|
|
Post by sneggy on Oct 21, 2019 15:57:20 GMT
TO here would differentiate based on Immediately, so there you go. If we're talking written, you definitely have to PA before they auspex. But if your TOs dont, then dont sweat it. Controlling player chooses order of strats. I set up my unit, offer you to auspex scan. You can't cos i'm 12.1" away. I perfect ambush. Opportunity to auspex scan is gone as I have now done something after setting up, you would be doing it after I perfect ambush not after I set up. I've had this discussion with a dozen TO's and two of the 40k rules writers (on seperate occasions), all in agreement. Its not a debate, that's just how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by killercroc on Oct 21, 2019 16:00:12 GMT
Its not a debate, that's just how it works. Apparently you're new to this forum, we make up our own interpretations round these parts. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 21, 2019 16:26:34 GMT
Unless it's in an FAQ, TOs and their judges are at will to decide things. Mine has always had a tendency to rule without consistency, or with very strict RAW interpretations. RAW strictly, I don't think Auspex scan can be used before PA, because PA happens "immediately after" and Auspex happens "after".
In the event of 12.1 away then either way its not an issue. It's only an issue when you DS within 12", behind LOS, then PA forward to get closer on the charge - if he was suppose to Auspex anytime after a setup, he could then choose to Auspex after my PA move, thereby shredding me to bits.
I think definitely I would get ruled against to say Auspex happens before PA, but I can try for the next event when I decide what to play. If they were both the same terms, I think controlling player would choose, yea and that would be u contestable. I could try to argue that PA negates Auspex on technical grounds maybe, since it's no longer "after setting up", it's "after a strategem has been used" hence Auspex is not applicable...
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 22, 2019 1:21:16 GMT
Controlling player chooses order of strats. I set up my unit, offer you to auspex scan. You can't cos i'm 12.1" away. I perfect ambush. Opportunity to auspex scan is gone as I have now done something after setting up, you would be doing it after I perfect ambush not after I set up. As kaz mentioned, the debate isn't about outside 12", it's inside 12". You say auspex opportunity is gone because you've done something after set up. PA (if player chooses so) will always have the opportunity to go first (it's immediately i.e. first, or it's players pick i.e. first). If the opportunity to auspex is gone because you move after set up, then they can't auspex you. Which I don't think is a reasonable interpretation: probably breaks stuff, and I doubt you'd ever convince opponent/TO. Thus either auspex can be used after PA move (which I do agree with your argument, but...), or there's this weird 'both declare' after set up, then separately resolve. In which case...I don't think there's really a RAW argument that they occur at anything other than the same time (immediately is only for declaration, not resolution if we're splitting those), at which point it's players pick. But: Ultimately, it doesn't matter what other people think: unless there's an FAQ, the only opinions that matter are opponent's/TO. I know I've showed the rules to an opponent and he's gone that I have to PA first due to immediately *shrug* (this was before this whole discussion, so he may agree otherwise...after a lengthy chat). |
|
|
|
Post by 1b2a on Oct 23, 2019 4:38:55 GMT
TO here would differentiate based on Immediately, so there you go. If we're talking written, you definitely have to PA before they auspex. But if your TOs dont, then dont sweat it. Controlling player chooses order of strats. I set up my unit, offer you to auspex scan. You can't cos i'm 12.1" away. I perfect ambush. Opportunity to auspex scan is gone as I have now done something after setting up, you would be doing it after I perfect ambush not after I set up. I've had this discussion with a dozen TO's and two of the 40k rules writers (on seperate occasions), all in agreement. Its not a debate, that's just how it works. I mean the same thing happens within 12” because you choose to act before aspects scan, because at best they occur at the same time and you choose. That is RAW until the faq chasers here get us nerfed again... seriously raw, and shut it.... |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 23, 2019 6:19:39 GMT
OK, so RAW is God, we should never question RAW? I'm sorry, that is stupid: RAW, there's some utterly stupid stuff around. Since I'd like to play by RAW (by and large, least arguments), I query GW on this (for example, new Salamanders Self Sacrifice strat). Since I try not to be unsportsmanlike, I will query even if it's detrimental to me. Because you know, I like this game and don't feel the need to turn a blind eye to rules exploits in my favour.
Seriously, this attitude of yours that we're chasing nerfs is obnoxious: I just want to have a good game with no rules stupidity.
(Also, you know, RAW is second fiddle to TO: how many people played T1 DS while that was a RAW thing? I know TOs here didn't allow it).
|
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Oct 23, 2019 6:47:34 GMT
i'm sure GW trolls our forum and takes great care to pick up on our questions for targeted nerfs. it's very clear this happens. very clear.
meanwhile, in the really real world, the rest of us are trying to make the game run as smoothly as possible with their amateur hour rules writing. it's better than it used to be(oh, so much so), but doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of room for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1b2a on Oct 25, 2019 13:30:32 GMT
i'm sure GW trolls our forum and takes great care to pick up on our questions for targeted nerfs. it's very clear this happens. very clear. meanwhile, in the really real world, the rest of us are trying to make the game run as smoothly as possible with their amateur hour rules writing. it's better than it used to be(oh, so much so), but doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of room for improvement. 100% they do. In fact a high-up member is probably a rules guy. Hey GW sog off. When every race is better than tyranids in shooting and CC (since tyrnanids fight at 25% strength after anti-melee stratagems and overwatch (or 0% strength because of TFC), whereas they fight at full strength) I will encourage the RAW advantages we have left that haven't been patched by nerf-chasers. Let's face it. If you ask them, they're going to say they can auspex scan even though the rules say they cannot. Utter bS. IT COSTS 3 CP and it is called PERFECT (please do not swear) AMBUSH. What more do you want NO ONE in order to accept that the rules are the RULES?! |
|
|
|
Post by 1b2a on Oct 25, 2019 13:41:57 GMT
(Also, you know, RAW is second fiddle to TO: how many people played T1 DS while that was a RAW thing? I know TOs here didn't allow it). That's because tyranid players default to "OH NO WE AHVE TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE mentality" How many iron hands players are going to say their (please do not swear)'s broken and not run it? How many salamander sacrifice stratagem users are going to play it as SALAMANDERS ONLY because that's obviously what was intended? Meme: No one: Tyranids: We're not weak enough, pile on the nerfs (that break the current rules) /rant |
|
|
|
Post by killercroc on Oct 25, 2019 14:20:37 GMT
Tyranid players do not have a mentality that we are weak, we have enough functioning brain cells to read the rules, read our codex and read other codexes and determine we have a (please do not swear) hand compared to other players. Sure you can win Poker with a 5 and a 7 but having a pair of Aces sure helps. We try to work around our weaknesses and still keep playing. Honestly Tyranids have had it rough every edition since 5th that I could see, not that everything was bad but there were a lot of issues that would just never get addressed. Now in the day of instant digital FAQs we don't get our broken units fixed we get our combos nerfed. GSC can't ambush T1 because GW determined T1 arrival was too powerful, lol whoops SM get T1 arrival via a 62 point transport (So much for it being a balance issue).
I bet 9/10 of those IH players are not actually IH players but bandwagon jumpers that only played them because they were OP. They might complain but all they're gonna do is jump to the next OP army. They're not gonna talk among themselves to figure out workable combos because they don't can about the army, they want to win so they'll probably switch to Eldar if that's the new thing.
Accepting reality is often difficult thing for some people, conspiracy theories might make you feel better but so does a fat stack of pancakes and at least eating something is mildly productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 25, 2019 14:32:20 GMT
Man... Take a walk.
You don't need to check with your TO, but you're just opening yourself to situations like:
"BTW you can't hit through walls in melee even when within 1""
"but why"
"you can't shoot through walls cuz you can't see them, so you can't hit them cuz you can't see them".
One of the dumbest TO extremes I had to personally deal with, but it happens. You really can't just assume everything works in your favour and you won't get challenged, no matter how stupid or nonsensical the challenge is; even worse, you can't assume your TO can make the right decision, that one obviously didn't know any core rules. In the above, that moment could have been and was almost the deciding factor moment of do I win or do I suffer a horrible defeat.
Therefore, clarity > rules advantage, always, even if it disadvantages me, because it's easier to win with a disadvantage than it is to win with rules that could fall either way.
That's NOT to say you shouldn't argue your side of the coin with your TO (when you're pre-tourney, people have time to consider esoteric arguments. No one has time for it at the table), but that Is to say you should always check unclear or clear but contested rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by garg on Oct 25, 2019 16:37:54 GMT
1b2a, you have claim that basically any time a rule gets clarified for the negative for Nids this is because it was discussed here on the hive.
There are at least as many posts saying monsters are rubbish or lictors are junk or even GS sling is no longer meta worthy.
If GW were listening to everything then tervigon and other monsters would have invulns and lictors would be killing characters. Maybe it's a one way street and they only pick up on nerfs. If that's the case they'd probably nerf us with our without feedback from the hive..
|
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Oct 25, 2019 20:00:03 GMT
I love coming in and dumping on my favorite faction, and watching GW's drones take note and nerf us. It's always good for a laugh. Can't believe you guys don't get on board. Pretty sure we can get fleshborer termagants costed appropriately at 15ppm like they should be.
Such a threat shouldn't be so cheap, gants OP plz nerf.
|
|
|
|
Post by dranzyl on Oct 26, 2019 0:04:42 GMT
Raw is god because it gets people to agree (unwillingly) on how to play the game. Eventually when not discussing rules in forums (  ) you have to stop and agree with your opponent on what to do. Its not that tyranid players want to be nerfed, its a survival strategy. If you expect the worst, you wont be so disappointed when GW make a ruling. My personal motto is 'GW will break its own rules to favor marines and nerf tyranids' which is quite telling to be honest. The cynicism, stoicism, thick skin and determination required to be a long term tyranid fan is mind boggling sometimes it seems. Anyways keep on. |
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Oct 26, 2019 1:14:51 GMT
Salamanders look to be as bad or worse than IH are. Let that sink in.
|
|
) you have to stop and agree with your opponent on what to do.