First 5th ed. game (SM vs Orks)

[Daeothar]

me and my regular opponent had our first 5th edition game last night and some oddball things occurred, for which we could not find an explanation in either the BRB or the appropriate codex and had to make an on-the-fly decision for instead.

 

my turn 1 (he went first): My Dreadnaught with two twin linked autocannons fired at one of his Trukks (yes; he played Orks) zooming around a building near the edge of the table. I hit it multiple times and with all thing resolved, I had two rolls on the Ramshackle Table. I rolled Kareen and Kaboom. I then rolled for the Kareen effect and it scattered 10 inches, off the table! So then came the discussion; are the boys in the truck lost off the table or not?

 

To prevent endless discussion (it was taking long enough as it was, with all the unfamiliar rules to be looked up in unfamiliar rulebooks and codices) I offered for his boys to be able to roll for their Kaboom hits and have them come back onto the table his next turn. I know; hopelessly sporting of me and a decision I came to regret later on, when the Powerclawed Nob in that same mob managed to tear up my Dread, which had closed in to contest the objective they were sitting on (losing me the game)...

 

So; what should it have been? Were those boys lost off the table after scattering or did I do the right thing allowing them back on? :)

[WarpSpawn]

This may be a little bit of creative reading of my own but I think it makes sense.

 

The edge of the board is impassable terrain, in effect if not in name. The ramshackle rule does tell you what to do if it would careen into terrain, so I would suggest applying this.

 

For what it's worth these days, GW's rulebook FAQ also says models cannot move off the table. About the only exception to this models falling back off the table, who do not even technically move off the table but are removed when thy touch it.

 

To summarise, stop the trukk when you reach the edge or an inch short, either way it cannot move off the table.

[King_Pash]

I would second WarpSpawn. Unless a unit is removed off the table via legit rules (falling back etc.) it stops just short of being off it and hence has to try and disembark from there.

[Daeothar]

I see...

 

We were/are still in a 4th ed/apocalypse train of thought, so things like scattering off the table (by deepstrike for instance) or falling back off the edge were taken into account to make sense of the situation.

 

As it was, we seem to have played it exactly as it should have been then. Imagine that... :tu:

[Trekari]

To answer your question, first I must mention the rules of Ramshackle.

 

Pg. 41: If the Trukk suffers more than one Vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Exploded! result, roll one dice per result on the Ramshackle table, but only apply the lowest dice roll.

 

Hence, the Trukk would never have Kareened, since you rolled a Kaboom as well.

 

As for moving off the table, it WAS moved off the table by legit rules, from it's own Codex for that matter. As far as I'm concerned, the boyz would have been destroyed. The Ork player knows about Ramshackle and should not be given the best of both worlds. (You can't expect to hover around the edge of the board and get a bonus 2d6" of risk-free movement without also recognizing that a bad roll could result in the loss of your passengers.)

 

You cannot voluntarily move a unit off the table edge, but Ramshackle is not voluntary movement. The table-edges are also NOT mentioned as being impassable terrain, whether they function that way "in essence" or not. If you can scatter off the table with gunfire, and if you can scatter off the table with Deep Striking, then clearly you can scatter off the table with Ramshackle.

 

EDIT:

 

That being said, the unofficial "House Rule" by GW in the FAQ:

 

Q. If a Trukk suffers a ‘Kareen!’ result, what

happens if the random movement forces it into

friendly models or off the table?

A. The vehicle stops as soon as it comes into

contact with friendly models or the table’s edge.

 

Personally, I would not back down on my viewpoint and at the worst, force a dice-roll to decide things if my opponent insisted that they stop. I feel very strongly that it should be considered part of the Risk/Reward equation.

[WarpSpawn]

To be honest, I am struggling to find anything in the rulebook that says you cannot move off the board at all, let alone differentiates between voluntary and compulsory. The inability to move off the board is one of those things that is just taken for granted, as far as I am concerned. That said, the rules do not talk about any general situation where you can move off the board either, or what to do if you wish to move back on.

 

That being the case, we are both just inventing house rules here (or choosing to use GW's). Needless to say, I like mine/GW's better. For one thing, it has the virtue of being much simpler to implement as you do not need to invent a situation for every single compulsory movement situation that may arise, where moving off the board is not already mentioned (in the positive or negative).

 

(Note: This opinion may be revised if someone can give me a page reference where it discusses moving off the board but I'm sticking to it otherwise.)

[maniclurker]

I'm with Trekari. I hate trukks, and I hate their special rules. More often than not, it greatly benefits the orks, not to mention mucking up things.

 

I think if something bad happens, they should have to deal with it.

[Praeger]

Agreed.

 

Table edge is not terrain.

 

If a normal squad moves off the table for any reason, they are gone including any atached charatcers, so id say the exact same should apply here.

[nighthawks]

GW disagrees, though I feel that Trek et al have a very intuitive interpretation. I believe that FAQs are official rules revisions and clarifications, though, so I would use that method, despite its seeming over generosity.

[Trekari]

FAQs are not official rules revisions.

 

Errata is, FAQs are not.

 

Check GW's site for more information.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...amp;aId=3400019

[SeattleDV8]

unfortunately that cop-out part 2 (the DA FAQ was part 1) is a problem. I do not understand why they can't just set the rule out. The FAQ tells us what was intended, so make it the rule. These "soft" rules are not good for a game. Are all the rules that someone dislikes now subject to a D6 role? The unwillingness to make a stand is bad for the hobby. I will treat the FAQ's as the official rules.

FAQ BRB and FAQ Orks both state that you can't leave the board, you stop at the edge.

[Octavulg]

However, they are official for tournament play. They are also produced by the same people who produced the rules. This gives them rather more weight than the typical house rule.

[Trekari]

unfortunately that cop-out part 2 (the DA FAQ was part 1) is a problem. I do not understand why they can't just set the rule out. The FAQ tells us what was intended, so make it the rule. These "soft" rules are not good for a game. Are all the rules that someone dislikes now subject to a D6 role? The unwillingness to make a stand is bad for the hobby. I will treat the FAQ's as the official rules.

FAQ BRB and FAQ Orks both state that you can't leave the board, you stop at the edge.

 

Up until they changed their page to reflect their opinion that only Errata are official changes, I was a staunch believer that Errata and FAQs were just as enforceable as the main rules.

 

That being said, I also agree with you that GW is making decisions that are not only idiotic, but horrible for the game itself by refusing to grab their sack and man-up with answering rule questions in an official sense.

 

Octavulg - FAQs are not official at tournaments either unless the Tournament Director says so. Regardless of how much weight you believe they carry, GW themselves say they are just their own 'House Rules,' and if you don't like the answers, to use the roll-off method with your opponent.

 

So again, as far as I'm concerned (despite the FAQ entries), Orks should have some consequence for the Kareen result rather than a completely safe 2d6" movement without any danger or drawbacks. Any Ork player I play against (when not in a Tournament setting that has deemed FAQs to be official for use), will be forced to roll a dice if that situation comes up. I refuse to let any player have all the rewards of a rule without any of the risk

[SeattleDV8]

I can't help but feeling that would be a mistake Trekari. As things stand I can understand your point though this is the kind of action that harms the hobby. Myself I am a DA player and less than overjoyed with the weak FAQ. I will continue to play the codex as is. The nightmare I see is with the "soft" ruling I could demand a D6 roll to mix and match codexes. If I did something so ridiculous I would deserve all the scorn that would be heaped upon me.

It would be bad for me and the hobby. I really hope everyone will behave in a more responsibile manner. Even if we agree the FAQ is flawed (In this case I agree it is a bad call)I think we should treat the FAQ as official. By all means this is a rule I will discuss before a match with an Ork player, heh knowing them they would love the chance to scatter off the board.

Please do not take this as a personal attack. It is just my fear that the this kind of action would have terrible repercussions for a hobby I enjoy very much.So much so I will write GW and let them know my fears also.

Sorry for the rant but I believe it is important.

[angronn]

Agreed.

 

Table edge is not terrain.

 

If a normal squad moves off the table for any reason, they are gone including any atached charatcers, so id say the exact same should apply here.

 

That would have been my feeling, but the FAQ clears it up and I'll abide by that (despite GW's apparent desire to turn the entire game into rolling a D6 for which rules you would prefer to play with this week).

[Trekari]

SeattleDV8,

 

I appreciate your comments and do not take them to be a personal attack. As far as I'm concerned, my comments in this thread have been meant in the same manner. i.e. Discussion, not attacks.

 

To be brutally honest, part of my reason for being so stubborn on this particular issue is the absolute hatred I already have for GW and their inability (more like outright refusal) to write clear, concise, and FAIR rulings - particularly in their FAQs. I'm a Dark Angel player, solely because I love Terminators. I cannot afford to become a regular SM player, nor do I really want to be. As you know, DA has been royally screwed by FAQ rulings and point/ability changes to nearly ever Unit with the new SM codex.

 

This is what drives my hatred.

 

For instance, the DA FAQ still states that our Whirlwinds must decide before the game what type of missile they have equipped - SM Whirlys can pick a new munition type each Shooting phase. This would be a 60-second fix to have instead put in the DA Errata "Strike the last sentence under the Whirlwind multiple missile launcher section on page 33." Granted that would not affect the other issue of ours being more points-wise expensive than SM, but at LEAST we'd be playing with the same damn rules. GW's refusal to take the basic steps necessary steps to ensure that armies maintain some semblance of fairness between Codex cycles with proper updates when they change underlying rules for units, or even the foundational rules for the game is something I cannot tolerate.

 

So in the end, when I see a FAQ ruling like this, it comes across to me like watching a sibling open up dozens of presents on Christmas day while all I get to open is a bunch of coal. I have no problem with an opponent who can present a clear explanation as to why something should behave in a certain manner who also takes effort to make sure THEY are trying to be fair as well. However when discussing a rules question that so obviously is nothing but a boon for the player involved based on their interpretation and doesn't pass what I consider to be the 'is that ruling fair to both players and reasonable?' the end result will be a dice roll at best with a loud cry of HUMBUG!

 

**EDIT**

 

The reason for my own rant is so that others may understand various rules interpretations that I comment on in this and other threads. When supported by RAW, I will ALWAYS follow what is expressly written in the rulebooks. When RAW are unclear, my motivations behind my own comments are to achieve a logical and balanced conclusion.

[maniclurker]

A mouthful... that I once again, agree completely with.

 

If someone wants to use the DA dex, then I'll let them use the new rules from SM. Why? Because it only makes sense. If an ork truck goes out of control and kareens off the battlefield (to who knows where) then that's what should happen. Why? Because it only makes sense.

 

FAQ's are, by GW ruling, just their houserules. And saying that they use them in tourneys (not always true) isn't really much of a strong argument either. Tourneys usually have their own set of 'rulings' to be used, and if you look through them, you'll probably find a few that make absolutely no sense.

[Mal]

Rules that do not make sense.... are you by chance describing the 40K rule book?

[Mordekiem]

me and my regular opponent had our first 5th edition game last night and some oddball things occurred, for which we could not find an explanation in either the BRB or the appropriate codex and had to make an on-the-fly decision for instead.

 

my turn 1 (he went first): My Dreadnaught with two twin linked autocannons fired at one of his Trukks (yes; he played Orks) zooming around a building near the edge of the table. I hit it multiple times and with all thing resolved, I had two rolls on the Ramshackle Table. I rolled Kareen and Kaboom. I then rolled for the Kareen effect and it scattered 10 inches, off the table! So then came the discussion; are the boys in the truck lost off the table or not?

 

To prevent endless discussion (it was taking long enough as it was, with all the unfamiliar rules to be looked up in unfamiliar rulebooks and codices) I offered for his boys to be able to roll for their Kaboom hits and have them come back onto the table his next turn. I know; hopelessly sporting of me and a decision I came to regret later on, when the Powerclawed Nob in that same mob managed to tear up my Dread, which had closed in to contest the objective they were sitting on (losing me the game)...

 

So; what should it have been? Were those boys lost off the table after scattering or did I do the right thing allowing them back on? ;)

If you cannot find something in a rulebook or codex I would check the FAQs and then try a rules board.

 

In this case the FAQ would give you a good answer. And while it appears that some people don't consider those official rules I think the vast majority of people do. GW does in terms of their tournies and most tournies consider them official. And if a situation comes up that is addressed in an FAQ I would take that option. If you and your friends prefer another way of playing then I'd agree to your own house rules before you start playing.

[nighthawks]

not to mention that GW is the house that writes the rules, so their house rules might have a bit more weight.

 

I fully agree with Trekari, however, about the substance of the argument. I just prefer to work within the one thing we all have - written rules, errata, and FAQs, and find it an easier way to play pickup games, etc... we have tons of our own house rules, too. just depends on who's asking, and in what setting. FAQs are not official rules, but they are official pubs that we can all look to for guidance when needed. most people I know seem to view them as such, too. despite their agreement or lack thereof with what they contain.

[Zomro]

Do remember that when dealing with the "gray areas" in 40k that the rules set is permissive. It will tell you what to do in a given circumstance should it occur if the intent is so (usually). No where in the rules does it say you can leave the table edge, except for the rules that have that circumstance (Deep Strike and Fall Back). That's the problem with the gray areas, as they can be argued either way.

 

Honestly? I play Orks and before the FAQ came out I used to play Kareen off table, since I found it more in spirit with the way Orks are. I once lost a Warboss and a nob squad when they're trukk kareened of the table edge during a tournament.

[Praeger]

Id like to point out that I HAVNT seen the newest FAQ so my earlier comment was made without the knowledge of this.

 

With the new FAQ id still say off table = lost.

 

This is for a few reasons.

 

1 - although I USED to say FAQ = rules (as it used to), now that FAQ = sugestions im very hessitant to beleive anything in them.

 

To me it comes across as "busy work" they gave a new intern to do - really, with a note about "do not take these as official" you really cant put must trust in whomever wrote them.

 

2 - off the table does work within all existing rules and even as much as I hat to say it, common sense.

 

HOWEVER

 

As the FAQ do say it survives if anyone wished to keep it on the table I would allow it. Not that I agree with it at all.

[ArmouredWing]

Maybe the answer is to change the 'Official Rules' forum name to 'Official Rules & FAQs' forum?

 

I'd have to say that 'questioning' the validity of something which, in many cases, has been there for months and possibly years and which has been taken as canon just because the front page has changed is, well, a bit silly.

 

Maybe it's more a matter of perspective.

 

If GW see fit to publish 'studio rules' on their website then why should it not be good enough to take those rules and consider them to be official?

 

As it is FAQ'd, so it shall be done. It really is that easy, why make more problems for ourselves when GW give us enough to deal with anyway?

[Praeger]

As it is FAQ'd, so it shall be done. It really is that easy, why make more problems for ourselves when GW give us enough to deal with anyway?

 

Becouse GW themselves have basicly stated that all FAQ's are house rules, not official in any way.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

Sadly.

 

Unless it's an actual erratta they put into the FAQ, everything is merely a 'suggestion', to be taken or left as the player will... :\

 

I remember when they didn't bother with sectioning off erratta and Q&A's, and *everything* was official and 'the law' on the rules. Really shows they just don't care much for the player enjoyment of the gaming aspect anymore. (and/or are just getting really lazy in their old ages)