greatcrusade08 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 heres a quicky. the IG infantry platoons have the combined deployment rule, which means they may deploy as one large blob. does this include the platoon command squad? ta muchly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 And the special weapon and heavy weapon teams too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 sounds great, a further question would be, if you upgraded with the medi-pack, would the whole blob get FNP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kierdale Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 No, Only Infantry Squads have the Combined Squad special rule. Not special weapon squads, heavy weapon squads nor command squads (so no FNP for 50 guardsmen :lol:). The explanation of the rule gives an example of a PCS and three infantry squads, saying that the IG player can choose to deploy them as a PCS and one 30-man infantry squad, a 20- and a 10-man or the basic three 10-man squads. The PCS is not combined into the blob squad. A commissar or priest however, does affect the whole blob squad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Oh, my apologies- I thought you were refering to how they all deploy at once, not as one squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatuous Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 A 'stealth pants' commi lord does give an entire blob stealth tho :devil: Which is almost borken, but always fun. With new wound allocation, a 2nd commi is likely to be needed for larger blobs, but still excellent for their points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 No he doesn't. Camo-cloaks only give +1 to the model's cover save, not Stealth. You're thinking of last edition. :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 No he doesn't. Camo-cloaks only give +1 to the model's cover save, not Stealth. You're thinking of last edition. :tu: Not so much - - a Lord Commisar can purchase a Camo Cloak; (C:IG, Pg.92) - a Camo Cloak gives the model Stealth; (C:IG, Pg.71) - Stealth gives "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule" a +1 Cover (w/ 6+ in the open); (BRB, Pg.42) So a Lord Commisar with a Camo Cloak attached to an IG blob squad gives the entire unit a +1 to Cover with at least a 6+ save in the open. Said unit would have a 2+ Cover save by Going to Ground in a Ruin or Trench... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Incorrect. Look at the FAQ, camo-cloaks only give +1 cover save, not Stealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanhausen Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Incorrect. Look at the FAQ, camo-cloaks only give +1 cover save, not Stealth. I'm sure its obvious and you'll scorn me the rest of my days for asking but... What's the difference between getting always +1 cover and having stealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Incorrect. Look at the FAQ, camo-cloaks only give +1 cover save, not Stealth. Page 71 - Other Equipment, Camo CloaksReplace the second sentence with "A model wearing a camo cloak adds +1 to its cover save" Camo Cloaks: Some Units are able to use rare cameleoline material In their armour, uniforms or as cloaks. Cameleoline automatically blends in With the surrounding terrain making the wearer much harder to spot.A model wearing a camo Cloak has the Stealth universal special rule. So which one is the 'second sentence'? 1> "Camo Cloaks: Some Units are able to use rare cameleoline material In their armour, uniforms or as cloaks." 2> "Cameleoline automatically blends in With the surrounding terrain making the wearer much harder to spot." :) 3> "A model wearing a camo Cloak has the Stealth universal special rule." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Incorrect. Look at the FAQ, camo-cloaks only give +1 cover save, not Stealth. I'm sure its obvious and you'll scorn me the rest of my days for asking but... What's the difference between getting always +1 cover and having stealth? A model that get's +1 to its cover save gets just that. A model with Stealth gets the Stealth USR and all benefits within, such as passing it on to a joined unit. @dswanick: Fair enough, but I expect that to get corrected, just like all the others that say "x sentence" but fail miserably. Until then, camo-pants commissar still works, and he even gets +2 to his cover save without going to ground...wacky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 i dunno guys, feigning ignorance here is a little crappy dont ya think? its obvious what sentence the FAQ means to replace, its the same as every other codexes camo cloaks. camo cloaks no longer give stealth, they give +1 to cover saves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 i dunno guys, feigning ignorance here is a little crappy dont ya think?its obvious what sentence the FAQ means to replace, its the same as every other codexes camo cloaks. Sure it's crappy. And tournaments are full of crappy WAAC players who might use this to their advantage. Better to let everyone know the problem now so they aren't caught short before GW corrects their typo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Not feigning any ignorance. The rules are written that way, and every edition I've had people say "well that rule sucks" and all I can say is "yea, but that's how it is..." What am I suppose to tell them? "Let's not play by the rules and have an invalid game," instead? Since the 1.2's are in the works right now due to release soon, I'm hoping these sentence failures will be among those caught and fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanhausen Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Incorrect. Look at the FAQ, camo-cloaks only give +1 cover save, not Stealth. I'm sure its obvious and you'll scorn me the rest of my days for asking but... What's the difference between getting always +1 cover and having stealth? A model that get's +1 to its cover save gets just that. A model with Stealth gets the Stealth USR and all benefits within, such as passing it on to a joined unit. @dswanick: Fair enough, but I expect that to get corrected, just like all the others that say "x sentence" but fail miserably. Until then, camo-pants commissar still works, and he even gets +2 to his cover save without going to ground...wacky! So now the idea is that only the commi would get +1 cover? We obviously think that just because 1 model got equipment, it was quite OTT that 30 guys would fit under the cloak...but I can't help feeling sorry for those foot grunts...until you face them in CC with 3-4 PW sarges who mince your terminators (in 5th) while just allowing their comrades to drop dread :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 i dunno guys, feigning ignorance here is a little crappy dont ya think?its obvious what sentence the FAQ means to replace, its the same as every other codexes camo cloaks. Sure it's crappy. And tournaments are full of crappy WAAC players who might use this to their advantage. Better to let everyone know the problem now so they aren't caught short before GW corrects their typo... A problem easily solved by a TO with a spine and some marbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Not feigning any ignorance. of course it is, the FAQ says change the second sentence, and despite knowing which one its referring to, people are claiming to not know which is the actual second sentence.. becuase by creating a grey area they can then manipulate the rules into meaning something else. to me thats not only feigning ignorance, its dirty and not the actions of a gamer i want to be anywhere near. is there some ambiguity here, yes sure, but we all know what it means even if RAW is a bit hazy... and sure this is the OR, where RAW reigns supreme, but given the FAQ is noted as being ambiguous, then surely its not RAW either way? edit: bad spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 GW makes bonehead decisions all the time. Maybe a less canny/observant player would simply think "Oh, okay. Less fluff, more rules, excellent FAQ!" and not think twice about it. It happens. Then, they're happily humming a ditty and rolling saves, then you come along all huffy and say they don't get an extra bonus because "you don't like how it's written". The rules support their position and not yours. How exactly do you think that's going to go down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 GW makes bonehead decisions all the time. Maybe a less canny/observant player would simply think "Oh, okay. Less fluff, more rules, excellent FAQ!" and not think twice about it. It happens. Then, they're happily humming a ditty and rolling saves, then you come along all huffy and say they don't get an extra bonus because "you don't like how it's written". The rules support their position and not yours. How exactly do you think that's going to go down? your making it sound as though im being all huffy at someone who innocently takes the FAQ at face vlaue. thats not the case, here we have experienced gamers and frequent users of the OR forum claiming that the FAQs "second sentence" can be interpreted differently from GWs intent (and before you start, we all know what this whole mess meant, even you as obvious from your posts) all to gain extra rules from a now "new interpretation" of the rules. obviously i wouldnt wade in on a novice or a stranger like a jerk, but if i knew the guy was being deliberately rules lawyerish, i would give him both barrels.. as should any gamer wishing to rid the hobby of this rubbish. and lets face it, you yourself say its most likely to be rectified, im sure most TOs worth thier salt would see it too. i guess my point is, that you know the guys you play with and you know whos being 'innocent' and whos playing the rules lawyer for gain.. from a RAw persepctive sure, the guys have it closer to the mark, but we all know the true intent.. and im sorry but i cant let that kind of thing pass edit: removed sarcasm, incase it detracts from the matter edit2: given the clean cut RAW nature of OR arguments, its probably best to not argue with an old hack like me tbh, you wont change my mind.. that being said i do hope my opinions have made people stop and think about the dangers of this issue around WAACers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 So you would allow a regular ol' person use the rules as they currently are, but not a more seasoned player? Is that giving the new guy a free perk, or the vet a handicap? I find it best to be consistent, one way or the other. I was simply highlighting that the issue isn't only with WAAC'ers, it also exists with those that think too much into "intent". Tell you what, if they don't address it in the new FAQ, what then? We'll be stuck with the ruling for a long time, and play it RAW, not RAIWTTB. But then, that's just a what if that doesn't really need to be addressed here ^_^. Cross that bridge, and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 So you would allow a regular ol' person use the rules as they currently are, but not a more seasoned player? Is that giving the new guy a free perk, or the vet a handicap? I find it best to be consistent, one way or the other. again thats not what i said, merely that id rail against the rules lawyer, a regular ol person, id take the time to explain the other side of the argument.. i firmly believe that most people would accept the 'intent' ruling I was simply highlighting that the issue isn't only with WAAC'ers, it also exists with those that think too much into "intent". i disagree, usually your right people arguing intent is rediculous becuase you cannot quantify it.. however in this case we have several other dexes and the rulebook showing us that camo cloaks have been changed from giving stealth to giving +1 cover save. so we have a set standard if you will. IMO its quite easy to show that the FAQ means to change the last line of the wording. perhaps the writers didnt understand the true defintion of the word sentence.. perhaps the rule itself wasnt supposed to have a full stop between the two lines of fluff text, a comma would have sufficed. you yourself admitted GW make bonehead mistakes all the time i dont believe taking things on face value is always the best way, usually yes but not always.. in this case i believe occums razor supports the "intent" argument, that GW wants all camo claoks to not give stealth but +1 cover instead. Why create a different camo cloak just for IG, it doesnt make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.