|
PierreTheMime posted:Yeah, it is pretty nice. I just wish the sweeping attacks took that into account, since you can only make them using the 6-12" movement in the Movement phase. Losing 12" off the threat coming from 5th kinda hurt them a tad. Ya, you cant sweeping across the board hitting units like in 5th, but I have been playing the CCB very gimped this edition. I forgot it was fast to start, and was always snipe firing the gun underneath. As well as only going 18" total instead of the 30" I could have been zipping around at. In regard to CCB rules, I've had people claim all kinds of different rules with the CCB in combat. But the way I think it is correct and plan to keep playing it is: you can only attack the character in CC, you can not attack the barge itself. If the lord dies, but comes back up with ever living, he does so inside the barge.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Khorne Flakes posted:In regard to CCB rules, I've had people claim all kinds of different rules with the CCB in combat. But the way I think it is correct and plan to keep playing it is: you can only attack the character in CC, you can not attack the barge itself. This is correct. The guy I played for the batrep a few pages back had never played Necrons before so I told him what each unit was and what it could do before we began. When I charged his IG with my CCB+Anrakyr he was like "heh, good thing I've got meltabombs" and I just frowned a little and sliced his vets to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:This is correct. The guy I played for the batrep a few pages back had never played Necrons before so I told him what each unit was and what it could do before we began. When I charged his IG with my CCB+Anrakyr he was like "heh, good thing I've got meltabombs" and I just frowned a little and sliced his vets to pieces. Is this in the FAQ or something? My reading of pg 82 of the BRB is different. It doesn't explicitly say that troops can't target the vehicle in assault. It makes the distinction for shooting but no distinction is made for assault. In fact, under the section marked crew, it says "the crew of the chariot are considered to be part of the chariot itself, can never be targeted separately from the vehicle". Whilst this part of the rules deal with the distinction between crew and chariot (not character and chariot) the wording does suggest that the chariot can be targeted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Hmm, after reviewing it it certainly does sound that way. It's possible I may have played it wrong. He had rolled for it immediately before I told him and had missed, so I suppose it's not that important for that instance but I'll have to reconsider that. Also I just double-checked all the FAQs and there's nothing about it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Hmm, after reviewing it it certainly does sound that way. It's possible I may have played it wrong. He had rolled for it immediately before I told him and had missed, so I suppose it's not that important for that instance but I'll have to reconsider that. I spose the plan should be to be particular about your charge and hammer of wrath the meltabomb guy...
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Whoever posted on here with the "roll 3d6 for warlord traits and take which one you want", THANK YOU. I got stiffed by the warlord chart the past few games and I tried it out last game and FINALLY got something I could sort of half use. The trait that gives my warlord + attached unit FNP within 3" of an objective. We weren't playing objectives.. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Does anyone know if you can cast a nova power in close-combat? I know it can hit engaged enemy units, but I don't think it can be cast in combat since it is technically a shooting power. The rulebook FAQ doesn't mention anything other than that novas can't hit flying units. I think I have the right interpretation already, but I thought I'd check.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:Has anyone got any experience with maxmini?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Does anyone know if you can cast a nova power in close-combat? I know it can hit engaged enemy units, but I don't think it can be cast in combat since it is technically a shooting power. The rulebook FAQ doesn't mention anything other than that novas can't hit flying units. The description of Novas in the rulebook explicitly says it hits every enemy in range, regardless of line of sight or being locked in close-combat, but has a profile like a shooting attack. The rulebook starts with the generic psychic shooting attack rules, which say that they cannot be used in close combat, but then goes on to state that if a power has a specific type you should use those rules instead of the generic rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Yeah, but I think that is specifically for the targets, not the caster. That's what is throwing me off a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Yeah, but I think that is specifically for the targets, not the caster. That's what is throwing me off a little. Eh, I guess that's one way to read it, but really seems overly punitive for all, what, two? Nova powers. If memory serves we're talking about a handful of Str3 or Str4 hits from both of them (at what, 6" range?) unlike say some of Divination's reroll-a-paloozas which can be gleefully cast in or out of combat. What I'm saying is while I suppose the argument can be made, it sure sounds like a willfully ignorant interpretation of a rule that says "regardless of being locked in combat"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
frest posted:Eh, I guess that's one way to read it, but really seems overly punitive for all, what, two? Nova powers. If memory serves we're talking about a handful of Str3 or Str4 hits from both of them (at what, 6" range?) unlike say some of Divination's reroll-a-paloozas which can be gleefully cast in or out of combat. The rule says it HITS targets regardless of being locked in close combat, a contrast they have to make since you cannot otherwise target enemies that are locked in close combat. It doesn't say anything about being able to fire it under abnormal circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
SoB players, I have a ton of sisters with no backpacks. How do their backpacks compare to SM? Ive been looking at the gothic ones on maxmini but im hesitant to buy a set and find them grossly oversize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Dominion posted:The rule says it HITS targets regardless of being locked in close combat, a contrast they have to make since you cannot otherwise target enemies that are locked in close combat. It doesn't say anything about being able to fire it under abnormal circumstances. I don't see anything in the FAQ addressing it, so now I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
frest posted:Eh, I guess that's one way to read it, but really seems overly punitive for all, what, two? Nova powers. If memory serves we're talking about a handful of Str3 or Str4 hits from both of them (at what, 6" range?) unlike say some of Divination's reroll-a-paloozas which can be gleefully cast in or out of combat. It's clear that's referring to the targets. Also, you're conveniently ignoring the next sentence: "Otherwise, a nova is treated like a shooting attack, and indeed will have a profile like a shooting attack."
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
frest posted:I was pretty sure that Nova and Maelstrom both said regardless of being locked in close combat, but if it doesn't say that, welp. This came up for me during one of my very few games where an enemy was using the Pyromancy Nova spell, and I looked it up, saw that line, and considered it settled in my mind. it's pretty clear cut. you can't shoot whilst you are locked in combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It's clear that's referring to the targets. Also, you're conveniently ignoring the next sentence: "Otherwise, a nova is treated like a shooting attack, and indeed will have a profile like a shooting attack." I can't normally shoot into close combat or out of close combat, so I don't know why we're making that distinction. The next sentence simply defines that it will have the same profile as an attack (shooting, Ap value, special rules) which indeed both Novas have. I dunno, I've only played a handful of games of 6th and that was my interpretation. e: I'd go with the consensus that you can't use it in combat then. frest fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Alright, so it looks like I played it correctly then. I rolled the pyromancy nova in my last game and it was kind of useless with its 6" range so I thought I'd ask. I've only played 2 games of 6th so far and I'm still getting used to the changes. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
frest posted:I can't normally shoot into close combat or out of close combat, so I don't know why we're making that distinction. The next sentence simply defines that it will have the same profile as an attack (shooting, Ap value, special rules) which indeed both Novas have. actually... having read the wording it does seem to have a dangling modifier. The phrase "regardless of... being locked in combat" could refer to the shooter, the target or both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that, for the CCB in CC, you can attack either the Overlord or the Barge, your choice. He isn't crew, he's a passenger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:actually... having read the wording it does seem to have a dangling modifier. The phrase "regardless of... being locked in combat" could refer to the shooter, the target or both. I was hoping for an FAQ answer but no dice. It also makes the Pyromancy version suck pretty hard, at least the other one has a 12" range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:actually... having read the wording it does seem to have a dangling modifier. The phrase "regardless of... being locked in combat" could refer to the shooter, the target or both. It can't refer to the shooter because the sentence it is a part of never refers to the shooter. But it's clearly ambiguous enough phrasing to raise questions, or people are just pretending it's ambiguous enough to make their powers better.  frest posted:The next sentence simply defines that it will have the same profile as an attack (shooting, Ap value, special rules) which indeed both Novas have. It does a great deal more than that. It says while a nova can target and hit models that normal shooting attacks cannot, it is otherwise treated as a normal shooting attack. Remember, all attacks in 6E, ranged or close or whatever, have a profile including range, S, AP, and special rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:But it's clearly ambiguous enough phrasing to raise questions, or people are just pretending it's ambiguous enough to make their powers better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Bavius posted:Eh, why not play it against regular armies? It may be the historical version of 40k, but they had to fight orks and eldar, even IG and not-nids. Seems fairly pricey to never play it with basic rules. This. When the announcement came I was trying to jury-rig a Great Crusade ruleset with pre-Heresy Marines and Imperial Army, now it looks like Forgeworld is doing my work for me. If I'm really lucky they'll do a writeup for Heresy-era xenos and I can get started convincing my group to play a campaign where we each play as the ancestors of our regular armies (Blood Angels/TSons for Blood Angel successors/Blood Ravens, Necrons would have to be one of the first Tomb Worlds to wake up I guess, Tyranids could be replaced with Genestealer cults, Dark Eldar would have been freshy fallen and still strongly resemble the Eldar Empire).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
I love the prices of the new fw terminators. At first view you think, 33 quid aint so bad. Then you realise you have to spend 12-16 quid extra to buy the weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
frest posted:Who would honestly take those powers over the signatures though? That's my (joking) point. People are perhaps intentionally misreading to make those powers better and more worthwhile. Kosmonaut posted:This. When the announcement came I was trying to jury-rig a Great Crusade ruleset with pre-Heresy Marines and Imperial Army, now it looks like Forgeworld is doing my work for me. If I'm really lucky they'll do a writeup for Heresy-era xenos and I can get started convincing my group to play a campaign where we each play as the ancestors of our regular armies (Blood Angels/TSons for Blood Angel successors/Blood Ravens, Necrons would have to be one of the first Tomb Worlds to wake up I guess, Tyranids could be replaced with Genestealer cults, Dark Eldar would have been freshy fallen and still strongly resemble the Eldar Empire). I suspect this will result in the Legions steamrolling over all the Xenos, but that is fluffy. I hope some of the minor Xenos races that show up in the HH books make it into this series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:It can't refer to the shooter because the sentence it is a part of never refers to the shooter. "a nova power automaically targets and hits all enemy units within the psychic power's maximum range regardless of line of sight, being locked in combat, intervening models/terrain and so on." if we remove the extraneous clauses we get "A nova power automaically targets and hits all enemy units regardless of being locked in combat." It's a dangling clause. It could refer to the target "A nova power automaically targets and hits all enemy units regardless of those units being locked in combat." The origin of the nova power "A nova power automaically targets and hits all enemy units regardless of the caster of the nova power being locked in combat." Or both ""A nova power automaically targets and hits all enemy units regardless of any unit being locked in combat." There's also something to be said about these powers being terrible if you can't set them off when you're surronded by enemy dudes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:That's my (joking) point. People are perhaps intentionally misreading to make those powers better and more worthwhile.  The new Chaos disciplines have Novas too
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:"a nova power automaically targets and hits all enemy units within the psychic power's maximum range regardless of line of sight, being locked in combat, intervening models/terrain and so on." The shooter is not mentioned or implied since the nova is the subject performing the action. Thus, the sentence provides you with only one logical option to which that modifier can apply. Also, those are phrases, not clauses. I agree that it could be worded more clearly, but that's not because it's grammatically vague; it's because GW has a history of poorly phrased rules and hams have a history of trying to abuse them. Essentially, it is a rhetorical problem, not a grammatical one. And yeah, novas are kind of lovely. That was the point of my joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Am I the only one who finds the Tzeentch psuker powers very underwhelming? Could be that my hopes were too high, it being the god os magic and all, but a weak unreliable small blast against hordes as a primaris, a dangerous buff for a character, a template that is unchanged from the last codex but now Warp Charge 2 all sound situational at the very best. The new Doombolt, on the other hand, seems quite cool, but 1 decent power out of 5 does not make one eager to roll on that table. Also, I wonder who will be the first brave soul to get a possessed Land Raider now and watch it kill Abaddon to regenerate a hull point! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:The shooter is not mentioned or implied since the nova is the subject performing the action. Thus, the sentence provides you with only one logical option to which that modifier can apply. in the section we're talking about the phrase "regardless of line of sight" is also used... whose line of sight is it referring to? The shooters. The subject doesn't need to be mentioned to be affected by the dangling modifier. For example. Turning the corner, a tree appeared. The modifying clause, Turning the corner, is clearly supposed to describe the behaviour of the narrator (or observer), but grammatically it appears to apply to nothing in particular, or the tree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:in the section we're talking about the phrase "regardless of line of sight" is also used... whose line of sight is it referring to? The shooters. Or it could refer to Line of Sight, the rule. The problem with your example, the reason why it's a dangling modifier, is the lack of a logical referent provided by the sentence. The sentence about novas does contain a logical referent: the target. E: Again, you're right that it could be more clearly phrased, but the sentence itself gives you no reason to think it refers to anything but the target. The problem is that a history of poor phrasing on GW's part has given you reason to think it could refer to both target and shooter. It definitely needs a FAQ entry. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Some of my guys. Oh, and nice hams.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Looks like a bottle of Newcastle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Waaaghlager
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah, that's definitely Newcastle
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Not recognizing the bottle of one of my favourite beers makes me feel so stupid. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Just bought Dark Vengeance for the books, templates, Librarian, and Hellbrute; selling the rest. PM me if you're interested. I'm gonna file off the DA iconography and use the Librarian for my Blood Ravens, and paint the Hellbrute in Thousand Sons colors as a one-off 'cause he looks too wicked to let go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Not recognizing the bottle of one of my favourite beers makes me feel so stupid. it's probably healthy
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Angron can challenge and attack every IC in every unit that he can reach in combat (so put him in a large squad and multi-assault everything) at the same time. He also gets +1 Attack (up to 10) for every unit or IC he kills. Also: "Hatred (Everything)"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 00:01
|
|
