|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 9, 2019 0:30:01 GMT
Considering a digital codex is pretty much the pdf version of the printed codex...
But hey. I don't have a physical. Who knows, you might be right. I'll probably head to the store this weekend to look at the help cards, but theres a good chance I'll find it's wording the same as the digital codex I have here. But not like that matters too much, because I'm mostly sure you mind is made up regardless.
I do agree SM were given some whacko good tools. Too many in fact. But thems the breaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 9, 2019 2:30:47 GMT
I see at least 2 people? Insisting the wording is "immediately after", so that they can claim interpretation is obvious and shouldn't be argued. It used to be 'immediately after': it changed in the new Codex (and yes, this includes hard copy: I had a discussion with an opponent who agreed with me that PA should go first due to 'immediately' while auspex just said 'after'). Whether this wording change actually means anything...well, it's GW. Does mean my precedence of the transport thing is a bit awkward: are they still supposed to be able to shoot the transport before disembark? Though the fact that they (based on sequencing wording) would have (and still are for others) been happening at the same time i.e. player's turn pick, yet auspex can go first, does throw some arguments about how it interacts with PA for a loop. There's also the problem of 'this might break stuff'. See disembarking 'immediately after' but auspex can go first. Of course, having 'after' mean 'at some point after' breaks even more stuff, so don't do that. Which leaves weirdness really, with either 'both declare, then resolve' or 'declare after anything else that says after is resolved'. The former is weird with no rules support, while the other results in other weirdness where you have to measure for auspex before moving with PA, since if you set up outside 12" and then move inside 12", you still don't meet the criteria for auspex. *sigh* The more I think about this, the messier it becomes.
Edit: Also, everyone commenting about how 'SM have all the cool toys': so? This discussion is still basically as relevant for Eldar/DW/SW/Ad Mech (and probably a couple of others), except they have slightly different wording of 'immediately'.
|
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Nov 9, 2019 3:02:14 GMT
Considering a digital codex is pretty much the pdf version of the printed codex... But hey. I don't have a physical. Who knows, you might be right. I'll probably head to the store this weekend to look at the help cards, but theres a good chance I'll find it's wording the same as the digital codex I have here. But not like that matters too much, because I'm mostly sure you mind is made up regardless. I do agree SM were given some whacko good tools. Too many in fact. But thems the breaks. No my mind is not, but I guess you're allowed to make up your mind about me and that's not some sort of issue even though it is when you incorrectly assert I'm doing it? Hypocritical much? Haven't seen the newer versions, if it as it says there is zero wiggle room. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 9, 2019 6:19:10 GMT
Considering a digital codex is pretty much the pdf version of the printed codex... But hey. I don't have a physical. Who knows, you might be right. I'll probably head to the store this weekend to look at the help cards, but theres a good chance I'll find it's wording the same as the digital codex I have here. But not like that matters too much, because I'm mostly sure you mind is made up regardless. I do agree SM were given some whacko good tools. Too many in fact. But thems the breaks. No my mind is not, but I guess you're allowed to make up your mind about me and that's not some sort of issue even though it is when you incorrectly assert I'm doing it? Hypocritical much? Haven't seen the newer versions, if it as it says there is zero wiggle room. You were saying that a pdf version of a hard copy is more likely to be wrong compared to your data cards, pretty hard to conclude otherwise. But I didn't know the original 2017 codex had a different wording either, so fair is fair. Who expected them to make changes like that between codexes? On a side note, I do have my mind made up about you, yes, based on your standard responses and general approach to disagreements. I don't see the hypocrisy in it, it's just an assumption which you are free to disprove at any time. But that's just an opinion, don't let it bother you. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 9, 2019 6:26:03 GMT
I see at least 2 people? Insisting the wording is "immediately after", so that they can claim interpretation is obvious and shouldn't be argued. It used to be 'immediately after': it changed in the new Codex (and yes, this includes hard copy: I had a discussion with an opponent who agreed with me that PA should go first due to 'immediately' while auspex just said 'after'). Whether this wording change actually means anything...well, it's GW. Does mean my precedence of the transport thing is a bit awkward: are they still supposed to be able to shoot the transport before disembark? Though the fact that they (based on sequencing wording) would have (and still are for others) been happening at the same time i.e. player's turn pick, yet auspex can go first, does throw some arguments about how it interacts with PA for a loop. There's also the problem of 'this might break stuff'. See disembarking 'immediately after' but auspex can go first. Of course, having 'after' mean 'at some point after' breaks even more stuff, so don't do that. Which leaves weirdness really, with either 'both declare, then resolve' or 'declare after anything else that says after is resolved'. The former is weird with no rules support, while the other results in other weirdness where you have to measure for auspex before moving with PA, since if you set up outside 12" and then move inside 12", you still don't meet the criteria for auspex. *sigh* The more I think about this, the messier it becomes.
Edit: Also, everyone commenting about how 'SM have all the cool toys': so? This discussion is still basically as relevant for Eldar/DW/SW/Ad Mech (and probably a couple of others), except they have slightly different wording of 'immediately'.
Pretty sure the latter is what is commonly accepted though? As the move after setting up is not *part of setting up*, being done immediately after. You just don't allow them the conditions to trigger Auspex, at all. |
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Nov 9, 2019 17:53:28 GMT
No my mind is not, but I guess you're allowed to make up your mind about me and that's not some sort of issue even though it is when you incorrectly assert I'm doing it? Hypocritical much? Haven't seen the newer versions, if it as it says there is zero wiggle room. You were saying that a pdf version of a hard copy is more likely to be wrong compared to your data cards, pretty hard to conclude otherwise. But I didn't know the original 2017 codex had a different wording either, so fair is fair. Who expected them to make changes like that between codexes? On a side note, I do have my mind made up about you, yes, based on your standard responses and general approach to disagreements. I don't see the hypocrisy in it, it's just an assumption which you are free to disprove at any time. But that's just an opinion, don't let it bother you. Considering they were from their (please do not swear) beginnings and have only recently mopped up their trash, unless you think the paint app is working 100% lol. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Nov 10, 2019 5:40:31 GMT
Point taken on the paint app...
|
|
|
|
Post by dandc on Nov 10, 2019 20:41:22 GMT
If I may briefly return to the OP, I played my first game in like six months yesterday, and of all the stuff I did wrong I think board presence/control was the worst.
Started swarmlord and 2 units of genestealers on the table, Sanctus came out of his blip to double tap some psyker and left it with a wound. Everything else in deepstrike or sent below.
I was playing against Harlequins, and he had everything on bikes or in Starweavers and deployed ontop of buildings with no room to join them. So nothing to charge. The result was I basically fed him my army piecemeal. Turn 1 he nearly wiped out my genestealers. Turn 2 I brought most everything in and basically everything except my aberrants just died. Lost 9-24 (maelstrom). Turn 3 I brought in the Patriarch and despite making a 10 inch charge into a troupe he did no damage and died next turn.
Just felt like all my troops were liabilities. This thread has been really useful at making me reconsider how to structure a list to have a bit of board presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1b2a on Nov 11, 2019 20:47:55 GMT
Just felt like all my troops were liabilities. This thread has been really useful at making me reconsider how to structure a list to have a bit of board presence. Hey the purpose of this thread IMO was to minimize the board presence while still getting 1000/2000 points and half units on table. And that's to keep from losing stup T1, which we're most vulnerable at (on the table rofl). But I did have a question to that end. When a blip is on the table, does it count as deployed? So if you use the stratagem to remove 3 blips from the table, do those 3 blips count as groun presence and you may remove them? Do they count as having been deployed, so you can deploy them turn 4, 5, or 6, like the 1cp return to the shadows stratagem? It would be awesome to have almost a battalion removed from the table this way. Also to confirm, with the retun to the shadows strat (return a unit that was on table at the beginning of the movement phase into reinf.) can they return turn 4 5 and 6? Earlier it was discussed that you could. If you could use the other 3 blip stratagem too, even better, And back to the digression... I played a small RTT. PA was ruled for "can" auspex. Then the TO found a rule where he came to me and decided for future games you may not Auspex scan perfect ambush. He said that this rule told him that sequencing would cancel out the ability to auspex. Page 11 of RULEBOOK FAQ: "Q. Some rules – such as Early Warning Override in Codex: T’au Empire, the Ever Vigilant Stratagem in Codex: Adeptus Custodes, and the Auspex Scan Stratagem in Codex: Space Marines – allow units to shoot at enemy units that have just arrived on the battlefield as reinforcements, as if it were the Shooting phase" "Q2. If the unit arriving as reinforcements has another unit embarked inside it which must disembark after it has been set up (such as units embarked within a Drop Pod, or a Tyrannocyte), can the firing unit shoot at the unit as it disembarks? A: No – though the unit can shoot at the Drop Pod/ Tyrannocyte before the units inside disembark." I think that answers it. If you can't auspex a unit dropping from a drop pod/cyte because that's a different stage of sequence, then PA happening would be like disembarking. The sequence to auspex is broken. That is what my TO decided after ruling against me and then doing a deep dive into auspex faqs. Thoughts? I say spread this like Cali fire |
|
|
|
Post by gorsameth on Nov 11, 2019 23:28:34 GMT
Just felt like all my troops were liabilities. This thread has been really useful at making me reconsider how to structure a list to have a bit of board presence. Hey the purpose of this thread IMO was to minimize the board presence while still getting 1000/2000 points and half units on table. And that's to keep from losing stup T1, which we're most vulnerable at (on the table rofl). But I did have a question to that end. When a blip is on the table, does it count as deployed? So if you use the stratagem to remove 3 blips from the table, do those 3 blips count as groun presence and you may remove them? Do they count as having been deployed, so you can deploy them turn 4, 5, or 6, like the 1cp return to the shadows stratagem? It would be awesome to have almost a battalion removed from the table this way. Also to confirm, with the retun to the shadows strat (return a unit that was on table at the beginning of the movement phase into reinf.) can they return turn 4 5 and 6? Earlier it was discussed that you could. If you could use the other 3 blip stratagem too, even better, And back to the digression... I played a small RTT. PA was ruled for "can" auspex. Then the TO found a rule where he came to me and decided for future games you may not Auspex scan perfect ambush. He said that this rule told him that sequencing would cancel out the ability to auspex. Page 11 of RULEBOOK FAQ: "Q. Some rules – such as Early Warning Override in Codex: T’au Empire, the Ever Vigilant Stratagem in Codex: Adeptus Custodes, and the Auspex Scan Stratagem in Codex: Space Marines – allow units to shoot at enemy units that have just arrived on the battlefield as reinforcements, as if it were the Shooting phase" "Q2. If the unit arriving as reinforcements has another unit embarked inside it which must disembark after it has been set up (such as units embarked within a Drop Pod, or a Tyrannocyte), can the firing unit shoot at the unit as it disembarks? A: No – though the unit can shoot at the Drop Pod/ Tyrannocyte before the units inside disembark." I think that answers it. If you can't auspex a unit dropping from a drop pod/cyte because that's a different stage of sequence, then PA happening would be like disembarking. The sequence to auspex is broken. That is what my TO decided after ruling against me and then doing a deep dive into auspex faqs. Thoughts? I say spread this like Cali fire Sadly I disagree. You can't shoot the unit in the pod because the pod lands, Auspex lets you pick a target to shoot at. The unit is not a valid target because it is in the pod. Auspex happens. Then the unit exits the pod. If you arrive outside of 12" or LoS then indeed, you can't Auspex, even if PA brings you into range/sight. But if your deploying within 12" and in LoS PA doesn't stop Auspex. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 12, 2019 1:05:44 GMT
I think that answers it. If you can't auspex a unit dropping from a drop pod/cyte because that's a different stage of sequence, then PA happening would be like disembarking. The sequence to auspex is broken. That is what my TO decided after ruling against me and then doing a deep dive into auspex faqs. Thoughts? I say spread this like Cali fire It was something I mentioned in the previous thread. The issue is, with most GW ruling, why? Is this an auspex thing? A transport thing? A specific case to these that GW would only answer this way for? Also, that FAQ was written for the previous auspex wording: so if 'immediately' vs just 'after' matters, that FAQ tells us nothing.
Edit: Also, having that flat out prevent auspex? That's silly: by the same logic, you couldn't actually disembark after auspex, because it says 'immediately after' set up. If PA prevent auspex' after set up, then auspex would prevent disembark's immediately after set up.
Sadly I disagree. You can't shoot the unit in the pod because the pod lands, Auspex lets you pick a target to shoot at. The unit is not a valid target because it is in the pod. Auspex happens. Then the unit exits the pod. If you arrive outside of 12" or LoS then indeed, you can't Auspex, even if PA brings you into range/sight. But if your deploying within 12" and in LoS PA doesn't stop Auspex. The FAQ doesn't actually answer much: you can. It doesn't say you have to shoot the pod before the unit disembarks. Now, why wouldn't you for that specific instance, but for more general cases of auspex sequencing? If the loss of 'immediately' doesn't mean anything, then all it demonstrates is that auspex doesn't follow the normal rules for sequencing with regards to transports (i.e. both disembark and auspex said 'immediately after' at the time of the FAQ): is that an auspex thing, or a strat thing, or something else? I don't think there's enough to draw conclusions from here. And outside 12" was never in contention, since it never sets up within 12". |
|
|
|
Post by mule on Nov 12, 2019 6:18:38 GMT
Aren't pods just a deepstrike method?
The pod and the unit setup happen in the same step if thats the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1b2a on Nov 12, 2019 13:07:51 GMT
I think that answers it. If you can't auspex a unit dropping from a drop pod/cyte because that's a different stage of sequence, then PA happening would be like disembarking. The sequence to auspex is broken. That is what my TO decided after ruling against me and then doing a deep dive into auspex faqs. Thoughts? I say spread this like Cali fire It was something I mentioned in the previous thread. The issue is, with most GW ruling, why? Is this an auspex thing? A transport thing? A specific case to these that GW would only answer this way for? Also, that FAQ was written for the previous auspex wording: so if 'immediately' vs just 'after' matters, that FAQ tells us nothing.
Edit: Also, having that flat out prevent auspex? That's silly: by the same logic, you couldn't actually disembark after auspex, because it says 'immediately after' set up. If PA prevent auspex' after set up, then auspex would prevent disembark's immediately after set up.
Sadly I disagree. You can't shoot the unit in the pod because the pod lands, Auspex lets you pick a target to shoot at. The unit is not a valid target because it is in the pod. Auspex happens. Then the unit exits the pod. And outside 12" was never in contention, since it never sets up within 12". Outside of 12” really sucks. You might as well go home at that point. Even if the faq was written for the old wording, it doesn’t matter. It is written as the most updated faq so it applies to “after” word I as well. That’s one thing I am sure of. It’s GWs job to ensure consistency so that all changes are captured together. If the wording was changed to “after” then it’s even more clear to me that an “immediately after” ability prevents it from happening. In future games where it matters I’m going to be like “Hey you can’t auspex” get TO. “Mine says immediately after , AND they changed it to after on auspex” “and check out this ruling on transports, since landing the units is after they can’t do it”. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 12, 2019 16:23:42 GMT
I've said this time and time again: GW rules are not meant to live up to this kind of scrutiny. What I know for certain is that however you think this should work, you have a 50-50 shot of being wrong. I think GWs plan is to let Auspex scan work when you set up, I'm on the side of letting them shoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by killercroc on Nov 12, 2019 16:31:16 GMT
I've said this time and time again: GW rules are not meant to live up to this kind of scrutiny. What I know for certain is that however you think this should work, you have a 50-50 shot of being wrong. I think GWs plan is to let Auspex scan work when you set up, I'm on the side of letting them shoot. 50-50 unless it's to do with Marines, then it's always whatever benefits the Marine the most. |
|
