|
|
Post by coredump on Jul 8, 2012 20:26:31 GMT
Where do you get number 12 from? I mean what page of the BGB you read that in? Or the Errata/FAQ? It is the bolded part of the snap fire rules. #12 is wrong. Shots are fired as if they are ballistics skill 1, not "The model becomes ballistics skill 1". The broodlord is still BS0, and thus cannot fire anything. I provided the rule that says the Blord is treated as having BS1. Now you provide the rule saying he can't fire. |
|
|
|
Post by liquid405 on Jul 8, 2012 20:33:03 GMT
I provided the rule that says the Blord is treated as having BS1. Now you provide the rule saying he can't fire. I looked. Unless I missed something, you are correct. Interesting. This also means that broodlords can use Nova and Beam powers. |
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Jul 8, 2012 20:50:06 GMT
They already could...
I'm in agreement on snapfire now too. It says any model can when forced (barring blasts etc) and since no 'to hit' roll is given for BS0, you are forced to snapfire.
Still won't aim for crush or anything but nice to know the longshot is available (with some re-rolling from OA!).
|
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Jul 8, 2012 22:27:23 GMT
Fearless units cannot go to ground. While true, it is unfortunately of very little use to us. Not necessarily. If you are placing your Tervigon generated Gaunts 6" away from your Tervigon, then moving 6" forward - you then move your Tervigon BACKWARD leaving the Gaunts outside Synapse. They are now no longer Fearless and can G2G freely. Plus, if they do make it into combat, and lose - they have a reasonable chance to succeed in fleeing at which time they probably run back into Synapse which means they automatically rally next turn. And if they win the combat - likely if you are also assaulting with another specialized assault unit - then you are still tarpitting that other unit. And if you G2G to avoid the actual charge (but baited out the Overwatch anyways), when the Tervigon moves up next turn you'll be back in Synapse plus providing a cover screen again - for the next wave of Gaunts the Tervigon generates. Sometimes pulling your Synapse back away from units is adventageous - like units with Feed. |
|
|
|
Post by liquid405 on Jul 8, 2012 22:45:25 GMT
Delays the arrival of the tervigon too long. Using up free gaunts is not nearly as bad as this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpig on Jul 8, 2012 23:07:08 GMT
Nah, you're wrong. It appears you saw the phrase "treat the base as area terrain" at the start of the ruins section and then applied it without checking back to the area terrain page (which acknowledges that all pieces of area terrain are defined by their base, and then mentions ruins specifically). If you are within the boundary, you're within the area terrain, and if you're within the area terrain you get a cover save. No, I am aware of those rules. And yes, when it says "treat the base as area terrain" they meant that I should treat the *base* as area terrain. The base has a clear boundary, the base provides a 5+ cover save, the base gives a 2+ benefit to Go to Ground. But it does not say that the rest of the ruins becomes area terrain. In fact they seem to go to some effort to make that distinction by putting in bold to treat the base (not the entire ruins) as area terrain. Further, the ruins provide a 4+ cover save, if they change to area terrain by adding a base... then are only 5+?? Ruins are standard WYWISYG cover, if there is a base, the *base* is treated as area terrain. Which also means that if a model is in the base, and not obscured, it gets a 5+ save. If it is obscured by the ruins, it gets a 4+ save. ^ very accurate and a very good find. So many people stick those nasty devastor/long fang/heavy weapons teams in upper floors of ruins. Also works if you get around beside or behind them! |
|
|
|
Post by guns on Jul 9, 2012 5:06:14 GMT
I disagree with all of it. Ruins are 4+ area terrain.
Receiving area terrain status does not supersede ruins status. All ruins give 4+ cover. Ruins with a base are area terrain. Therefore, ruins with a base are area terrain that gives 4+ cover.
Ruins are only WYSIWYG terrain until you put them on a base, and then they're not.
I acknowledge that your argument has a reasonable basis, but it's the less intuitive solution by far. The rulebook is to blame for not clearly saying one way or the other whether area terrain can go above or below 5+ depending on what it represents.
I sstrongly disagree with shooting Broodlords, too. The Snap Shot rule says a model may use them when forced to. The rest of the rulebook goes on to explain some of the circumstances that can force a model to use Snap Shots. None of them include attempting to shoot with a 0-characteristic.
This is another one that will certainly get FAQed one way regardless of what the RAW is, so even if you stubbornly cling to that interpretation you're due for eventual sadness, shame and regret.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Jul 9, 2012 6:01:20 GMT
Not being able to fire normally is a good enough reason as any to be forced into snap shooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jul 9, 2012 7:12:55 GMT
I disagree with all of it. Ruins are 4+ area terrain. I cannot find that rule stated anywhere. Where does it say that? I cannot find that rule stated anywhere. Where does it say that? I cannot find that rule stated anywhere. Where does it say that? But the rulebook is *very* clear on this. "Ruins W ith Bases A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain." How much clearer could they make it? It says if it has a base, then the base is area terrain. No where does it say anything about the ruins being area terrain... They even put it in Bold print. Why not just say "the ruins are area terrain" if that is what they meant? I agree with this. If the situation forces the Blord to snap shot, he can do it. But not just normally. So if the stealers get assaulted, he can use his BS1; but on the stealer shooting phase, he has to use BS0, which makes it really hard to hit.... Everyone always says this when they don't like how a rule works.... Sometimes it gets FAQ'd, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the FAQ makes sense, or follows the rules..... sometimes it doesn't. Everyone is always surprised, but somehow everyone always thinks they know how the next FAQ will come out.... I admit, these may get FAQ'd, and I can't even pretend to know what they will come up with. But I *do* know what they put into the rulebook, and thus it is all I have to go on. |
|
|
|
Post by guns on Jul 9, 2012 8:54:41 GMT
How much clearer could they make it? It says if it has a base, then the base is area terrain. No where does it say anything about the ruins being area terrain... They even put it in Bold print. Why not just say "the ruins are area terrain" if that is what they meant? You're implying a distinction that I don't perceive to exist. *All* area terrain treats its base as being area terrain. That's the central, defining feature of area terrain, in fact; an outlined portion of homogeneous terrain effect based on the perimeter of a 2D marker. I can't bust out page numbers at the moment but I'm sure you've been back and forth enough times through the BRB to know exactly what pages to find the following info on: 1. the cover chart that defines all ruins as 4+ 2. the description of area terrain as a boundary (within which all physical, tangible terrain features are ignored for the purposes of determining cover [but, as you indicate elsewhere, specifically provides 5+ cover save]) 3. the above-quoted line that mandates all based ruins be treated as area terrain So, my logic is as follows: All ruins grant 4+ cover. All based ruins are treated as area terrain. Generic area terrain provides a 5+ cover save, but there is no indicator that it cannot provide better or worse cover if it is combined with another terrain type (such as ruins). It doesn't have anything to do with how I'd like the rules to work. My only army is Tyranids, and pretty much all of your observations in here are exploits designed to favour Tyranids, so I'm thrilled to benefit from any of them that are ironclad from both the RAW and RAI perspectives. You're right, we can't accurately predict the future, but we can make educated guesses based on the experience we have amassed playing GW systems. We can cross-reference new 40K rules with their previously-pioneered versions in WHFB. We can consult the FAQ rulings of previous editions of 40K. We can consider both the fluffy RAI, and the gameplay implications of RAW. While the FAQ rulings occasionally produce a head-scratcher, most of the time they're predictable. Were you playing Tyranids when the current codex came out, and it was technically illegal for multiple close-combat biomorphs to be combined, and for the Mawloc to intentionally DS into a target? Those are perfect examples of the RAI being obvious to any sensible person in spite of the janky RAW wording. I think some of your points in this thread fall into that same category (while others are far more interesting and unknowable). |
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Jul 9, 2012 9:49:03 GMT
I am not implying anything. The rule clearly and specifically states it.
The RULE says to treat the *base* as area terrain.
How do you get past it saying to "treat the base as area terrain"? How do you automatically extrapolate that to be "treat the entire ruins as area terrain"?
Not a problem. But that does not ensure the inverse. All cats are animals; does not ensure that all animals are cats.
I will agree to the non-parenthetical parts of 1 and 2.
Exactly where does it say "All based ruins are treated as area terrain"?
If you can provide an actual rule in the book that states either of the above quoted statements, I will agree with your assertion.
I can provide an actual rule that says to treat the *base* as area terrain.... but you keep ignoring that...
Really? I challenge you on that. I have made 13 observations... I count 1 that could be considered an 'exploit' to favor Nids. How many of the 13 do you see like that?
Actually, those were both always legal, even according to RAW. Luckily the FAQ went along with the RAW.
But there were plenty of other FAQ rulings that no one knew which way they would go...
Primes in Pods
DoM and cover saves
SitW and vehicles
Hive Commander stacking
Kill points for HT/TG
Venomthrope def grenades
Empty spores
etc etc
My point is, every always thinks *they* understand how GW thinks and that they know how the FAQs will go.... yet people keep being surprised....
Let me see if I understand.
You assert that when they wrote "treat the base as area terrain", their *intention* was to treat the entire ruins as area terrain. Even though they never mention that in the "Ruins With Bases section.
Further, their intention was that if I glue a board to the bottom of a ruin, the 3rd floor will transform from WYSIWYG to area terrain. Further, they intended for this newly transformed area terrain on the 3rd floor, was to be 4+ area terrain, even though the book specifically states that all area terrain is 5+.
I assert that only the base is to be treated as area terrain; but my only evidence is that they put a rule -in Bold- that says "treat the base as area terrain"
|
|
|
|
Post by guns on Jul 9, 2012 17:44:56 GMT
I am not implying anything. The rule clearly and specifically states it. The RULE says to treat the *base* as area terrain. How do you get past it saying to "treat the base as area terrain"? How do you automatically extrapolate that to be "treat the entire ruins as area terrain"? I assert that only the base is to be treated as area terrain; but my only evidence is that they put a rule -in Bold- that says "treat the base as area terrain" Because the phrase "treat the base as are terrain" is applicable to ALL area terrain. That's what area terrain is[/b]. It is a base of homogeneous terrain. There's nothing in the area terrain section that outlines how to treat a piece of area terrain as the standard base outline with additional WYSIWYG pieces grafted on top of it. It's either all area terrain, or all WYSIWYG terrain. Assume for a minute that my interpretation is correct, and then try to imagine what they could have said in the ruins section other than "treat the base as area terrain". They needed to phrase is that way because if they didn't the first question would have been, "Ok, so ruins are area terrain, but how do you assess the size and shape of the footprint? Is it a triangle drawn from edge-to-edge of a corner section of ruins? Or do you conceptually "square" the corner section? Or do you treat the entire base as area terrain, including the outer edges of the base outside of the corner ruin?" Out of curiosity, if you played a game against someone where there was a forest feature with large rocks in it, and a model moved to stand on top of a rock, would you treat it as no longer being in the forest? |
|
|
|
Post by gloomfang on Jul 9, 2012 18:12:42 GMT
There's nothing in the area terrain section that outlines how to treat a piece of area terrain as the standard base outline with additional WYSIWYG pieces grafted on top of it. It's either all area terrain, or all WYSIWYG terrain. <snip> Out of curiosity, if you played a game against someone where there was a forest feature with large rocks in it, and a model moved to stand on top of a rock, would you treat it as no longer being in the forest? Your wrong on this one guns. Let me break it down. Lets look at the definition of a ruin. It is a ruined structure that can not be occupied. Units can go through the walls counting as difficult terrain. It is WYSIWYG. It gives a 4+ cover save to units 25% obscured by the walls. Now if I just have the wall pieces from the kit sitting on the table, that is all it gets. However many people like to mount them on a base. Now the base is a terrain feature. It is not the ruin. If you are in the area terrain of the base you get a 5+ cover save, even if you are NOT 25% obscured. Why this distiction is important: 1) If I can draw LOS to a unit on the upper levels of the ruin where they are not 25% obscured they do not get a coversave. (Under your version they would get a 4+ even though they are not obscured. 2) Your rock example in the forest is great. I stand a guy on a rock. Does he get the coversave? Yes he does, becasue he is in area terrain. Does a guy standing on a rock on the base of a ruin get a coversave? Yes he gets a 5+ for being in area terrain. So what cover save does a guy behind a wall on the ground level of a ruin that has a base get? If he is 25% obscured by the walls he gets a +4 if not he gets a 5+. Now lets get a little out there. Ord. blasts. Ord. blasts say get get cover mesured from the center of the blast. If the unit is on an upper level of a ruin and it lands behind him, he gets no cover save as there is no cover between him and the blast. If I hit the same guy on the ground floor of a ruin with a base he would get a 5+ cover save becasue he is IN terrain. At the end of the day you are BEHIND a ruin. You are IN its base. |
|
|
|
Post by guns on Jul 9, 2012 18:22:42 GMT
As I said earlier, I can see the internal logic in the stance you guys are taking, but it doesn't overcome the combination of logic + intuitive mechanics that I see in my own position.
To me, the bottom line is that there are no rules for multi-type terrain. Therefore I see no way of combining ruins with area terrain that leaves aspects of both terrain types intact. It has to be one or the other.
Additionally, I reread the terrain tables and found hard evidence of area terrain that grants a different cover save than 5+. Ironbark forests grant 3+ rather than 5+. The one chink in my interpretation was the possibility that all area terrain had to be 5+, all the time, but now I can confidently state that that is not true.
Area terrain is a class of terrain with different subtypes. So you can have,
Area terrain --> Forest --> Ironbark Forest
as well as
Area terrain --> Ruins
|
|
|
|
Post by gloomfang on Jul 9, 2012 18:40:38 GMT
To me, the bottom line is that there are no rules for multi-type terrain. Therefore I see no way of combining ruins with area terrain that leaves aspects of both terrain types intact. It has to be one or the other. Additionally, I reread the terrain tables and found hard evidence of area terrain that grants a different cover save than 5+. Ironbark forests grant 3+ rather than 5+. The one chink in my interpretation was the possibility that all area terrain had to be 5+, all the time, but now I can confidently state that that is not true. There is no mutipart terrain. There are 2 piece of terrain. One is the base and the other is the ruin. If I put an aegis line on a base does it become area terrain? No. The base is a piece of area terrain that allows you to place a ruin in it. And the chink in your armor is still there. Area cover saves are 5+ unless specified (Like the Ironwood example). The rules for the ruins state that if a model is 25% obscured you get a 4+ cover save. At best I would be willing to say that ruins with a base are area terrain. If the walls block LOS the unit can not be targeted. If the unit is 25% or more obscured they get a 4+ cover save. If less then 25% of the target is covered they get the standard 5+ area terrain coversave. I guess that could represent stuff on the walls that they are hiding behind that would be to hard to model, but that is a faw as I would be willing to go. |
|
"
