|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 2:08 pm
Lt. Brookman Barrage weapons have the option to fire directly. Unless another set of range stats are included though, the Eartshaker has a minimum range of 36", but can fire directly, so you can still substract your BS from the scatter. It's all on page 34 of the rules. Alright. I'm more trying to figure out when Basilisks stopped being able to fire directly at a target (vice barrage) and didn't have a minimum range when doing so. Looks like it's when they updated the codex, as indirect fire used to be an upgrade, but the minimum range only applied when firing indirectly.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:58 am
DarkElf27 Lt. Brookman Barrage weapons have the option to fire directly. Unless another set of range stats are included though, the Eartshaker has a minimum range of 36", but can fire directly, so you can still substract your BS from the scatter. It's all on page 34 of the rules. Alright. I'm more trying to figure out when Basilisks stopped being able to fire directly at a target (vice barrage) and didn't have a minimum range when doing so. Looks like it's when they updated the codex, as indirect fire used to be an upgrade, but the minimum range only applied when firing indirectly. Methinks someone got tired of bassies nuking things at pointblank range. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 10:40 am
Vikki Keeler Methinks someone got tired of bassies nuking things at pointblank range. ninja But that was so fun! gonk 36" is a bit ridiculous, but oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:29 am
It's a heavy long range artillery piece, it makes sense in a fluffy kind of way that it has a minimum range. While I can understand the desire to fire it in the short to point-blank range bracket, I think it was mainly done to balance things out. 125 points for some kit that has extremely long range and the ability to drop a pie plate of MEQ death every turn is a good deal.
However, I'm sure they'll fix it come the next codex..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 10:05 am
Lt. Brookman It's a heavy long range artillery piece, it makes sense in a fluffy kind of way that it has a minimum range. While I can understand the desire to fire it in the short to point-blank range bracket, I think it was mainly done to balance things out. 125 points for some kit that has extremely long range and the ability to drop a pie plate of MEQ death every turn is a good deal. However, I'm sure they'll fix it come the next codex.. Aye. In the same fluffy sense, though, it would never be implemented in the figuratively close range combats of a 4x6 table. Didn't they used to be purchasable as off-the-table fire assets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:00 am
DarkElf27 Lt. Brookman It's a heavy long range artillery piece, it makes sense in a fluffy kind of way that it has a minimum range. While I can understand the desire to fire it in the short to point-blank range bracket, I think it was mainly done to balance things out. 125 points for some kit that has extremely long range and the ability to drop a pie plate of MEQ death every turn is a good deal. However, I'm sure they'll fix it come the next codex.. Aye. In the same fluffy sense, though, it would never be implemented in the figuratively close range combats of a 4x6 table. Didn't they used to be purchasable as off-the-table fire assets? So, a bassie is out of place and this guys isnt? rofl 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:19 am
Vikki Keeler So, a bassie is out of place and this guys isnt? rofl Same applies. What commander in the right mind would bring that into tactical action? xp Makes sense in cross-table Apocalypse multi-player matches, but not so much in regular games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:19 am
Vikki Keeler DarkElf27 Lt. Brookman It's a heavy long range artillery piece, it makes sense in a fluffy kind of way that it has a minimum range. While I can understand the desire to fire it in the short to point-blank range bracket, I think it was mainly done to balance things out. 125 points for some kit that has extremely long range and the ability to drop a pie plate of MEQ death every turn is a good deal. However, I'm sure they'll fix it come the next codex.. Aye. In the same fluffy sense, though, it would never be implemented in the figuratively close range combats of a 4x6 table. Didn't they used to be purchasable as off-the-table fire assets? So, a bassie is out of place and this guys isnt? rofl Honestly, 40k is at its heart still a skirmish game, now more than ever with the loads and loads of extra rules thrown in. While GW would like you to play it with as many models as possible, it is at heart still a game for smaller encounters between a few squads or the odd platoon with some support, not whole detachments with squadrons of tanks and full blown artillery support. @DE27, I think at one point during the second edition there was an option for off-table artillery support. I think one or more of the Chapter Approved army lists had an option for this, plus both old Inquisition codex books allowed for orbital strikes. One of the Forge World army lists also allowed for this, I can't remember which one, probably one of the Vraksian themed lists, must investigate when able to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:21 pm
So if a vehicle moves at combat speed, it can fire one weapon at BS and the rest are snapshots. What about Hunter-killer missile upgrades? If you opt to fire the HK on a given turn at combat speed, does it count as a weapon for determining what weapons fire at BS versus snapshots?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:32 am
DarkElf27 So if a vehicle moves at combat speed, it can fire one weapon at BS and the rest are snapshots. What about Hunter-killer missile upgrades? If you opt to fire the HK on a given turn at combat speed, does it count as a weapon for determining what weapons fire at BS versus snapshots? It is an additional weapon, so it falls under the same rules as the rest of the vehicle weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:39 am
Asmondai 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
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.
This hasn´t been tested, but I would consider this being possebility. <.<"
no awnser to my email, no erratan to fix this. <.<"
Should we be worried?
I resend the message again just in case it somehow got lost
in the aether by the will of the dark gods or something. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:53 pm
Asmondai Asmondai 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
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.
This hasn´t been tested, but I would consider this being possebility. <.<"
no awnser to my email, no erratan to fix this. <.<"
Should we be worried?
I resend the message again just in case it somehow got lost
in the aether by the will of the dark gods or something. :-/Hmm, flaw in your plan. A meshed X-Y-X formation isn't possible in regular infantry units. You cannot have minis from separate units within 1" of minis from another unit, so the "Y" cannot fit between the "X"s without causing the "X"s to be outside of 2" unit coherency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:20 pm
DarkElf27 Asmondai Asmondai 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
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.
This hasn´t been tested, but I would consider this being possebility. <.<"
no awnser to my email, no erratan to fix this. <.<"
Should we be worried?
I resend the message again just in case it somehow got lost
in the aether by the will of the dark gods or something. :-/Hmm, flaw in your plan. A meshed X-Y-X formation isn't possible in regular infantry units. You cannot have minis from separate units within 1" of minis from another unit, so the "Y" cannot fit between the "X"s without causing the "X"s to be outside of 2" unit coherency.
Page?
All I can find in the rulebook is the 1" restriction to Enemy models/units
in the Models in the Way (page 10) and can´t find any like that in the erratan.
Closest one I can find is not being able to move thru own friendly models,
but that hardly seems like a problem since you don´t move models in
unit-level like in warmachine.
I....think..... <.<"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:56 am
Going by the rules, when a single model unit or monstrous creature charges a unit, it can only charge that unit and only that unit can react to the charger, meaning only that unit can perform overwatch fire. Seeing as NO multiple combat is being triggered here (the monster might come into contact with the other squad, but it is not attacked), the other unit does NOT get to join in on the overwatch shooting and the charger will NOT lose the charge bonus.
I've been there myself last week when my opponent thought his Great Unclean One could charge both my Ratlings and my Russ tank, but that wasn't the case. He had to pick one target, completely ignoring the other. The ignored target as such, was NOT locked in combat and did NOT get overwatch fire (if it were able to do so, mind).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:56 am
Asmondai Quote?
Page?
All I can find in the rulebook is the 1" restriction to Enemy models/units
in the Models in the Way (page 10) and can´t find any like that in the erratan.
Closest one I can find is not being able to move thru own friendly models,
but that hardly seems like a problem since you don´t move models in
unit-level like in warmachine.
I....think..... <.<" Huh, I am mistaken on that one. I was crossing the 1" enemy model restriction with the rules about independent characters being required to join squads if within coherency range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
