Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Epic UK Rulespack Update

 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5477
Location: London, UK
Dan 1314 wrote:
I think the concept that lists can be broken, but no need to change them, as we will all play as "gentlemen" is absurd. The lists exist, and creating a winning list is a key part of the game. Play vs Necrons and tell me it isn't. (The next person whom questions my Gentlemanliness will face a morning duel on thoroughbreds with cravats on).
Some lists can be played in a eschewed fashion gaining an advantage, but when this advantage is too great (army of scouts in drop pods) either the list or rules need changing.
Regards the thunderhawks this gives a few options, change the stats, change the points or change the list build. Of the three, the latter is the only real option that will not change all other 'working' SM lists.
I think this is easily addressed through moving the thunderhawks into the air third, but, if that does detract from other lists, then keep the list the same with a "one thunderhawk for every thousand points" rule.

LoL I choose curries after the last tournament ;)

But a point well made, hence why I suggested, and reiterate, that we should add a limit of 1 aircraft per 600 points.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5477
Location: London, UK
dptdexys wrote:
It was agreed and is in the rules of 1.7.5 that units in the same formation being transported count for BMs and other things .
3.1.3 allows (independent) WEs to follow different rules to 1.7.5 and the rule does not state transported units count as part of the formation except when they dismount and only until the end of the action.
Suppression should be easy to work out when following the rules, are they in a position to shoot and thus take a BM for suppression (being on board a transport would not normally allow them to fire so would not be in a position to take a BM).

Hmm, well in that thread Neal basically clarified the difference between dedicated and independent transports with respect to transporting troops;
  • the distinction between which troops can be carried
  • how embarking and disembarking are carried out.
It does not refer to BMs or Suppression.

The proposed rule change causes some confusion and in-game inconsistencies. Consider the following two possible game examples
  1. A formation with a dedicated WE transport is broken, and withdraws with the troops inside the transport. It rallies at the end of the turn.
    In the following turn the dedicated WE is shot sustaining sufficient BMs to match the DC of the WE, but not the formation, which is thus free to activate.
  2. A formation is broken, and withdraws into an independent WE. It rallies at the end of the turn.
    In the following turn the independent WE is shot sustaining sufficient BMs to match its DC, thus breaking it according to this new ruling. :{[] :tut


Last edited by Ginger on Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:53 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 281
IJW Wartrader wrote:
RugII wrote:
What happens when the WE carrying other formations breaks? Do they break too? Dismount (if so when?)? Can a broken transport "ferry" unbroken units through ZoC screens? How do hack downs work? etc....


As far as I can see:

1. Any transported formations wouldn't have taken any BMs from whatever broke the transport, with the exception of crit effects that might kill some of the transported units. Why would they break?
2. As per 3.1.3 they can dismount at the end of any move made by the War Engine, so would have to dismount when it falls back or wait for it to rally and activate.
3. Transported units aren't on the table to interact with ZoCs.
4. Hackdowns would only apply if the transported formation was also broken.

For what it's worth, this is how I'd already been playing Plague Towers ferrying other formations in NetEA Death Guard and it's not caused any rules issues so far.


So the Executioner breaks, takes a double move (50cm) ignoring ZoC and terrain, then deposits the formations it was carrying which are then free to activate later in the turn? I'd hate myself for doing it but this does open up some quite gamey options for the Executioner! It's firepower isn't great, particularly after a crit, it may have more utility when broken since it gets a "free" double move before initiative is rolled for where it can drop transported unbroken formations off at the end.

I think this might re-open the old opportunity for a "Fearless charge".... Executioner breaks and deposits a unit in b2b with the enemy...I'll have to think about this.

Can a transported unit stay mounted during an engage action, electing not to partake, and then not break should the WE loose? Personally I would say no, but why should it be any different for breaking from shooting?

Does this mean the Executioner can offer refuge to broken units and not suffer from the BMs? If the Executioner engages with broken formations on board can I dismount them in b2b?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 1053
Location: London
I was under the impression that while a fearless unit didn't have to move after breaking, if it did move then it was required to move out of zones of control.

In terms of the unit inside, i can't see exactly why they would be allowed to break this particular rule as well given they have dismounted as part of a move.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 1053
Location: London
In the case of broken units inside something like an executioner, i'd assume they would be effectively immune to further BM's (making it a great fallback position if broken), however if the executioner was engaged i would assume it would effectively 'pull in' the units inside into the combat, so if you lose, the units are destroyed if not fearless. This is similar to say what happens when any kind of landing craft is sitting on the ground as far as i'm aware.

In terms of the discrepancy between assault and shooting, i'd almost consider it as if the war engine was blocking LOS to the unit inside, stopping it being shot. However, as with engaging with a war engine with a unit inside, it counts as combined for the combat.

This is effectively just how it works for something like a Thunderhawk or Ork Landa, and i would assume would work the same in this case.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:30 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 281
RichardL wrote:
In the case of broken units inside something like an executioner, i'd assume they would be effectively immune to further BM's (making it a great fallback position if broken), however if the executioner was engaged i would assume it would effectively 'pull in' the units inside into the combat, so if you lose, the units are destroyed if not fearless. This is similar to say what happens when any kind of landing craft is sitting on the ground as far as i'm aware.

In terms of the discrepancy between assault and shooting, i'd almost consider it as if the war engine was blocking LOS to the unit inside, stopping it being shot. However, as with engaging with a war engine with a unit inside, it counts as combined for the combat.

This is effectively just how it works for something like a Thunderhawk or Ork Landa, and i would assume would work the same in this case.


Quite a few assumptions then!

I'm also interested in how you'd use an Executioner or Manta


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1963
Location: South Yorkshire
RugII wrote:
So the Executioner breaks, takes a double move (50cm) ignoring ZoC and terrain, then deposits the formations it was carrying which are then free to activate later in the turn? I'd hate myself for doing it but this does open up some quite gamey options for the Executioner! It's firepower isn't great, particularly after a crit, it may have more utility when broken since it gets a "free" double move before initiative is rolled for where it can drop transported unbroken formations off at the end.

I think this might re-open the old opportunity for a "Fearless charge".... Executioner breaks and deposits a unit in b2b with the enemy...I'll have to think about this.

already covered in the rules, 3.1.3
Quote:
It can dismount the transported units at the end of a move in the same way as a normal transport vehicle (ie, the units are placed within 5cms of the transport at the end of a move).
Formations that dismount in this way may not take an action in the turn they dismount, but are allowed to either shoot or fight in an assault if the war engine that was transporting it is able to shoot or assault.


Quote:
Can a transported unit stay mounted during an engage action, electing not to partake, and then not break should the WE loose? Personally I would say no, but why should it be any different for breaking from shooting?

Depends if the opponent initiates the assault and intermingles them (you have no choice then) but if you initiate the assault its your choice but seeing as they could not do anything else that turn its a waste.
Again from 3.1.3
Quote:
It and the disembarking units would be treated as a single formation for the purposes of resolving the assault
my reading of that means anything that stays aboard is not part of the formation, though if the Transport was destroyed they would have to make dismount saves.

Quote:
Does this mean the Executioner can offer refuge to broken units and not suffer from the BMs? If the Executioner engages with broken formations on board can I dismount them in b2b?

As the broken formation could not be shot at then it would not take hackdowns for BMs that way.
For the assault part of the question already covered by Official Master FAQ
Quote:
Q: Is a War Engine Transport that is carrying a broken formation allowed to make an Assault?
A: Yes. However, any broken formations on board the War Engine are not allowed to disembark to take part in the Assault (they remain cowering inside instead!). If forced to disembark because the War Engine is destroyed during the Assault then they are automatically destroyed with no saving throws of any kind allowed. Also, note that the Blast Markers on the transported formation are counted when working out the result of the Assault (i.e. for who has the most Blast Markers, etc)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1963
Location: South Yorkshire
Ginger wrote:
The proposed rule change causes some confusion and in-game inconsistencies.


THIS IS NOT A RULES CHANGE IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE RULE SO EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME WAY. PLAYERS COUNTING TROOPS MOUNTED ON BOARD AN INDEPENDENT WAR ENGINE TRANSPORT ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE.
They only count as 1 formation during the WE activation and they have to have dismounted to do that, according to the rule 3.1.3

Show me where in 3.1.3 it says you can count other formations being transported as part of the formation for BMs . That only happens with rule 1.7.5 and
Quote:
Note that a war engine may carry other units from its own formation using the normal rules (see 1.7.5).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:19 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 281
dptdexys wrote:
Ginger wrote:
The proposed rule change causes some confusion and in-game inconsistencies.


THIS IS NOT A RULES CHANGE IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE RULE SO EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME WAY. PLAYERS COUNTING TROOPS MOUNTED ON BOARD AN INDEPENDENT WAR ENGINE TRANSPORT ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE.
They only count as 1 formation during the WE activation and they have to have dismounted to do that, according to the rule 3.1.3

Show me where in 3.1.3 it says you can count other formations being transported as part of the formation for BMs . That only happens with rule 1.7.5 and
Quote:
Note that a war engine may carry other units from its own formation using the normal rules (see 1.7.5).


I'm regretting asking, almost as much as trying an Executioner out!

Even with the cheating implied it wasn't competitive, I suspect I'll be the first and last person using that blasted confusing Dark Eldar war engine! Even after this clarification, or indeed if I'd got it right in the first place, opponents aren't ever going to be experienced enough facing off against such an oddity for it to be a smooth game and clean win.

The question remains, how do you make Executioners work at the current price point?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5477
Location: London, UK
dptdexys wrote:
Ginger wrote:
The proposed rule change causes some confusion and in-game inconsistencies.


THIS IS NOT A RULES CHANGE IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE RULE SO EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME WAY. PLAYERS COUNTING TROOPS MOUNTED ON BOARD AN INDEPENDENT WAR ENGINE TRANSPORT ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE.
They only count as 1 formation during the WE activation and they have to have dismounted to do that, according to the rule 3.1.3

Show me where in 3.1.3 it says you can count other formations being transported as part of the formation for BMs . That only happens with rule 1.7.5 and
Quote:
Note that a war engine may carry other units from its own formation using the normal rules (see 1.7.5).

Paraphrasing 3.1.3, it says that the transported troops and the (independent) WE are considered to be a single formation until the end the turn in which the troops disembark (to assault / shoot with the WE).
If so, it will take the combined DC + current formation size in BMs to break the ‘single formation’, no?

Oh, and another ‘inconsistency’ with the proposed amendment; consider the independent WE that is assaulted with ‘locked’ in troops.
Is the opponent forced to declare them intermingled? It seems a bit absurd not to, but technically . . .

And since that would almost certainly result in the destruction of the WE transport, far from helping the resolution, the onboard troops now suffer the consequences ?!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1963
Location: South Yorkshire
Ginger wrote:
Paraphrasing 3.1.3, it says that the transported troops and the (independent) WE are considered to be a single formation until the end the turn in which the troops disembark (to assault / shoot with the WE).


here is the actual rule from 3.1.3
3.1.3 wrote:
In both cases, the war engine and the transported units are treated as a single formation until the shooting attack or assault has been resolved. The war engine and the formation that disembarked are treated as being separate formations once the war engine has completely resolved its action

so it does not say until the end of the turn


Quote:
If so, it will take the combined DC + current formation size in BMs to break the ‘single formation’, no?

As it is not so then No, it will not take combined DC + the formation in BMs to break as it is clearly not a "single formation" when playing using the rule as it is actually written.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1963
Location: South Yorkshire
Ginger wrote:

Oh, and another ‘inconsistency’ with the proposed amendment; consider the independent WE that is assaulted with ‘locked’ in troops.

Again it is not an amendment, or a rules change, by constantly claiming it is does not make it true.
Quote:
Is the opponent forced to declare them intermingled? It seems a bit absurd not to, but technically . . .

According to the rules, players never have to intermingle formations unless they want to.

Quote:
And since that would almost certainly result in the destruction of the WE transport, far from helping the resolution, the onboard troops now suffer the consequences ?!

And so they should its a risk the player takes when trying to gain an in game advantage, similar to intermingling formations so you can do a combined assault thus risking a clipping assault if the opponent gets to act before you do. Or Air Transports picking up troops for an end of turn disengage to re assault next turn risking being attacked before the end of the turn.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1963
Location: South Yorkshire
RugII wrote:

Even with the cheating implied it wasn't competitive,

It does not matter if it is competitive or not you still have to follow the rules.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:32 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 281
dptdexys wrote:
RugII wrote:

Even with the cheating implied it wasn't competitive,

It does not matter if it is competitive or not you still have to follow the rules.


This reads like an accusation that I intentionally misrepresented the rules at two EUK tournaments to gain an unfair advantage?

I was assuming this was not deliberate and, tongue in cheek, pointed to the fact that someone looking to win a tournament wouldn't be gambling with an Executioner! Never mind.

Let this be a warning to players not to try any of the more exotic or unusual units at EUK events lest you get it wrong.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:11 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4305
RugII wrote:
dptdexys wrote:
RugII wrote:

Even with the cheating implied it wasn't competitive,

It does not matter if it is competitive or not you still have to follow the rules.


Let this be a warning to players not to try any of the more exotic or unusual units at EUK events lest you get it wrong.

What a ridiculous statement, diversity of lists is something that we have encouraged for years.

Nobody is accusing anybody of cheating in this case, exactly as nobody is creating any new rules just clarifying what the rules already say. That it has, on occasion, been used wrongly in the past is not a reason not to clarify it for the future, in fact quite the reverse.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net