farseerixirvost Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Can you pre-measure the placement of the first model deep striking using a Chaos Icon? Me and my friends have always done this, but the other day I was told by someone I had not played before that I was not allowed to pre-measure. I had to place, then measure, and then scatter (placed outside 6") or not (placed inside 6") as appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 The only time/place it's typically not allowed is in the Midwest in tournaments using the INAT FAQ, so typically Adepticon or any AWC events. Personally, I'd always premeasure it too. Between your friends it's alright, do what you want. If you want to try and be consistent for other players out there though, here's what you do. For Chaos Space Marines, terminators and obliterators you shouldn't premeasure because they don't have to arrive within 6" of the icon; it's a choice. Guesstimate it and hope for the best. For daemons however, you absolutely must premeasure and there are no two ways about it. They can only arrive within 6" of an icon; if you don't premeasure and then guess wrong then what? Do they suffer a Mishap because they cannot arrive outside of 6" and then it's Impassable Terrain for them? Do you move them back within the 6" bubble in the same manner as the drop pod mechanism, thereby ensuring you'll always get the farthest distance possible even without premeasuring? Both of these 'solutions' are wrong or against rules (or just plain munchkinny) and cannot be used. Thus, for daemons you are allowed to premeasure. For Chaos Daemons however, they follow the normal rules and so you would not get to premeasure the distance for any unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Since the rules for Chaos Icons and Teleport Homers state that the units "choose to deep strike within 6" of the Icon/Homer" I would read that as being allowed to deliberately place deep striking models within 6" of the Icon or Homer, i.e. being allowed to pre-measure and then placing them within range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Since the rules for Chaos Icons and Teleport Homers state that the units "choose to deep strike within 6" of the Icon/Homer" I would read that as being allowed to deliberately place deep striking models within 6" of the Icon or Homer, i.e. being allowed to pre-measure and then placing them within range. Indeed. How else could it be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I'm with Legatus and Isiah on this one. Seems cut and dry to me. I really can't abide by INAT; I felt like every single ruling I read in there was specifically done to be contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Well yea I agree with you thade and the rest; the INAT blows and simply is wrong on so many points. Hence why I said the only place that sort of premeasuring is not allowed is in events that use the INAT, of which there are few and the players don't read it anyway. Farseerixivrost is free to premeasure as he pleases for icons/homers/etc. I just included some guidelines of what to do in case he happens to play the person who told him about it or any other crankers out there, and successful arguments against that idea (for daemons at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I feel this falls under the same area as measuring coherency between each model when you move your unit. I don't think anybody moves the unit, declares it moved, THEN measures only to find out that one model is not in coherency so the next turn it has to move back into coherency. Same as disembarking from a transport; we all measure to make sure we're legal/within 2" for tournaments. We don't do this after disembarkment only to see we're illegally disembarked and have to forfeit or something silly. I really see the new 40k rules in two years going the same route that Fantasy did with many of the core rule changes: "always being able to measure" definitely being one of the changes we'll see. There's so many silly little quirks around when and why you can measure that would be solved by so simple a thing. @Seahawk, I recall previous discussions we've had around INAT and I do recall you're not a fan of it. ^_^ I'm just *vehemently opposed* to it - in the way that seeing it makes me upset - so I can't help but speak out against it. Nothing personal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farseerixirvost Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Thanks, gents. Like I said, I've been pre-measuring it for years; just got caught off guard by someone who actually thought I was doing it wrong. (edit): I read that INAT. Makes me glad I'm not a hardcore tourney gamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edit): I read that INAT. Makes me glad I'm not a hardcore tourney gamer. The INAT is by no means a tournament standard. I've never seen it around where I play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shatter Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Measuring in the move phase is allowed. DS is treated as (counts as) movement. Wargear range effects are allowed, even expected to be measured when invoked: "choose to deep strike within 6" of the Icon/Homer". INAT clearly don't read rules before making rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 INAT clearly don't read rules before making rulings. Boy you can say that again. Every time I turn around they are wrong about something else. I don't know what they were doing when they made that thing, seems like they just made stuff up. Also GW has consistanly proven them wrong they they finally clarify a hot button issue(like the Deffrolla) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 In fairness to INAT, not all their rulings are RAW faq interpretations. Without looking through INATFAQv4.1 (I do have it but can't find this Chaos icon/non-pre-measuring ruling so a INAT page ref would be good) there's no telling whether it falls under their [RAW], [Clarification], [rules change] or [typo] classification. Faults aside - the INAT team have at least got off their asses and produce exactly the kind of major document GW should be doing. It's interesting too that Yakface does get credited on some official GW FAQs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Faults aside - the INAT team have at least got off their asses and produce exactly the kind of major document GW should be doing. It's interesting too that Yakface does get credited on some official GW FAQs. I would give them credit for their efforts, if I didn't get intensely frustrated every time INAT comes up even in casual conversation. This is one of those times I'd recommend the lot of us who are most vocal on the OR make our own version of an "INAT"...but then, best case, it'd just be a new "INAT" and nothing official. We really need GW to step up. Maybe it'll happen someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 They did with Fantasy once the new edition rolled out (some have already had 2 revisions since!!), every single book and the BRB got FAQ's. There's hope yet for 40k... Isiah, it's actually in the Chaos Daemons section, so page 38. And it comes with some explanation that I missed before. I'll leave it to you, but it actually doesn't affect Chaos marine icons at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 They did with Fantasy once the new edition rolled out (some have already had 2 revisions since!!), every single book and the BRB got FAQ's. There's hope yet for 40k... Last time I mentioned my mutual hope orbiting this point you make, Grey Mage revealed that he's not a fan of Matt Ward stomping all over 40k. @_@ While I really like the changes to Fantasy and look forward to like changes to 40k, I'm not sure everybody is in agreement with us there. I for one can't wait to measure whenever I please :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Lets not get off topic on that one. 40k doesnt have weapons like cannons, and I wont to into how premeasuring would affect a game where all standard moves are 6". If you want to send me a PM, by all means do so. Still, it is good to see that GW has been stepping up their FAQs and updating them more reliably than any time I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Lets not get off topic on that one. 40k doesnt have weapons like cannons, and I wont to into how premeasuring would affect a game where all standard moves are 6". If you want to send me a PM, by all means do so. I didn't mean to out you in a negative way; just citing you as someone who has the opposite viewpoint on that than I do. Sorry to stay OT for so long. Still, it is good to see that GW has been stepping up their FAQs and updating them more reliably than any time I can remember. Amen. A trend that I hope continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Lets not get off topic on that one. 40k doesnt have weapons like cannons, and I wont to into how premeasuring would affect a game where all standard moves are 6". If you want to send me a PM, by all means do so. I didn't mean to out you in a negative way; just citing you as someone who has the opposite viewpoint on that than I do. Sorry to stay OT for so long. Trust me thade, I didnt take it as a personal criticism- its just Ive noticed weve had alot of OT discussion in the OR lately, some of it *like fantasy* only tenibly linked to the dicussion at hand. Some is fine, but its been on the rise and we need to reign it in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.