|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:26 pm
DarkReaper40k Sorry Oryn but you're missing an important detail of that passage. It refers to vehicles that count as troops such as vehicles squadrons. They may NOT do so. So while yes, you are partially right in correcting me as I failed to elaborate, there is still partial truth to what was said. Knowing is half the battle after all. I referenced page 90; and therin all the restrictions on what particular Troops choices qualify as scoring. The issue was that scoring and contesting are not the same thing, and your response implied that they were.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:24 pm
Question for Tau players!
Is the statline in the main rulebook on page 299 for Crisis Shas'vre a typo? Strength, Toughness, and Wounds, I'm told, do not match the codex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:43 pm
DarkElf27 Question for Tau players! Is the statline in the main rulebook on page 299 for Crisis Shas'vre a typo? Strength, Toughness, and Wounds, I'm told, do not match the codex. As far as I can see, in both my AoBR mini-book and the big rulebook the stats are right. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that the rulebook summary sheet orders the units differently than the codex summary sheet. EDIT: Nevermind. I found the error. Looked at the wrong statline. They gave the Crisis Shas'vre the Stealth Shas'vre's statline. The Crisis version should have +1 wound, +1 Strength, and +1 Toughness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:31 am
Oryn DarkElf27 Question for Tau players! Is the statline in the main rulebook on page 299 for Crisis Shas'vre a typo? Strength, Toughness, and Wounds, I'm told, do not match the codex. As far as I can see, in both my AoBR mini-book and the big rulebook the stats are right. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that the rulebook summary sheet orders the units differently than the codex summary sheet. EDIT: Nevermind. I found the error. Looked at the wrong statline. They gave the Crisis Shas'vre the Stealth Shas'vre's statline. The Crisis version should have +1 wound, +1 Strength, and +1 Toughness. Alright, that's the conclusion we came to in the game. Thanks for clarifying. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:46 pm
Here´s an iteresting question that game up reading the rulebook
on page 42 section Fighting With Two Single-Handed Weapons,
specially on 2 same special weapon and normal+special weapon part;
on both rules, they state that models with these weapon-combo
would gain an additional attack, and continues with saying that
All of their attacks, including bonus attacks gain weapons benefits.
What is an additional attack?
Since bonus attack is already mentioned in the close combat
and range weapon section, aswell in two normal ccw,
am I to assume correct that models with this types of
weapon gears would also gain 1 more attack in cc?
Ie, base attack (A2) + charge (+1) + two ccw (+1) + same special/normal+special type ccw (+1) equals 5 attacks in cc?
(Not counting in Power fists, thunder hammers and lightning claws,
their rules prevents bonus attacks on any other then another same said weapon.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 2:54 am
So, here's how this goes.
If the person has a one handed weapon (pistol, chainsword, etc.) and another of the same type (this includes power swords into the group with basic CCWs), you get +1 attack.
If you take two CCWs, you do not get +2 attacks.
So...Base (2) + charge (1) + 2xCCW (1) = 4
Unless it specifically says in the item listing that it gives additional attacks, they don't benefit past the above formula at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:19 am
But rulebook posses 2 different categorys for ccw;
normal and special and therefor has own rules for 2 one handed weapon characers with different category ccw.
How this works with mentioned formula?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:59 am
Asmondai But rulebook posses 2 different categorys for ccw;
normal and special and therefor has own rules for 2 one handed weapon characers with different category ccw.
How this works with mentioned formula? If they have two different types, then they do not get the bonus attacks. When it says "special," it means Lightning Claws, Power Fists, Thunder Hammers, etc. Weapons that augment strength or have special properties BEYOND those of normal power weapons. If you have one of the aforementioned weapons, you only get bonus attacks if you are using a second weapon of the same type. Two Thunder Hammers, two Lightning Claws, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 11:31 am
which was made to stop overpowered powerfist veteran sergeants, probably... and to make more cool "two of the same weapon" models like Calgar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:06 pm
Asmondai But rulebook posses 2 different categorys for ccw;
normal and special and therefor has own rules for 2 one handed weapon characers with different category ccw.
How this works with mentioned formula? There's only one bonus for holding two weapons - special CCW's just have restrictions on when you can claim the bonus. Rulebook tells us that there are two kinds of CCW, normal and special. If a weapon does anything extra other than count as a weapon, it's a special CCW. Power Fists, Wychblades, Frost Blades, almost all Tyranid CCWs, etc. are all special weapons. If you wield two normal CCW, you get the +1A for two single handed weapons. If you wield a special and a normal, you get the +1A for two single handed weapons unless the special in question is a thunderhammer, power fist, or lightning claw (or references them ala chainfists and daemonhammers). If you wield two specials, then you get no bonus attack unless they are the same weapon, and you must choose one to use each round of combat. I understand where you're coming from - seeing the first line use the terminology "bonus attack" and then subsequent lines use "additional attack" while at the same time referencing "bonus attack" does make it look like they stack. But if there's one thing I've learned in years of reading GW rules, is that they are never able to keep their terminology consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 4:26 am
Oryn I understand where you're coming from - seeing the first line use the terminology "bonus attack" and then subsequent lines use "additional attack" while at the same time referencing "bonus attack" does make it look like they stack. But if there's one thing I've learned in years of reading GW rules, is that they are never able to keep their terminology consistent.
Hope they fix it before someone might try take advantage of having 2 terminology.
Nor explain things betterly either.
After reading BoLS; 10 issues with 40k rules article and check the rulebook,
I´ve realised that there are some issues that either
can´t be anwsered all or gain differrent interpertation.
Example the Doom of Malatai´s rule shows a AoE effect
that either will or doesn´t hit targets embarked,
which rulebook doesn´t state that you cannot target units
embarked, other then psy-powers (which then makes you wonder if it´s a boost power or shooting attack that doesn´t work),
which begs a question;
can you shoot models embarked if you can see them with LoS-rule?
And people thought 4th edition was confusing........ :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 1:15 pm
Asmondai can you shoot models embarked if you can see them with LoS-rule? When you embark a model onto a vehicle, they're supposed to be removed from the board, probably so you can't do the above, but yeah, to all intents and purposes barring friendly shooting, they're off the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 11:44 pm
The whole embarked troops story is too messed up... they cant be targeted, but can shoot using fire points (or all from open topped), they can use some psychic powers but cant use others (shooting if no fire points), they can even in the case of IG issue orders...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:32 am
In the case of IG, they can only do it out of their OWN Chimeras, so in case you run an allied list, or have Valks, you can't issue orders out of a Rhino/Land Raider/something silly along those lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:19 pm
Regarding the rules for vehicle squadrons and damage results:
I know there is a rule somewhere in the BRB that if a vehicle in a squadron suffers a "Damaged - Immobilized" result, it counts as a "Destroyed - Wrecked" result instead.
The following situation happened to me recently. A unit of Imperial Terminators with powerfists and one chainfist attacked a squadron of Traitor Guard Leman Russes in melee combat, inflicting four Penetrating hits on one Leman Russ - we'll call it the Green Leman Russ - and two Penetrating hits and one Glancing hit on the second Leman Russ - we'll call it the Yellow Leman Russ.
The damage results for the Yellow Leman Russ were rolled first, and came up as one Immobilized and two Weapons Destroyed. Normally, this Immobilized result would count as a Destroyed - Wrecked result, but the Green Leman Russ suffered multiple Destroyed results from its vehicle damage rolls.
In this situation, would the Yellow Leman Russ crew still destroy their vehicle to prevent it from falling into enemy hands? The damage results were all in the same phase, from the same attacking unit.
My thinker imagines the tank commander starting to order his crew to evacuate and blow the tank, but then he hears a loud explosion from the left and looks out of a vision slit to see his squadmate's tank having been spread across the battlefield by critical damage, and belaying his own order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
