Is There a "Best," or "Worst" Chapter Tactic?

[Caustic63]

Just because FW FAQ day release monkeys don't actually learn the rules of the game doesn't mean other people don't. they have been proven wrong numerous times and contradict each other depending on who you get to talk to. Look at all the Primarchs who can't take Legion Terminator Squad Bodyguarda like Horus or Ferrus.

 

Lets not get into how badly written the 30k core rules are, or Immortals 'Gun them Down' etc.

 

An intern on minimum wage taking days to answer rules queries which they don't even know the answer to don't actually fill me with hope. The fact it has so far not been included in official publications or rules release shows how official that ruling is. Feel free meanwhile to limit the effectiveness of EC. Because don't you know their ability was obly effective on the assault.

 

Please. just stop, because my opinion of GWs rules monkeys are even lower than WotC, and their rules were more complicated and wordy than GW's Have ever been.

 

I'm also of the opinion that calling Forgeworld about rules questions is a way to get some guidance, but not necessarily the way to settle debate about a RAW question once and for all. I would have to see something official like an FAQ or rules update to change my mind about this sort of thing for certain. Another instance of this is using Sonic Shriekers as written means that a unit need only contain a single shrieker for all its models to get the bonus.

 

Considering that Emperor's Children are commonly seen as a weaker legion, no opponent I've played against yet has disagreed that:

 

1) The new "Crusader" rule supersedes the old version which is cited in the forgeworld rulebooks, the difference being that the new version allows you to gain the bonus to Sweeping Advances even if you lose and are being swept.

 

2) Eidolon's Thunderous Charge is intended to read "Unwieldy" instead of "Cumbersome" (thankfully this was FAQed)

 

3) A unit that contains a single Sonic Shrieker gains it's bonus on all models.

 

As a side note Hesh, could you delve into your experiences with your Emperor's Children army in the Tactica thread for me? I'd really like to get some input from seasoned and skilled players since I don't get nearly as many 30K games in as I want to.

[Theredknight]

well Iv read the rulebook writing on crusader and it is written as the run bonus and addition ' a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule adds d3 to its sweeping advance totals (roll each time)'

 

Ok so looking at this closely lacal says something like 'when making a sweeping advance move. I don't have to hand. Did the 7th wd rulebook come out after lacal? I genuinely can't remember. Because if it did then I will be using this rule from

Now on. This can also be used in conjunction with allies, saaay, some gal vorbak or soh reavers? Your almost certain to sweep with those odds.

 

As for shriekers, where abouts did you get that info from caustic? I'd love that to be true as well!!

 

I put up about my game last week, and am

Having some war tomorrow night, not sure on the points value yet.

 

As I say, we can hope for some love.. And eidolon from fw.

[SkimaskMohawk]

7th game out after lacal and from asking them questions it seems like any rule written specifically into it (Crusader, Master of Ambush) keeps its meaning and not the 7th ed version. The sonic shrieker thing is ambiguous, but from reading the EC tactica everyone disagrees about one model giving it to everyone

[Theredknight]

That's what iv found skim.

The wording in LACAL I have found that people think it's written that way for 30k specifically.

And the same for sonic shrieker.

Id get called beardy if I did it, and just wouldn't agree/cause argument. So I dont do it.

I can sort of see where it is for using though. Especially since ec need every bit of help they can get with the lacklustre rules.

[depthcharge12]

Isn't the fall back move technically called "Fall Back movement" while the winner's is called Sweeping advance?

 

Maybe the EC did recruit from the nobles of old France...they retreat faster!!! :P

[xera32]

If you lose a combat you are technically not performing a sweeping advance. So no +d3 when being swept.

Sweeping Advances
When a unit Falls Back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance,
attempting to cut down their fleeing foes.

[depthcharge12]

If you lose a combat you are technically not performing a sweeping advance. So no +d3 when being swept.

 

Sweeping Advances

When a unit Falls Back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance,

attempting to cut down their fleeing foes.

That was what I was thinking as well.

 

Loser has a "Fall Back" movement.

 

Winner has a "Sweeping Advance".

[Theredknight]

Yes this is what makes sense.

Sweeping advance does involve some sort of sweeping one would think.

[blackoption]

That actually fits.  If I remember correctly, Nostroman Blood allows for Night Lords to fall back 1 inch further when they fail a moral check (which could happen in an assault phase)

[Hesh Kadesh]

 

When a Sweeping Advance is performed, both the unit Falling Back and the winning unit roll a D6 and add their unmodified Initiative to the result.

In a unit with mixed Initiative characteristics, use the highest – we can assume the quicker-witted individuals in the unit guide the others.

The units then compare their totals.

 

 

"and add +D3 to their total score when making Sweeping Advances."

 

The only mention of Totals is in regards to the D6+Initiative roll

[Theredknight]

Only problem with that as someone said before is if you lose combat your making a 'fall back move'.

 

Making a sweeping advance is if you won and they fail leadership test.

 

So if it said roll d3 when determining yours or the enemies sweeping advance. Thatd make sense.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Making sweeping advances is determines by the rules under sweeping advances which refers to totals.

If we're doing rewriting of rules to make more sense, I could simply say the same point; "When victorious in an assault and rolling for sweeping advance totals, units with one or more models with the Legiones Astartes Emperor's Children may add +D3 to their total."

[depthcharge12]

The issue here would be the difference between fall back movements and sweeping advance movements. They are not the same thing or it would explicitly state that the defeated unit would make a sweeping advance. Advance implies moving forward - Crusader is in conjunction with that idea. Unless you're French or advancing in the opposite direction of the enemy, it wouldn't make sense to fall back crusading

I think to put this in context, you should consider looking at the NL rules. Nostraman Blood adds a modifier to their fall back movement when losing a combat. In the same manner, it might seem silly to say if they win a combat that they make a sweeping advance with that same modifier.

[ThatOneMarshal]

So how would you guys rate night lords? As my chosen legion we seem to be a bit one dimensional. Terror assualt seems to be the only lists that I see those this is probalby to do with how awsome terror squads is and the benefits of the ROW. Our special units are both good but night raptors have a bit of khorne bezeker syndrome with their one attack. Talent for murder is a good rule and night vision is fluffy though it's use has lessens since the change to night fighting. Nostramon blood makes thou care even more about your warlord and can occondionally be useful. Kurze is an absolute monster. The special apothecary is pretty bad and sevater seems to be very good when he's gets off his physic power.

Out of the first four released in betrayer which own would you consider the worst? My votes on EC.

[Theredknight]

I'd say the first 4, which show the legions at the very beginning of the heresy, and not any time after.

The balance of power Id say would be..world eaters, closely followed by death guard, then sons of horus, and sadly EC.. Which are the ones I collect

[Trevak Dal]

Damn valid points all around, I guess, being a fan of traitor legions did make me overlook those points lol. Damn thats all really good points.

 

Is the reasoning behind the Alpha Legion being good down to what I was thinking? Banestrike, headhunters, infiltrate? 

Loyalists, in my experience, have always gotten better stuff.  Unless they're dark angels, in which case they're "Chaos Lite" where they are more like CSMs, with Wolves being Chaos Diet, where it's got all the good stuff from chaos, but none of the drawbacks.

[SkimaskMohawk]

The issue here would be the difference between fall back movements and sweeping advance movements. They are not the same thing or it would explicitly state that the defeated unit would make a sweeping advance. Advance implies moving forward - Crusader is in conjunction with that idea. Unless you're French or advancing in the opposite direction of the enemy, it wouldn't make sense to fall back crusading

I think to put this in context, you should consider looking at the NL rules. Nostraman Blood adds a modifier to their fall back movement when losing a combat. In the same manner, it might seem silly to say if they win a combat that they make a sweeping advance with that same modifier.

You can't say the issue is about fall back movements vs sweeping advance rolls because the rule clearly says total when performing a sweeping advance; the rule for sweeping advance says both sides participate in the I+d6 foll for a total, simple. In contrast to 'Nostraman Blood', which you misquoted pretty badly (adds +1 to fall back always, may fall back instead of being pinned [no mention of combat]), Seeds of Dissent is very silly as it forces you to make army wide morale tests if you kill the enemy's warlord.

I understand that pure RAW the rule simply doesn't work as its stuck in a loop; only victors perform sweeping advances, yet both sides perform the test, which is the only thing that matters (see 'total').

[LongGone]

Some of you guys remind me of barracks lawyers standing six and centered in front of the man, arguing why your interpretation of the word 'is' makes you correct.

 

I got it, there is sometimes a difference between RAW and RAI. And that can sometimes be a little frustrating. But conflating sweeping advance and falling back seems to be a stretch...

[Spinsanity]

Seeds of Dissent is very silly as it forces you to make army wide morale tests if you kill the enemy's warlord.

I guess this is an imaginative way of reading the rule...

 

"If an army's Warlord is slain, each unit in the army with this special rule must..."

 

I see it as refering only to units in the aforementioned army (the one which saw it's Warlord slain), please explain how you'd justify it being played differently?

[Flint13]

^^ From 404's quotation of the rule, I'd say its pretty straight forward.

 

"If an army's warlord is slain, each unit in the army (implying the army to which said slain warlord belongs) with this special rule must ..." 

 

Since the enemy warlord is slain, and unless you're fighting against 8th Legion with 8th Legion, the enemy army doesn't contain any models with the Seeds of Dissent rule, I don't see why a test would be taken?

 

Fluff-wise, the rule is meant to represent 8th Legion officers making an opportunistic grab for a higher position when a commanding officer is slain. 

 

When Nostraman's climb the ladder of command, they break every rung on the way up. 

[Spinsanity]

Actually, now I think I see how it could be interpreted the other way!

 

"If an army's Warlord is slain"

- Pretty straightforward, any Warlord dies, check the rest of the rule

 

"each unit in the army with this special rule"

- Now this, I think, is where the confusion comes from.

While most people do realize that the rule is limited to specific models ('each unit [...] with this special rule'), some people might incorrectly believe that the rule applies to the army ('the army with this special rule').

 

Thankfully, the rules are clear enough that we know for sure the rule applies to specific models and not to the army itself, thus removing this ambiguity.

 

Unless there's another reading I just can't grasp my head around?

[SkimaskMohawk]

Sadly that's every unit from a NL list as its part of their legion rules; you get A Talent for Murder on everyone with LA:NL as well. Also it doesn't say model, though a model can be a unit. 

[Fangbanger]

Is it likely that certain ROW or rules from the first 3 books can get a re-working in book 5 or is that just wish Listing?

[Hesh Kadesh]

In Book 5, unlikely. Book 5 is the first time that the truly daemonic aspect of chaos is revealed to the majority of the legions - sure, a few have seen them already (Blood Angels, or those who met the Gal Vorbak), but for the most part, Chaos doesn't have a major hold on the legions (look at how many of the legionaries react in Talon of Horus and the Night Lords omnibus), and that's after hundreds of years in both parts.

[Fangbanger]

I don't really follow the fluff so don't really know