Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

2011 FAQ update, part 1

 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
Being ignored

You're not being ignored, trust me on that.


Quote:
Thanks for posting that Steve.

So it needs to have its location pre-planned and arrival turn preset. Looking at it practically, any opponent who hears 'Arrival in Turn 3' will know it's very likely to appear right near their Blitz objective, and for it to arrive in turn 2 it will have to be on my side of the table and might as well have started the game on board as an activation.

Definitely not the sort of flexibility in behind enemy lines attacking I was hoping for 300pts, but never mind I'll take something else. Thanks for clarifying.


In the case of the Krieg list, the list in general is quite slow, so the ability to deep strike a quality formation like Engineers can easily be worth that 300pts.

I like to bring them on at the start of turn 2, somewhere near the centreline. I'll have moved my forces up to that point on turn 1, so they're all ready to attack together. Turn 3 Blitz grabs are also useful for the slow Krieg.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Matt-Shadowlord wrote:
So it needs to have its location pre-planned and arrival turn preset. Looking at it practically, any opponent who hears 'Arrival in Turn 3' will know it's very likely to appear right near their Blitz objective, and for it to arrive in turn 2 it will have to be on my side of the table and might as well have started the game on board as an activation.


You don't have to announce the turn it will arrive, you write it down secretly.

I've used the "blitz assumption" to my advantage, surprising an opponent by popping out of the middle of the board on turn 2.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 1316
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
zombocom wrote:
Matt-Shadowlord wrote:
So it needs to have its location pre-planned and arrival turn preset. Looking at it practically, any opponent who hears 'Arrival in Turn 3' will know it's very likely to appear right near their Blitz objective, and for it to arrive in turn 2 it will have to be on my side of the table and might as well have started the game on board as an activation.


You don't have to announce the turn it will arrive, you write it down secretly.

I've used the "blitz assumption" to my advantage, surprising an opponent by popping out of the middle of the board on turn 2.


I've done the same with Tyranid burrowing swarms. Assumptions like these bring a bit of poker to the table, just like orbital bombardment and drop pods.

/Fredmans


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:23 am
Posts: 706
Quote:
In the case of the Krieg list, the list in general is quite slow, so the ability to deep strike a quality formation like Engineers can easily be worth that 300pts.


I understand what you mean Evil and Chaos, and agree to the degree that if the tunnelers were in the Mossinian or Baran lists they would be well worth including. Those two armies are crying out for this sort of a formation to add an additional dimension to their static game play, and Engineers would give a clear path to taking Blitz and preventing YSNP. It's a real shame they aren't part of these armies.

Krieg are different though, they have one of the best formations available to accomplish those goals in the form of a Warhound that isn't just firepower from turn one and a versatile threat that can move 90cm in a turn, but also costs less.

Keep in mind these Engineers cost more than Chaos Terminators and aren't just in a completely different ballpark for combat ability but also for versatility. Compared to deepstrike methods like teleport or drop pod rules (the ones quoted in 'Siege' that got me interested) pre-planned and slow tunnelling is really constrictive. I'd hoped to use them but now I know the rules in full they struggle to justify a place in a list that has any alternative way to take a Blitz or prevent YSNP.

I'd actually suggest to the army champs they get moved to Baran or Mossinian lists if there is an update in future.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Neal
Could we add an FAQ regarding the number of units that gain 'concealment' (-1 to hit) by touching AV and WE.
Although this was debated at length on the old forums and accepted as "2 units per AV or DC", there does not seem to be any mention in the FAQ.

Also, could we find some resolution to the "specialist capabilities" issue that has been identified here and following.
RAW it seems to be far more restrictive than most people play, but equally the question of when the restriction actually applies has never been satisfactorily resolved. (It may just be a question of listing those special abilities and occasions that require 'all other units' to posses before they may be used.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 2:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Ginger wrote:
Neal
Could we add an FAQ regarding the number of units that gain 'concealment' (-1 to hit) by touching AV and WE.
Although this was debated at length on the old forums and accepted as "2 units per AV or DC", there does not seem to be any mention in the FAQ.


There is no limit - as many as you can fit gain the bonus.

I know the 2008 doc had a 2 bases per AV, however if you do not play by those rules, then I do not believe there is any confusion. I say leave it in. Anything that benefiits foot-slogging over other forms of battle entry should be promoted rather than closed down.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 2:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Given that every one of the NetERC are MIA at the moment, I think we'll have to leave this discussion for a while....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 3:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 am
Posts: 1331
Location: Australia
how is allowing multiple units contacting AV for cover benefiting a foot slogger army? by very definition, it benefits the armies with transports most, because they're the ones that are standing next to AVs

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 3:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
FB means "footslogger" to mean any army based on the ground not coming from the air like a marine drop force etc. The term mud marines describes a footslogger force, for instance. They get transports but they rather quickly become footsloggers with the loss of a single transport.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 4:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Dobbsy wrote:
FB means "footslogger" to mean any army based on the ground not coming from the air like a marine drop force etc. The term mud marines describes a footslogger force, for instance. They get transports but they rather quickly become footsloggers with the loss of a single transport.


CORRECT!

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:52 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I'm not stepping back in but as I've been catching up I've noticed several potential FAQs, so I thought I'd post them in here as a sort of "to do" list so nothing gets left out.
========

There was a proposal in the "Commander and the Eldar" thread to expand this FAQ:
Quote:
Q: If I have formations with differing Initiative values, which one do I use when activating them together (e.g. with a Commander)?
A: Use the activating formation (i.e. the commander’s formation)

to something like:
Quote:
A: Use the activating formation (i.e. the commander's formation). Aside from the -1 penalty noted in 2.1.2 for Blast Markers on the participating formations, only the bonuses and penalties for the commander's formation apply to the initiative roll.


From the 0cm move thread:
Quote:
Q: Can a 0cm move unit on a road claim the +5cm move bonus?
A: Yes and no. There is no clear distinction in the rules between 0cm move and truly immobile units. We recommend that units that could potentially be moved in an emergency situation, like field artillery pieces, be considered to have a move of 0cm. Truly immobile units such as a bunker in a scenario that has a unit data sheet should be considered as immobile under any circumstances.

A 0cm move unit would possibly benefit from the road movement bonus, allowing it to move 5cm per move. However, it may obviously not leave the road as it would then lose its bonus movement. Also, unit with a speed designated as “immobile” may not move, even on a road.

As always, if you anticipate any issue with this rule, for example you are playing Baran Siegemasters with many 0cm move units, go over it with your opponent during the 5 minute warm-up.

to add something like:
Quote:
If you cannot agree with your opponent on whether or not a particular unit should be allowed to claim a movement bonus, it cannot.

Although, reading over it now, the whole FAQ could use a bit of tidying up, or even a rewrite.

From the same thread, an additional proposed FAQ to the effect of:
Quote:
Q: The garrison rules in the GT scenario say a formation with a unit with speed 0 can garrison. Is a unit designated as "immobile" or "n/a" allowed to garrison?
A: Yes. Unless another rule clearly supercedes the deployment options (such as an aircraft having to deploy via reserves, not as a 0cm move ground unit), units designated "immobile" or "n/a" for movement garrison exactly as a 0cm move unit.


The defensive AA/jink question came up a couple times. I think this is the answer we arrived at, but I haven't gone through all the threads to confirm.
Quote:
Q: When a jinking aircraft loses its "attack" does that include defensive AA attacks, or does it only mean the aircraft loses its normal shooting options?
A: The loss of attacks refers to the aircraft's normal shooting attacks - ground attack and intercept. It retains the ability to function in a ground assault and to fire defensive AA.


There may be a needed FAQ or two on fortifications from this thread.

I also have notes that we need to go over the interactions of Charge Moves, ZoC, and Barging in a fair amount of detail: general thread, and there was a lot of Krieg Gorgon discussions that I can't seem to locate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Thanks for highlighting this thread Neal, I shall follow it right now :)

To the wider world I do intend to pick up this stuff once the army book see's the light of day...and that means Jan 2012. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:50 am
Posts: 835
A reminder to update the FAQ in regards to flying formations and BTS.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18489

The current ruling of...
Quote:
Q: Do Spacecraft count for the Break Their Spirit goal if they are the most expensive formation in an army?
A: No. Spacecraft (or any off-board units or formations) do not count towards goals.
... allows for two contradictory positions. That Aircraft can never count for BTS (they're defined as 'off board formations'), or they only don't count for BTS while they're off board, but do count if destroyed while on board.

The general concensus of the linked thread is the latter (counts if destroyed), but it's still being interpreted as the former (never counts).

Morgan Vening


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
It's unfortunate that the air rules (4.2) use the term off table rather than in reserve. A sentence stating that a unit/formation off table does not count as destroyed is probably in order.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2011 FAQ update, part 1
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I agree with both Morgan and Meph, and suggest the FAQ be re-worded thus:
Quote:
Q: Do Spacecraft count for the Break Their Spirit goal if they are the most expensive formation in an army?
A: No. Spacecraft and any units or formations in reserve off-table do not count towards goals. However Aircraft and their contents do count towards the BTS goal if they are destroyed on or over the battlefield.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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