|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:58 am
Lt. Brookman People who argue about this deserve a crowbar to the f*cking teeth. Down boy! sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:39 pm
Lt. Brookman STFU and Color Van Evok AFAIK, you remove nearest models first, and (with the exclusion of weaposn that ignore LOS) can't kill what is out of sight (behind a rhino, for example) so no more getting combat squad behind a razorback and exposing only the missile launcher guy - if you want him to live at least... when unit is aprtially in cover, you can order focused fire on models in the open (or lesser cover) to avoid cover saves entirely, but you can't kill the models that stay in cover then I can smell focused fire being the source of many arguments. It won't unless you are being very, very a**l about it. What you see is what you kill, simple as that. If your squad cannot see a model, it cannot engage it. If you can see it, or bits of it, you can shoot it. People who argue about this deserve a crowbar to the f*cking teeth. I've seen worse at tournaments. Dx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:22 am
STFU and Color Lt. Brookman STFU and Color Van Evok AFAIK, you remove nearest models first, and (with the exclusion of weaposn that ignore LOS) can't kill what is out of sight (behind a rhino, for example) so no more getting combat squad behind a razorback and exposing only the missile launcher guy - if you want him to live at least... when unit is aprtially in cover, you can order focused fire on models in the open (or lesser cover) to avoid cover saves entirely, but you can't kill the models that stay in cover then I can smell focused fire being the source of many arguments. It won't unless you are being very, very a**l about it. What you see is what you kill, simple as that. If your squad cannot see a model, it cannot engage it. If you can see it, or bits of it, you can shoot it. People who argue about this deserve a crowbar to the f*cking teeth. I've seen worse at tournaments. Dx That is why when trouble arises you call for a tournament referee or give your opponent the stare while suggestively holding up your tape measure like a garotte.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:27 am
I remember in "good old times" it involved suggestively batting your off-hand palm with a metal dereadnought...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:26 am
Can anyone clarify the situation of assaulting multible enemy units
in cases of a single model,
small/medium/large and/or monsterous creatures
(ie, Avatar, Deamon Prince, Dreadknight);
Since in the case of regular units with multible models,
the model can only move into base-contact with the secondary target if it is
unable to move into base-contact with the Primary target,
are single model units capable to peform an multible-combat charge
and in case of a large based models, will other units that would come into
base-contact with said assaulting large-based model that move into base
contact with a primary target, ever be counted as being assaulted? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:53 am
Asmondai Can anyone clarify the situation of assaulting multible enemy units
in cases of a single model,
small/medium/large and/or monsterous creatures
(ie, Avatar, Deamon Prince, Dreadknight);
Since in the case of regular units with multible models,
the model can only move into base-contact with the secondary target if it is
unable to move into base-contact with the Primary target,
are single model units capable to peform an multible-combat charge
and in case of a large based models, will other units that would come into
base-contact with said assaulting large-based model that move into base
contact with a primary target, ever be counted as being assaulted? neutral I guess possibly only way for the single model to multicharge would be if the ONLY way to get into btb with primary target was by getting into BTB with secondary target. Which is EXTREMELY unlikely, but possible if enemy mixes the formations of 2 squads, for example... ABABABAB xxx xxx A, B defending squads x charging large model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:44 am
Van Evok I guess possibly only way for the single model to multicharge would be if the ONLY way to get into btb with primary target was by getting into BTB with secondary target. Which is EXTREMELY unlikely, but possible if enemy mixes the formations of 2 squads, for example... ABABABAB xxx xxx A, B defending squads x charging large model
I fear there might be a possebility of screwing oppoments change of
assaulting in CC by fooling an oppoment to think he has a change
to charge a primary target and get second target aswell by mixing the units together. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:21 am
It is semi-official people,
I asked about the rule with a local gw-store;
Single model units, as the rules currently are,
are incapable of peforming a multible combat assault.
The rules currently does not support such possebility
and made me realise I may have found a way to break the game
by making single model units unable to assault any infantry units during the
match while getting Overwatches for FREE.
Just by having 2 units mixed together in a way they would support 2 models per model, ie;
YXYXY
XYXYX
YXYXY
XYXYX
Since rules state that, if a unit beforms a multi-combat-assault,
he must nominate which is Primary and which is Secondary.
Since the lone model itself is unit, he (as a primary assaultee) must
move into base contact with Primary unit with the shortest route,
but cannot move into base contact with the Secondary unit.
He can only move to Secondary unit if he couldn´t not reach the Primary unit,
but in his case, that is not an option.
Cannot move into BSB-contact with Primary without being in BSB-contact
with Secondary + Cannot move into BB-contact with Secondary since he
IS the primary assaultee and therefore must move into BSB-contact with the
Primary = Automatic Failed Charge, Free Overwatch from BOTH units.
This hasn´t been tested, but I would consider this being possebility. <.<"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:51 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:05 am
gonk
Can I has cookie then? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:53 pm
Asmondai gonk
Can I has cookie then? Sorry pilgrim, we already ates them. yum_donut
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:20 pm
Vikki Stardust Asmondai gonk
Can I has cookie then? Sorry pilgrim, we already ates them. yum_donut
Tell me, where did we go so wrong? emo Eats the donut. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:28 pm
Asmondai
Just by having 2 units mixed together in a way they would support 2 models per model, ie;YXYXY
XYXYX
YXYXY
XYXYXSince rules state that, if a unit beforms a multi-combat-assault,
he must nominate which is Primary and which is Secondary.
Since the lone model itself is unit, he (as a primary assaultee) must
move into base contact with Primary unit with the shortest route,
but cannot move into base contact with the Secondary unit.
He can only move to Secondary unit if he couldn´t not reach the Primary unit,
but in his case, that is not an option.
Cannot move into BSB-contact with Primary without being in BSB-contact
with Secondary + Cannot move into BB-contact with Secondary since he
IS the primary assaultee and therefore must move into BSB-contact with the
Primary = Automatic Failed Charge, Free Overwatch from BOTH units.
If GW supports this tactic, it alone would make up with all the anti-Ork rule changes (such as the change in the Fleet nerfing Power of the WAAAGH, Overwatch (which is actually heavily weighted against Orks), Focus Fire (hard to get such a large mob completely in cover while on the move), and the changes in wound allocation (nerfs Biker Nobs, formerly the best unit in the game))... ...but then GW will see that it give Ork players a genuine advantage and write an Obvious Rule Patch: Emperor forbid that the Orks actually be competitive in sixth-ed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:02 am
The orks do possess one of the older army books now, I think we can all rest assured that they will be fixed. Sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:51 am
notmuch_23 If GW supports this tactic, it alone would make up with all the anti-Ork rule changes (such as the change in the Fleet nerfing Power of the WAAAGH, Overwatch (which is actually heavily weighted against Orks), Focus Fire (hard to get such a large mob completely in cover while on the move), and the changes in wound allocation (nerfs Biker Nobs, formerly the best unit in the game))... ...but then GW will see that it give Ork players a genuine advantage and write an Obvious Rule Patch: Emperor forbid that the Orks actually be competitive in sixth-ed...
Is there a email address where I could send this conumdrum to? sweatdrop
I miss the official GW-Forum. sad Lady Blodwynn The orks do possess one of the older army books now, I think we can all rest assured that they will be fixed. Sooner or later.
Let´s not forget the black knights. sweatdrop
And aren´t they the oldest codex by publication? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
