bike's bolter for a different weapon?

Quote from: Bay Area Open FAQ
Models with a Chaos bike may use their twin linked bolter as the replacement when the Chaos Wargear Lists says, “a model can replace one weapon with…”

It is right out of the book that you can do it so I don't understand why they FAQed it?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 22, 2013, 02:18:53 AM
4+.

Thank you. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on March 22, 2013, 08:10:12 AM
Thread-o-mancy?

So, Chaos bikes... Can you switch out the bike's bolter for a different weapon?

Quote from: Bay Area Open FAQ
Models with a Chaos bike may use their twin linked bolter as the replacement when the Chaos Wargear Lists says, “a model can replace one weapon with…”

It is right out of the book that you can do it so I don't understand why they FAQed it?

I think they are talking about e.g. a Lord on a bike subsituting out the bike's bolter for a Burning Brand of Scalathrax, rather than needing to replace one of his combat weapons (thus, he gains an attack this way). 
Army Builder doesn't let you do this btw.  So there must be at least some folks out there who don't think it should be allowed, & merits an FAQ

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 22, 2013, 08:53:03 AM
Yes, army builder is wrong, they don't let you do it for the FA slot, either.

"Up to two bikes may replace either their ccw or their bikes TL boltgun...."

That's pretty unequivocal.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on March 22, 2013, 01:34:45 PM
"Does a Relic held by a model embarked in a Night Scythe go into Reserve with the model holding it after the Night Scythe inevitably crashes?"

Really, RAW doesn't address this specific situation at all, so it could go either way.

The ruling, made by Sam after ten minutes of poring over books, is that the Relic could not be placed "reserve" space as it is effectively impassible. So we follow the procedure for the Relic ending in impassible terrain and then scatter the Relic 1" from the vehicle.

This is a pretty important ruling.  There's another hole in the Relic rules in that they don't specify exactly WHEN/WHERE the model drops the Relic if he moves faster than allowed with it.  Ff you were allowed to make your full 12" (say, for a biker) move with it and drop it at the END, that would be extremely powerful and seemingly against the intention of the move restrictions. 

As a note, the new Adepticon FAQ has ruled that for all such instances, and for any instance when the carrying model leaves the table (including the Night Scythe attempted shenanigans), the Relic is dropped from the position where the carrying model began that phase. 

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2013/40KAddendum.pdf
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on March 22, 2013, 10:10:16 PM
That's strange to me, because it's pretty clear that the Relic can't be moved more than 6". I'd just as well have assumed that a model moving faster simply drops the relic in the middle of moving, should he be moving more than 6".
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 25, 2013, 03:50:52 PM
Oh, here's a question Sam, where I will once again not mention all the different factors to the argument.

Do Hurricane Bolters (on a LRC, say) benefit from the DA devastation banner?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on March 26, 2013, 01:14:04 AM
Oh, here's a question Sam, where I will once again not mention all the different factors to the argument.

Do Hurricane Bolters (on a LRC, say) benefit from the DA devastation banner?

Why wouldn't they?  Hurricane is three twinlinked Boltguns that fire as a single system.  Dev banner specifically states it works on Boltguns.  As the hurricane boltguns have the exact same profile as a boltergun (unlike a Heavy Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter, ad nauseum that have different profiles), I see no reason why the banner would not affect it.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 26, 2013, 02:04:09 PM
Because they're not boltguns?

Anyway, I in no way want to reopen the argument on them, I just want a ruling from Sam. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: mchlwllms on March 26, 2013, 02:09:01 PM
I'm curious, how are they not boltguns when they are listed as 3 boltguns?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 26, 2013, 02:15:18 PM
No no, start a sperate thread or PM or something, I don't want another page or two of argument here, all I want is a ruling by Sam. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on March 26, 2013, 02:27:53 PM
That's not the only issue Sam needs to rule on. Daemons still don't have an FAQ and though i'm not knowledgeable about Daemons i know there are several issues.

I know Sam doesn't get on here as much as he used to but hopefully Chase can point him here since lists were do yesterday and somebody is going to be pissed Saturday if they roll into the tournament with a specific plan in mind only to find out they can't use a unit that way.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on March 26, 2013, 02:33:45 PM
Another ruling for Sam.

Does the Quad gun that is bought with a Aeigis Defence line have to be deployed touching the Aeigis defence wals?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 26, 2013, 03:05:29 PM
Oh, hell, there are dakka threads proposing that Bastions gun doesn't actually have to go on the roof, you can just have it off to the side or something.

For that matter, our very own Jared think it's legal to put all 4 Heavy bolters of a Bastion on the same side?

One demon FAQ question I can think of is can the exalted flamer chariot think shoot it's torrent flamer thing when the chariot moves?  (RAW it's pretty clear you can't, as it's a heavy, and it's on the flamer, not the chariot. But c'mon, the RAI is pretty clear in the opposite)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Tharcil on March 26, 2013, 03:49:16 PM
One demon FAQ question I can think of is can the exalted flamer chariot think shoot it's torrent flamer thing when the chariot moves?  (RAW it's pretty clear you can't, as it's a heavy, and it's on the flamer, not the chariot. But c'mon, the RAI is pretty clear in the opposite)

If the written rule and what you perceive to be the intended rule are as far apart, I would not say anything is clear.  I definitely want to see this FAQ'd to work as you suggest and I don't disagree with how you think it should work. However, rules that are clearly written should be followed in the absence of an FAQ.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 26, 2013, 04:40:27 PM
Like bouncing FMCs?  I disagree.  In any case it sounds like you agree with me more than not. 

I'm not looking to argue the positions, just some simple rulings.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: robpro on March 27, 2013, 11:12:43 AM
I believe the.rulebook description of the bastion unfortunately implies all the HBs can be on the same side and I have seen this allowed in larger tournaments (Templecon GT, etc).

I think deploying the weapon for the aegis is covered under battlefield debris, its part of the cluster so it must be within 3" of another piece of the cluster (don't have the rulebook in front of me, but maybe someone who does can provide a page reference).

For the bastion, doesn't it say you're buying the upgrade for the battlements? Wouldn't it have to go on top?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 27, 2013, 11:58:58 AM
The book says "as modeled" and it's pretty easy interpret that how it should be modeled is how the instruction kit tells you to it: i.e. one on each side.

It's no different than converting all your models to lay on their belly--it's technically legal but no one is going to let you do it in a tournament, and with good reason. 

It's called "modelling for advantage".  It's got it's own term and everything. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on March 27, 2013, 12:50:19 PM
Actually I believe that Sam's earlier ruling about the Bastion still stands.  I asked all these questions wayyyy early (like, the week 6th came out) in this same thread and Sam basically said that the Bastion has to be the same dimensions, have the same layout of heavy bolters, and the same layout of firepoints that the GW one comes with.

Of course the firepoints can be rearranged... so they have to follow a possible layout you could make with the GW box.

I think it's a good ruling.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on March 27, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
Hurricane bolters do not have their own weapon entry, and are therefore treated as three twin-linked boltguns for all purposes. I'll try to answer the other questions tomorrow, but time is very short for me these days. And I have a million army lists to check for Saturday. If your list depends on a specific ruling going your way, you may want to revise, as I may not have time/an available codex to read the rule until the day of the tournament.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on March 27, 2013, 07:17:43 PM
We're going to go with, "An upgrade to a fortification has to be on or attached to that fortification."
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on March 27, 2013, 09:25:56 PM
I think that's likely the intent; I think the following FAQ is indicative:

Q: Can you shoot at a gun emplacement attached to an Aegis defence line? (p114)
A: Yes – see page 105 for a gun emplacement’s profile.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on March 28, 2013, 07:02:44 PM
A few answers:

The burning chariot cannot fire its heavy template weapon if it moves, because it is a heavy template weapon.

The Relic can't move more than 6", so I don't foresee a problem regarding where it is dropped. In the bizarre side case where someone manages to find a loophole that lets them move more than 6" with the Relic, it will be dropped where the model originally was (interpreting "immediately" to mean "at the moment the unit is forced to move"), not at the end of that movement.

In general, we will not be using the Adepticon FAQ, so don't rely on that as gospel. The main rulebook and official FAQs trump other sources.

I can't answer the chaos bike thing until I have a Chaos Space Marine codex in front of me, which I believe will happen later tonight. In the meantime, back to checking lists I go.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sam on March 28, 2013, 08:50:36 PM
In a unit of Chaos Bikers, up to two bikers may replace their bike's gun with a special weapon, as allowed by their wargear options. A model taking a bike as special issue wargear (such as a Chaos Lord) my not replace the bike's gun, since he lacks this upgrade option.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on March 29, 2013, 03:07:55 AM
IMO the Chaos Lord is equally eligible to swap his bike's gun for an item from the Ranged Weapons or Chaos Artefacts lists, as those only requires him to swap "one weapon".  As opposed to the Melee Weapons list, which requires that a bolt pistol or close combat weapon specifically be swapped.

But your house, your rule.  I'm glad to have a ruling.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: robpro on March 31, 2013, 12:13:23 PM
Swarms & ID came up a few times in my games yesterday, I'm curious exactly how it should be played. The Adeption FAQ (http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2013/40KAddendum.pdf) (on pdf pg 2) says you only double the wound after it has been allocated (not while it's still in the wound pool) so a T3 swarm hit by an S6 flamer would only ID one  base (one wound is allocated to the model, gets doubled to 2, it was S6 so it insta-kills the base).

My opponents all thought two bases per wound would get pulled for S6+ template hits, I just let it go because it didn't really have a huge impact on the games and I wasn't really sure if or how BG had ruled on the issue prior. I would like to make sure for future games at the store, though.

So I guess my question is "How does BG play the swarms/ID issue?".
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on March 31, 2013, 12:22:08 PM
Should we just ask all the questions that are handled in the Adepticon FAQ and see if there is a different local ruling?   Just because the questions haven't been asked before doesn't mean they won't come up in a tournament and be handled "ad hoc" - not all rules issues are brought up to the TO at all, sometimes people just handle them amicably (like robpro just posted).  Which is fine, I do that too, but it's a better experience if both participants can look something up and be like, "Oh ok, this is how that works" and know it was like an official ruling.  It's less likely to leave a bad taste in someone's mouth.

Also, the format of this thread is not ideal for discovering rulings.  Recently someone asked about legal bastion configuration.  This was actually already answered in this thread, but the only way to know that would be to read all 100 pages of the thread (most of which is irrelevant, even after sifting through the arguments, now that multiple versions of GW faq's have come out since the thread was started).   It's much better to have a concise document that contains all current rulings, because that means it's more likely that both people in a game will be aware of a given ruling and that you don't need to interrupt the game to confirm with Sam and/or try to find the ruling on the messageboard.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on March 31, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
There's a solid chance we'll shift over to the Adepticon FAQ soon'ish.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on March 31, 2013, 08:12:20 PM
Swarms & ID came up a few times in my games yesterday, I'm curious exactly how it should be played. The Adeption FAQ (http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2013/40KAddendum.pdf) (on pdf pg 2) says you only double the wound after it has been allocated (not while it's still in the wound pool) so a T3 swarm hit by an S6 flamer would only ID one  base (one wound is allocated to the model, gets doubled to 2, it was S6 so it insta-kills the base).

My opponents all thought two bases per wound would get pulled for S6+ template hits, I just let it go because it didn't really have a huge impact on the games and I wasn't really sure if or how BG had ruled on the issue prior. I would like to make sure for future games at the store, though.

So I guess my question is "How does BG play the swarms/ID issue?".

I disagree with that ruling completely.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: shwnlyns on March 31, 2013, 08:20:41 PM
So I'm looking at the Dark Angels codex and on page 53 Azrael is listed as having a bolt pistol along with his secial combi plasma and sword; but in the list in the back of the book his wargear does not include the bolt pistol. Does he have the pistol and if he does, does he choose which gun to fire and does he get 1 more attack for having a pistol and sword?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on March 31, 2013, 08:27:11 PM
So I'm looking at the Dark Angels codex and on page 53 Azrael is listed as having a bolt pistol along with his secial combi plasma and sword; but in the list in the back of the book his wargear does not include the bolt pistol. Does he have the pistol and if he does, does he choose which gun to fire and does he get 1 more attack for having a pistol and sword?

its in the faq, he is supposed to have the pistol. yes he gets one more attack, yes he can use the pistol to shoot but why would he.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: shwnlyns on March 31, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
More curious about the extra attack but also I figure the pistol is nice to shoot with if you plan on charging in the next phase
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: robpro on March 31, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
Swarms & ID came up a few times in my games yesterday, I'm curious exactly how it should be played. The Adeption FAQ (http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2013/40KAddendum.pdf) (on pdf pg 2) says you only double the wound after it has been allocated (not while it's still in the wound pool) so a T3 swarm hit by an S6 flamer would only ID one  base (one wound is allocated to the model, gets doubled to 2, it was S6 so it insta-kills the base).

My opponents all thought two bases per wound would get pulled for S6+ template hits, I just let it go because it didn't really have a huge impact on the games and I wasn't really sure if or how BG had ruled on the issue prior. I would like to make sure for future games at the store, though.

So I guess my question is "How does BG play the swarms/ID issue?".

I disagree with that ruling completely.

Out of curiousity, why? I feel like that ruling makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Benjamin on March 31, 2013, 10:51:41 PM
Out of curiousity, why? I feel like that ruling makes a lot of sense.

Me too. My thought process is to first allocate the wound. Next, check if the model has the Swarm rule, and if yes, one wound becomes two wounds.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on April 01, 2013, 12:56:16 AM
Out of curiousity, why? I feel like that ruling makes a lot of sense.

Me too. My thought process is to first allocate the wound. Next, check if the model has the Swarm rule, and if yes, one wound becomes two wounds.

Because wound allocation comes from the wound pool which is determined after all the unsaved wounds are determined.

That sounds a little confusing so here is the long run.

If you have a Unit of Scarabs Toughness 3 with 3 wounds and an Armour save of 5+.

I hit them with a Strength 6 AP - Flame Template manage to hit 4 of them. I roll and manage to wound with all 4. You now make armour saves. You made 1 so 3 unsaved wounds go into the wound pool which are now doubled because they were unsaved templates for swarms. Then you apply the first wound to the closest model which would be an instant kill. You then have 5 more wounds to apply since once they are unsaved they are doubled and put into the wound pool before going on models.

The only situation this would not be the case is if an Independent Character joined a unit with the Swarms special rule and he had a different armour save and didn't have the swarms special rule. Which if you are doing that you better have a good reason I can not think of outside of to avoid doubling ID rules.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on April 01, 2013, 11:08:52 AM
The exception you mentioned with the independent character is a good example of where your logic breaks own.   The problem is that you can have units where some of the models are swarms and others aren't.   Another example would be Dark Eldar beast packs - only the Razorwing Flocks are swarms.   So in order to determine whether a given wound from a blast/template should be doubled, you first need to make sure that wound was actually allocated to a model that was a Swarm.  Once the wound has been allocated to a specific model, it can't "overflow" to another model.  So, by this logic, each str 6 blast/template wound would only be able to kill a single swarm base.

If you disagree, can you walk us through how you would handle this situation:  there's a beast pack with 3 beastmasters, 5 khymerae, and 4 razorwing flocks.  A heldrake breathes on it and hits 2 khymerae, 1 beastmaster, and 2 flocks.  A khymera is closet, then a flock, then another khymera, then another flock, then the beastmaster.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on April 01, 2013, 02:44:00 PM
I see where my logic breaks down and I have been thinking about it even when I posted. Here is an example though to take into consideration. A unit with 2 swarm units in it toughness 3 gets hit by a plasma cannon shot hits both 1 has cover one does not. The one who does not have a cover save has 1 wound left and the blast causes 2 wounds to him now where does the second wound go now does it just fade away? Or does the second swarm get a cover save from it that will not double on him. You can not apply 2 wounds to a model that has only 1 wound. It is a very detrimental and confusing set of rules for the one special rule. What if you do a lookout sir for an unsaved blast wound from a character without swarms to one with does it suddenly get 2 wounds when it would have been one. Unfortunately I haven't been able to sit down and look extensively over the rules and situations pertaining to this and in fact the only reference I can remember is that in 5th that the blast would instant death 2 models and that was how it was FAQ by games workshop but this is 6th not 5th so that is in valid.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 01, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
90% of the time, if the intention behind a rule hasn't changed (never mind the technicalities, please remember that GW doesn't write technical rules) that's how they're going to FAQ it again.  I don't see anything behind the intended interactions of swarms, templates, and instant death that has changed between editions.

This is also just how I and every opponent I have had have played it, without too much argument.  Just saying. 

Personally, I have always thought double str ID being applied to swarms as a little dumb.  Why should a krak missile do more dmg than a frag missile to a pile of coach roaches?  Conversely, I'd have no problem with flamers just IDing whole bases, forget about double wounds. 

And they don't get stealth now?  Why? Never seen a rule that made more sense. 

But practically, I have always liked that Incinerators will just slaughter scarabs and razor flocks.  THose suckers need to die.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: robpro on April 05, 2013, 10:59:44 PM
Playing around with the example Loranus gave, here's how I always saw this scenario working out (and I was pretty shocked when I first heard someone tell me it did double ID wounds)

Quote
If you have a Unit of Scarabs Toughness 3 with 3 wounds and an Armour save of 5+.

Good here.

Quote
I hit them with a Strength 6 AP - Flame Template manage to hit 4 of them. I roll and manage to wound with all 4. You now make armour saves. You made 1 so 3 unsaved wounds go into the wound pool

Good so far.

Quote
hich are now doubled because they were unsaved templates for swarms. Then you apply the first wound to the closest model which would be an instant kill. You then have 5 more wounds to apply since once they are unsaved they are doubled and put into the wound pool before going on models.

This is where I think you make a mistake on the process.

We have 3 wounds in the wound pool caused from a template. However, the wounds aren't smart. They don't know they're going to a unit with the swarm USR while they're sitting in the wound pool.

When the wound gets allocated to the scarab, you would double it per swarm, and then remove the base since the wound caused ID.

There are issues:

-what happens if a scarab has only 1 wound left? You can't keep allocating wounds to it, I'd say the wounds are lost. The base that took double wounds has been removed. If you bump the wound to another swarm, are they doubled against since it was a 2nd wound caused by a blast template? That seems silly to me.

-what happens if an IC (or other non-swarm) is in the unit? If you rolled to wound the closest model one at a time, double the wounds the swarm took, and removed it, you'd be resolving the hits the way I just described above.

GW just doesn't give us good guidance on exactly when to double the wounds a swarm takes. I'll play with it either way, but since there are multiple ways to look at the issue, I just wanted to know ahead of time how it would be played in BG.

It would make a lot more sense to me if you said "Well, 4 scarab bases are covered, so I roll 8 dice to wound them" or "4 scarabs and an IC are covered, so I roll 9 dice to wound them." Boom, solves the whole mess. Unfortunately, it's not written like that. :/
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on April 06, 2013, 12:05:00 AM
When do you ever resolve 2 wounds at once. Never. You are Tunnel Visioning this Towards Instant Death Wounds now.

Lets say this now because we will take Instant Death out of the equation. You hit a Scarab unit with 2 models at full wounds with a Heavy Flamer Str 5 AP 4. Following Every Example you say. You would only do 3 wounds to that Unit even if you hit both with the Heavy Flamer. Because you would resolve the First set of wounds at one time. Then you would resolve the second set of wounds and you would lose a wound again. This isn't even causing Instant Death. You would lose that Fourth wound with a model still able to take it. It increases the more you hit may be a slow curve but they add up. . You have a Scarab Unit with 4 Units in it they all get hit by a Heavy Flamer template. Following the Same Example 2 Scarabs would die and then 2 wounds would be lost.

The theory you are proposing is that a model with Multiple wounds can take multiple Instant Death Wounds because they all get allocated at the same time.

But the same concept doesn't apply to Entropic Strike or this is how you said so at the tournament. When against an infantry unit you needed to roll each armour save Seperately because you would lose the armour save if you failed it once. Even though the codex points out when you suffer one or more wounds. Meaning you would get your armour save against all the wounds resolved at the same time then you would lose it.

Summary: Wounds caused to Swarms are resolved all at the same time. While wounds from entropic strike must resolved one at a time even though they are happening all at the same time. This is 2 situations involving wounds that got handled in 2 seperate ways.

Now I am going to bullet something.

-Wounds are handled 1 at a time.
-If a Special rule effects certain wounds they must be kept seperate (Rending, Instant Death, Templates for Swarms)
-Wounds do not just disappear unless no more models exist in the unit.

The way to handle Template weapons in a Combat with Swarms whether all models in the units have Swarm USR.

1. Roll to Hit (Templates Automatically cause hits to the number of models they touch.
2. Roll to Wound(Templates must be rolled for seperately. Just as if they had a Different STR or AP Value)
3a.Roll Saves if Applicable as normal Shooter chooses which AP resolved first as per book.(Again keep the Templates seperate. Flame Templates deny Cover while Blast you get cover make sure those are also seperated if applicable)
  b.Now apply wounds out of the wound pool. For the Current AP. (this is where it gets iffy.)
 The way to handle it is to treat them as if they had a Special Rule or differing AP.
  Now if a Template hits a Swarm unit Immediately it becomes 2 wounds. Handle the first wound as normal then immediately after this wound has resolved treat the second wound as if it was the next wound in the wound pool.  (Yes this mean that wounds multiplied from swarm special rule could spill over onto a model without it.)
4. Resolve (where you see how many casualties and if they need to take a leadership test at the end of the phase or combat.)


This is the most fair and logical way to handle it. It applies to every current situation I can think of towards handling Special Rules in any form. Which is how you should be treating it. Following these steps you now have a Swarm unit being hit by a weapon that No wound disappears and the result is that a Template causing Instant death would Instant Death 2 models with swarm but it is possible that the wound would not be multiplied if it got resolved against a model in the unit who did not have the swarm special rule.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: robpro on April 06, 2013, 01:33:10 AM
But the same concept doesn't apply to Entropic Strike or this is how you said so at the tournament. When against an infantry unit you needed to roll each armour save Seperately because you would lose the armour save if you failed it once. Even though the codex points out when you suffer one or more wounds. Meaning you would get your armour save against all the wounds resolved at the same time then you would lose it.

For the ES, that is how I had seen it worked out before with a multi-wound model taking the saves against it. I'm no expert, but I do believe that's how it works. If you were my opponent that round, you could have grabbed a TO/judge/etc to double check. However, it didn't have much impact on the game overall.

I think a model without the swarm taking an extra wound is "just as bad" as the wound disappearing. Like I mentioned, I don't believe GW provides enough guidance so it's up to the TO to make a ruling. I'll play by whichever ruling it is, and I tossed out what I thought (which also coincides with what Adepticon thinks, not that that necessarily matters for a non-affiliated event).

I see your point about S5 hits carrying extra wounds to other swarm bases, it just doesn't seem right to me that one roll wound to insta-kills two models though.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on April 06, 2013, 02:18:05 AM
 
For the ES, that is how I had seen it worked out before with a multi-wound model taking the saves against it. I'm no expert, but I do believe that's how it works. If you were my opponent that round, you could have grabbed a TO/judge/etc to double check. However, it didn't have much impact on the game overall.


I was using it as an example since I know you are familiar with how you play that rule. Not anything about an argument towards that ruling you had I accepted it and moved on. Am I trying to call you out on that. No. if you were a Dark Eldar player I believe they have a unit that has the Invulnerable save that as soon as they miss one they lose it and I would have used that as the example. I feel it makes sense and the point of it was to point out how each save was handled seperately like each wound.  It wasn't going to affect the standing it wasn't like It was for prize money or anything. On the topic you said this happened "Several Times" why did you not call a TO/Judge on the first time for the ruling on how it would be handled. This is a forum and I am just putting up a debate with a thought process on how I would handle it and think it should be handled.
 
I think a model without the swarm taking an extra wound is "just as bad" as the wound disappearing. Like I mentioned, I don't believe GW provides enough guidance so it's up to the TO to make a ruling. I'll play by whichever ruling it is, and I tossed out what I thought (which also coincides with what Adepticon thinks, not that that necessarily matters for a non-affiliated event).

I see your point about S5 hits carrying extra wounds to other swarm bases, it just doesn't seem right to me that one roll wound to insta-kills two models though.
That is the downside. If you work it the other way around you could have a template just touch swarm models and the initial wound from the template doesn't get doubled because it gets allocated to a non-Swarm unit. It works as a plus and minus it doesn't rule for or against.

It probably doesn't seem right because unfortunately you are a human being and want it to work out better for you. The same argument could be said for the Doom Ray most people voting for it to work against Flyers were Necron players because they want it to be better.

Looking over the Adepticon FAQ I mean it is an FAQ people send in questions and probably a couple of Tournament Organizers look over a question make a ruling and never look back at it.

The ruling for swarms and wound allocation gives no explanation how they looked and made that decision. Just reference page 43 for the Swarms special rule and page 16 which talks about Instant Death which if I want to be a nitpicker means they didn't look at the page talking about wound allocation at all which is page 15. Until Games-Workshop puts out an FAQ talking about this it will be up to a tournament organizer to decide at his or her tournament. If I were to play Tyranids which I plan to in the future and I had this situation come up with Ripper Swarms this is how I would perform it. If I go to a tournament I would talk to a TO about the ruling before hand and explain to him what I think and if he goes against it I accept it.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on April 10, 2013, 10:57:49 AM
Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere (I searched, I swear!) but here goes the complaint / question:

It really isn't possible to have an all drop pod Vanilla Space Marine army anymore, is it?

The issue I found was the HQ choice.  They don't / can't have a dedicate transport of a drop pod so they are the odd man out. According to the BRB, it says that ICs are considering separate units in terms of dividing up your force for half on the board, half in reserve. So if you have more than just one IC, one needs to stay in reserve... although, I think I just answered my own question that if you stuck with one IC, you could round up and be fine since only one non-drop pod unit can start in reserve if the number of non-drop pod units is 1.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 10, 2013, 11:09:26 AM
Drop pods drop half of them first turn and do not count as being in reserves (see Drop Pod Assault).  So if your army had all pods you can put all units and IC in the pods and not have any models on the board before the game starts.  Because you drop half your pods first turn it does not limit you to the reserve rule.

I know this rule well as my Dwarves are in 7 pods and all my units are off the board before the game.  First turn I drop 4 pods with BOTH my ICs and units..  Happy days...
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on April 10, 2013, 11:28:16 AM
Oh, yeah, that makes a whole bunch more sense. So you could use drop pods coming in first turn to offset the other things in reserve. Since they are still units that are not in reserve, my captain + terminators in a storm raven could be off set by 2 drop pods coming in turn one.

I forgot how drop pod assault can offset that.  Thanks. Oh space marines, making the game work for you each and every edition.  8)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 10, 2013, 11:28:30 AM
Well, I'm nitpicking here, but I think even Drop pods that come in turn one are still "in reserves".

But yeah, they're "forced" to be in reserve, like flyers, and therefore don't count for the 50% rules.  WHo and what in those drop pods counts for being "Forced" to be in reserve also is arguable, but most people treat it as yes, they're forced and therefore don't count towards the limit.

SO the way most people play it, not only can you have a drop pod army, but it's the ONLY army (including variants) that can do a whole reserve list. 

I think you can have as many ICs as you want. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 10, 2013, 11:37:36 AM
Drop Pod Assault gives special rules for this so regardless how you THINK you are nitpicking you are just muttling the issue.  It is not how MOST people play it but the way that it is played period BY THE RULES. 

Lets not make it sound like its a exploit and call it what it is a game mechanic.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on April 10, 2013, 11:46:46 AM
What's forced into reserves is the unit that is in a drop pod since it's dedicate transport and fliers.

"Independent characters are counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not." -pg 124
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 10, 2013, 11:52:02 AM
However if they join a unit in a drop pod they there by follow rules for Drop Pod assault. :)  That is the key rule you need to read my friend as it explains it nicely.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on April 10, 2013, 12:02:11 PM
Oh, of course. I was adding it because of his "most people do x" comment and removes the argument. Which was where my initial confusion (now clarified) came from.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 10, 2013, 12:06:01 PM
:) Ya I figured there would be confusion with unnecessary statements such as that.  Drop pods rock!

What you planning my man?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on April 10, 2013, 12:18:46 PM
I was playing with my Space Sharks last night and forgot to consult the drop pod assault rule :P.

Given 6th's leaning on troops, much like 5th, and 6ths bipolar relationship with vehicles, my old lists seem more viable than before.

Pretty much using a Caestus Assault Ram (AV13 flyer ;))to cram Tyberos and terminator buddies down the enemies throats while marines in pods take the objectives.

I may be looking at getting a stormraven to make it a little more "vanilla" friendly and it's also a good 100 points less than a Assault Ram even if it has a crappy armor in comparison.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 10, 2013, 12:23:38 PM
I wouldnt say 12 all around is a crappy armor comparison.    Ravens are nice especially when built as gun ships they pump out alot of fire power.

I like the idea are Sharks an actual codex?  I have seen them popping up lately.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 10, 2013, 12:30:13 PM
No...I'm sorry, whether units that are NOT in their dedicated transport count (so ICs in dropped, anyone in a Stormraven) count for that 50% IS debatable.  People debate it.

* we know that Drop pod's, Flyers themselves, etc, don't count count.

* We know that units and their dedicated transports count as one unit, which means that marines in a drop pod don't count for the 50%.

That's really all we know.  I play it as anything in a drop pod, Flyer doesn't count, including ICs, and that's how most other people play it too, but it is NOT a settled issue. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on April 10, 2013, 12:34:12 PM
I wouldnt say 12 all around is a crappy armor comparison.    Ravens are nice especially when built as gun ships they pump out alot of fire power.

I like the idea are Sharks an actual codex?  I have seen them popping up lately.

It's not in the Vanilla codex as a successor chapter. I know Ben's Shark Marines have more of a fun factor to them (the drop pods are "Chum buckets" lol)
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: the_trooper on April 10, 2013, 12:35:36 PM
Carcharodons are from FW's Badab War books.

Like other special space marines, Tyberos replaces chapter tactics and gives special options for the army.
You can replace a bolter for a CCW
All marines (PA and TA)get Furious charge instead of chapter tactics
If a marines (PA and TA) destroys a unit in close combat, it gains rage
One assault terminator squad armed with lightning claws can be taken as a troops choice

Tyberos is also a fun character in his own right as he gets prefered enemy "army of unit I just killed" so you kill a marine squad, you get preferred enemy space marines. Also, hunger and slake (lightning claws with chainfists inside) is pretty fun to use for versatility.  The only bummer is no iron halo.

This is my attempt at a "good guy" army given I have a huge chaos army.

EDIT:
I say crappy as I'm just talking trash. AV12 has been real good to me on my heldrakes.

EDIT2:
They hint that they are a successor to Raven Guard in the Badab book.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 10, 2013, 12:52:30 PM
Ah sounds very cool.  I saw that model it is super awesome.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on April 10, 2013, 04:38:57 PM
SO the way most people play it, not only can you have a drop pod army, but it's the ONLY army (including variants) that can do a whole reserve list.

Couldn't nids do it with spores? They actually are forced into their pods, they can't elect to not take the pod in.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on April 10, 2013, 04:59:44 PM
New question:

Are battlements considered area terrain?

I'm just curious if going to ground on battlements grant the 2+ to cover saves

or is this a non-issue because the 3+ fortification save on pg. 18 applies to battlements?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 10, 2013, 05:29:41 PM
SO the way most people play it, not only can you have a drop pod army, but it's the ONLY army (including variants) that can do a whole reserve list.

Couldn't nids do it with spores? They actually are forced into their pods, they can't elect to not take the pod in.

Maybe?  I dunno, can an entire via list fit in spores? 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 10, 2013, 05:30:27 PM
New question:

Are battlements considered area terrain?

I'm just curious if going to ground on battlements grant the 2+ to cover saves

or is this a non-issue because the 3+ fortification save on pg. 18 applies to battlements?

Battlements are 4+, that's in a FAQ somewhere.  They are not area terrain. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: PhoenixFire on April 10, 2013, 06:19:25 PM
New question:

Are battlements considered area terrain?

I'm just curious if going to ground on battlements grant the 2+ to cover saves

or is this a non-issue because the 3+ fortification save on pg. 18 applies to battlements?

Battlements are 4+, that's in a FAQ somewhere.  They are not area terrain.

Ah good call, it does indeed specify in the BRB FAQ that battlements are a 4+ save. I assume the 3+ save applies to vehicles or units 25% obscured behind it then.

It doesn't specify in the BRB or the FAQ however if they do or do not count as area terrain. All it says is area terrain needs to have a clearly defined border (which battlements do) and area terrain is difficult terrain (which battlements are) so if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Seems i need to do some more interwebz searching on this one.


Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on April 10, 2013, 08:31:05 PM
Maybe?  I dunno, can an entire via list fit in spores?

Hmmm, I think the HQ slot might stop it. It depends on whether a flyrant would be considered forced into reserves. Since it can glide (or hover or whatever it is for FMC) would that mean it can be deployed normally therefor it has to be?

Otherwise you can fill every slot with some form of pod or flyer.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 11, 2013, 12:25:18 AM
Flyers wouldnt count towards that.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 11, 2013, 02:22:50 AM
Do tyranid spores come down automatically turn 1?  I thought they were normal reserves.  If not, then you're screwed because you'll lose turn 1 and nothing is on the board.  If they come on turn 1, then great, tyranids can do it too. 

It doesn't specify in the BRB or the FAQ however if they do or do not count as area terrain. All it says is area terrain needs to have a clearly defined border (which battlements do) and area terrain is difficult terrain (which battlements are) so if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Seems i need to do some more interwebz searching on this one.

No.  Things are area terrain for specific reasons.  One of those reasons can be "because both players agree to call it that" but that's something that's based upon the terrain modeled.  i.e., it's a pile of rubble, or a swampy type thing, or a pile of alien cotton candy, or whatever.

SOme things are always area terrain.  Forests are, wrecks are, craters are.

Ruins aren't even area terrain (the bases are often considered such) though they are difficult terrain (presumably cuz there's broken masonry scattered everywhere).

A building is much like a ruin before it got ruined.  There's NOT stuff scattered everywhere.  It's worth noting area terrain is ALWAYS difficult terrain.  Why would a race make it hard to get across their nice, smooth, battlements?

Battlements aren't area terrain because they don't share any of the features of area terrain.  I WOULD think it reasonable to have the same +2 if you go ground rule that the Aegis line does, cuz they're constructed like crenulations, and I mean, look at it, it's just like an Aegis line, but on top of a building. 

But they don't share those rules, so there you are.  Truth is the Fortification rules are awful, contradictory, and not thought out very well.  More than usual, I mean. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: JWebs on April 11, 2013, 05:15:10 PM
Do tyranid spores come down automatically turn 1?  I thought they were normal reserves.  If not, then you're screwed because you'll lose turn 1 and nothing is on the board.  If they come on turn 1, then great, tyranids can do it too. 

Good call, I always forget that rule.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on April 12, 2013, 12:22:45 AM
Matt’s right on Area Terrain.  None of the Fortifications are Area; if they were, it would say so in their rules.   Certain terrain features are specified as being Area Terrain in the rulebook; others (generally ones with a flat base/other defined area and scattered raised bits; like trees, scattered rubble, ice crystals, etc.) can be agreed on with an opponent or defined as being Area by an event organizer. 

  I play it as anything in a drop pod, Flyer doesn't count, including ICs, and that's how most other people play it too, but it is NOT a settled issue.
It is a settled issue.  The reason you play it that way is because those are the rules.  You've apparently just forgotten where those rules are stated (the Deep Strike rules and the BRB FAQ). 

The general rules for Reserves state that a unit and their Dedicated Transport are counted together, but ICs are counted separately.  The specific rule for transports which always start in Reserve is that ALL models embarked on them are ignored for purposes of calculating Reserve allowances. 

Originally when the rulebook was printed this latter exception was only specified in the Deep Strike rules, so only appeared only to apply to transports which always Deep Strike (Drop Pods, basically), but then GW expanded it when they did the big FAQ update back in September.  They put a ruling in the BRB FAQ that anything embarked on any transport which always starts in Reserve is ignored for Reserve calculations.  And they helpfully made clear that this isn’t just limited to Dedicated Transports, because they used the Valkyrie/Vendetta as an example.

Maybe?  I dunno, can an entire via list fit in spores?

Hmmm, I think the HQ slot might stop it. It depends on whether a flyrant would be considered forced into reserves. Since it can glide (or hover or whatever it is for FMC) would that mean it can be deployed normally therefor it has to be?

Otherwise you can fill every slot with some form of pod or flyer.
Yes and no.  FMCs have the option to start on the table in Glide mode, so they do count toward the Reserve limit.  However, you’re allowed to round up when calculating half.  So if all of your units are in Pods except for one HQ, you can round up on that 1 unit that counts, and Reserve him.

---------------------

And because I didn't get to give my two (polite) cents on the new bases question, if no one objects, I'd like to do that here:  Edited out.  Thanks, Chase!
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 12, 2013, 01:20:23 AM
I really don't think it's clear from the BRB alone, but, you got me searching the FAQ:

Quote
Q:Do units that are transported in a vehicle that MUST start
in reserve count towards the number of units that can be
placed in Reserves? For example,must I count the units in a
Drop Pod or Valkyrie towards the 50% of units I can place in
Reserves? (p124)
A: No.

OK, guess that settles that. 

Not touching the basing thing, I'll just wind up yelling again. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on April 12, 2013, 02:11:50 AM
Good call re: the basing thing.  I sometimes get a chance to peek at the forums at work, but can't log into anything to post.  So today i had composed a nice long post about it and emailed it to myself, then got home late after D&D and found Chase had locked the thread.  :)

-------------

Re: Reserves, I agree that pre-FAQ it only applied to Deep Striking transports.  Pre-FAQ I was counting all the units embarked on my Storm Ravens against my Reserve allowance.  Thankfully that ruling came out in the second wave of FAQs.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Chase on April 12, 2013, 02:30:25 AM
You can shoot the post to me, Ragnar.  I'll add it, assuming it's different than what's here.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on April 12, 2013, 08:32:09 AM
No, that's it.  Thanks, Chase!  You're the man.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 12, 2013, 09:55:15 AM
Pg.3, guys.  It's an actual rule, in the BRB, meant for exactly this and similar cases.

And what Ragnar's talking about, with two different bases for his demons?  That's what that (old) INAT FAQ ruling you quoted is talking about, I think. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 12, 2013, 09:56:33 AM
Matt for the love of 40k just accept Chases ruleing and move on.  No one wants to rehash this AGAIN.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 12, 2013, 10:14:43 AM
Well then there probably shouldn't have been a rebuttal to a closed thread.  Because I'm not any less adamant about it today than I was yesterday. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Grimwulfe on April 12, 2013, 10:24:59 AM
Regardless of how adamant about it you are TO has made a decision either follow it or dont come to Tourny.  Your choice. 

This is for rule questions lets keep it as such.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 12, 2013, 10:39:53 AM
If people bring it up, I am going to respond to it. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on April 12, 2013, 01:18:14 PM
Tangential (non-argumentative) note about the basing thing:

I hold this up as exhibit A that GW is not very good at writing rules.  How easy would it be to just specify in each unit entry what base sizes are acceptable?  Pretty easy.  Other companies do it.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: andalucien on April 12, 2013, 03:12:59 PM
OK, just thought of a wrinkle on the base size question.

What about Ku-Gath?   

-he's never had an official GW model
-he's supposed to be bigger than a regular Great Unclean one
-he's actually got more wounds than a trygon or a tervigon

OK to run a model that is counting as Ku-Gath on a trygon base?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Typhus on April 12, 2013, 11:43:47 PM
I use http://www.thewarstore.com/product45589.html as mine, but I don't think they make it anymore.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Mannahnin on April 13, 2013, 12:48:20 AM
They also say that Canis Wolfborn's thunderwolf is bigger than normal, which a few folks tried to use as an argument (before the official models came out) that they could convert normal thunderwolves to just be on 40mm or cavalry bases.  But no, they're on the same 60mm.

I would tend to say that Ku'gath should be on the same 60mm as the other greater daemons.  Though if you had a particularly big and awesome one, folks might be okay with you using the enormobase.  Rule of cool, and all that.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: shwnlyns on April 26, 2013, 08:22:25 PM
question about the Dark Angels Dreadnought. The codex says you can replace the close combat weapon with a missile launcher, under the missile launcher entry it lists three types of missiles, frag, krak and flakk. So, does the dreadnoughts missile launcher have all three missile options? I ask because for every other missile launcher in the book, it lists flakk missiles as extra for 10 additional points.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Loranus on April 26, 2013, 11:08:40 PM
question about the Dark Angels Dreadnought. The codex says you can replace the close combat weapon with a missile launcher, under the missile launcher entry it lists three types of missiles, frag, krak and flakk. So, does the dreadnoughts missile launcher have all three missile options? I ask because for every other missile launcher in the book, it lists flakk missiles as extra for 10 additional points.

To also Elaborate. Every other entry that says Missile Launcher says (With Frag and Krak) then lists Flak as a 10 point Upgrade. The Dreadnought only has Missile Launcher listed.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Battle-Bruvah Sillynoah on April 26, 2013, 11:23:49 PM
In the Dark Angel Codex, it doesn't have the Hurricane bolter listed as a weapon. As you can imagine, this is confusing since you actualy have to search its stats on the internet rather than the Dark Angel Codex. If they bothered to make an entirely new weapon, why is it not listed in the Codex ? ???
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: shwnlyns on April 26, 2013, 11:35:19 PM
In the Dark Angel Codex, it doesn't have the Hurricane bolter listed as a weapon. As you can imagine, this is confusing since you actualy have to search its stats on the internet rather than the Dark Angel Codex. If they bothered to make an entirely new weapon, why is it not listed in the Codex ? ???

the hurricane bolter is listed on page 60, it counts as 3 twin linked bolters fired as one weapon and has been around for a decade or so.

Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Battle-Bruvah Sillynoah on April 26, 2013, 11:48:00 PM
In the Dark Angel Codex, it doesn't have the Hurricane bolter listed as a weapon. As you can imagine, this is confusing since you actualy have to search its stats on the internet rather than the Dark Angel Codex. If they bothered to make an entirely new weapon, why is it not listed in the Codex ? ???

the hurricane bolter is listed on page 60, it counts as 3 twin linked bolters fired as one weapon and has been around for a decade or so.
ah, i was looking in the weapon list for them rather than the beef of the codex.
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: shwnlyns on April 29, 2013, 07:29:24 PM
dark angels tactical squad equipment include bolt pistol and boltgun. The sergeant may take items from the melee and / or ranged section of wargear.

Melee weapons says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, chainsword is listed as free.

Ranged weapons say a model can replace a bolt pistol or close combat weapon for one of the following, plasma pistol is included.

Can I replace the boltgun with a chainsword and then replace the chainsword with a plasma pistol giving my model both a bolt pistol and plasma pistol?
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: Sir_Prometheus on April 29, 2013, 07:55:57 PM
I re-read it just to be sure, and yes, I believe you can. 
Title: Re: Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rules Questions
Post by: shwnlyns on April 29, 2013, 08:07:03 PM
Then ill be a gunslingin' son of a gun