HH Rulebook - rules updates discussion

[Charlo]

I just did, and now you can too!

 

The new rulebook is open in front of me. And I quote (ignoring the part about precision shots from the first part of the rule)...

 

"If weapon has the Sniper special rule, or is fired by a model with the Sniper special rule, it's shooting attacks always wound on a To Wound roll of 4+, regardless of the victim's Toughness. In addition, any to Wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP2.

 

Against vehicles, shooting attacks from weapons and models with the Sniper special rule count as Strength 4."

 

So, Rules As Written... A Meltagun shot by a Sniper Veteran would only wound marines on a 4+ & if you roll a 6 to Wound, it's AP would actually go down from 1 to 2.

 

I agree it should still wound on a 2+, but RAW it doesn't... as it always wounds on 4+ :( that's why it was FAQd

[Riptor]

I just did, and now you can too!

 

The new rulebook is open in front of me. And I quote (ignoring the part about precision shots from the first part of the rule)...

 

"If weapon has the Sniper special rule, or is fired by a model with the Sniper special rule, it's shooting attacks always wound on a To Wound roll of 4+, regardless of the victim's Toughness. In addition, any to Wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP2.

 

Against vehicles, shooting attacks from weapons and models with the Sniper special rule count as Strength 4."

 

So, Rules As Written... A Meltagun shot by a Sniper Veteran would only wound marines on a 4+ & if you roll a 6 to Wound, it's AP would actually go down from 1 to 2.

 

I agree it should still wound on a 2+, but RAW it doesn't... as it always wounds on 4+ that's why it was FAQd

Would the fact that the 7th edition FaQ is still available on the forgeworld website override this? I would have thought that FaQ is still in effect.

[Charlo]

This is no longer 7th Edition sadly so whatever similarities it had are kinda meaningless.

 

This is Horus Heresy 1st Edition!

[Noserenda]

Wasnt the whole point of the book to integrate the FAQs etc? I guess they changed their mind due to Sniper vets abuse maybe? 

[Warhead01]

Ok, Maybe I'm wrong. I think what cought my attention was the Word Only, which isn't in the rule.  

It also occurs to me that just maybe RAW is correct and that the RAI is to force players o cut back on things like melta and plasma in favor of other options, like bolters. 
I did look through the rules again looking for some clue to their intent and though I'd find it in rolling to wound, seemed reasonable at the time, but found nothing. I also blame a lack of coffee on my interpretation.  Either way, I'm sure it'll get sorted out at some point. 
I keep thinking about Sniper Vets with combi flamers. I think I'd like to do that fancy to hit rolls are  less important due to look out sir rolls.  So I'd rather bank on lots of to wound rolls.

[Charlo]

 

It also occurs to me that just maybe RAW is correct and that the RAI is to force players o cut back on things like melta and plasma in favor of other options, like bolters. 

 

Nah it's just written with Sniper Rifles in mind for 40k, where the only weapons that had it were Strength X or - (whatever the current symbol was) and not many (if any) models had the Sniper rule with access to high S low AP weapons. It's why it was FAQd.

[Gorgoff]

 

 

 

It also occurs to me that just maybe RAW is correct and that the RAI is to force players o cut back on things like melta and plasma in favor of other options, like bolters.

Nah it's just written with Sniper Rifles in mind for 40k, where the only weapons that had it were Strength X or - (whatever the current symbol was) and not many (if any) models had the Sniper rule with access to high S low AP weapons. It's why it was FAQd.

Maybe.

But maybe they only changed their mind.

I like it RAW. That balances the Marksmen rule a little bit. If you want to kill a tank just take Machine Killer and put them in a Rhino or Dreadclaw.

[Slips]

 

 

 

It also occurs to me that just maybe RAW is correct and that the RAI is to force players o cut back on things like melta and plasma in favor of other options, like bolters.

Nah it's just written with Sniper Rifles in mind for 40k, where the only weapons that had it were Strength X or - (whatever the current symbol was) and not many (if any) models had the Sniper rule with access to high S low AP weapons. It's why it was FAQd.

Maybe.

But maybe they only changed their mind.

I like it RAW. That balances the Marksmen rule a little bit. If you want to kill a tank just take Machine Killer and put them in a Rhino or Dreadclaw.

 

So you're saying its fine that a Marksman Squad with a Meltagun should be objectively worse at killing a tank due to Rules interactions than a Weaponmaster Squad with a Meltagun?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Always wounds on 4+ means just that... so say against T9 still wounds on 4+ - however that does not mean S7 wounds T4 on 4+, that is still 2+ as an example. This is another case of people reading too much into the rules and obviously we all know that was never the intention .

[Slips]

Always wounds on 4+ means just that... so say against T9 still wounds on 4+ - however that does not mean S7 wounds T4 on 4+, that is still 2+ as an example. This is another case of people reading too much into the rules and obviously we all know that was never the intention .

No, because they had to Specifically FAQ the rules interaction you're referring to right now.

[Brofist]

 

Looks like you no longer auto-loose if you don't have any units on the table turn 1. They used the 7th edition language instead. Kinda a bummer because null deploy is now a thing again.

 

Didn't everyone allow it already anyway?  You couldn't play an Orbital Assault list if you weren't allowed to null deploy, and that rite is hardly uncommon.

 

That RoW just required you include units with deepstrike. You didn't have to start them in reserve. In our area that meant starting with assault marines and speeders on the table. Moot point now.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

What I said plus we have the precedent of the old FAQ. :)

[Charlo]

What I said plus we have the precedent of the old FAQ.

 

Except that FAQ means nothing now. It's an FAQ for a book that doesn't exist written by a different rules team. I agree its stupid but RAW it's how it is.

[Elzender]

Regarding the sniper rule for veterans, I think a rewriting of the rule could be nice, conferring the rule only to bolters and the bolter part of combibolters. This would avoid nerfing the plasma and melta weapons the squad may carry, while avoiding things like sniper flamers, grenade launchers or frag missiles (as fun or useful it might be, these weapons are the antithesis of snipers, so avoiding them beneffiting from that rule sounds reasonable enough). Regarding heavy weapons, the sniper rule probably doesn't benefit them that much or outright nerf them (lascannon, multimelta), or doesn't make much sense (plasma cannon, heavy bolter, heavy flamer).

[Charlo]

Regarding the sniper rule for veterans, I think a rewriting of the rule could be nice, conferring the rule only to bolters and the bolter part of combibolters. This would avoid nerfing the plasma and melta weapons the squad may carry, while avoiding things like sniper flamers, grenade launchers or frag missiles (as fun or useful it might be, these weapons are the antithesis of snipers, so avoiding them beneffiting from that rule sounds reasonable enough). Regarding heavy weapons, the sniper rule probably doesn't benefit them that much or outright nerf them (lascannon, multimelta), or doesn't make much sense (plasma cannon, heavy bolter, heavy flamer).

 

This seems a good work around actually.

 

"Sniping" with a Flamer doesn't make much sense... Leave that One-Trick-Pony to Mor'Deythan to keep them special!

[Gorgoff]

 

 

 

 

 

It also occurs to me that just maybe RAW is correct and that the RAI is to force players o cut back on things like melta and plasma in favor of other options, like bolters.

Nah it's just written with Sniper Rifles in mind for 40k, where the only weapons that had it were Strength X or - (whatever the current symbol was) and not many (if any) models had the Sniper rule with access to high S low AP weapons. It's why it was FAQd.

Maybe.

But maybe they only changed their mind.

I like it RAW. That balances the Marksmen rule a little bit. If you want to kill a tank just take Machine Killer and put them in a Rhino or Dreadclaw.

So you're saying its fine that a Marksman Squad with a Meltagun should be objectively worse at killing a tank due to Rules interactions than a Weaponmaster Squad with a Meltagun?

Yes.

Is it bonkers?

Of course.

But is it good for the game?

Yupp.

[Theradrussian]

@gorgoff: But I don't like taking the attitude that "this bug is now a feature, move along", because that's...well...:cuss :D

 

Just add a line saying that Sniper is only conferred to weapons with S4 or lower, and that do not use templates (no sniper frag missiles or flamers).

 

See what I mean?

[Dantay VI]

Can the squad at least split fore so the bolter guys are not wasted while you frantically hope to take a vehicle out with your 2 melta guns??

 

Seems a garbage mistake to me, you got 20% of a squad able to do one job and when faced with infantry, that 20% actually become potentially worse.

 

Or have I mis-understood.

[Baluc]

Going by the stated goals of this release, its pretty much been a failure. It has as best I can tell like a 6/20 score of goals to results.

[Noserenda]

Going by the stated goals of this release, its pretty much been a failure. It has a as best I can tell like a 6/20 score of goals to results.

I dunno, the main goal was to have a rulebook and make money. Obviously a half arsed rulebook was the only dooable option right now so that what we got. It does seem to be making money at least *shrug* 

[kijamon]

Can the squad at least split fore so the bolter guys are not wasted while you frantically hope to take a vehicle out with your 2 melta guns??

 

Seems a garbage mistake to me, you got 20% of a squad able to do one job and when faced with infantry, that 20% actually become potentially worse.

 

Or have I mis-understood.

 

There is none of that in 30k unless the unit has split fire. Which I don't think many do.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’ve discussed it with my group and we will be playing it the right way. You can say the faq doesn’t count but that is just you really. We know the intent.

[Gorgoff]

@gorgoff: But I don't like taking the attitude that "this bug is now a feature, move along", because that's...well...:cuss :D

 

Just add a line saying that Sniper is only conferred to weapons with S4 or lower, and that do not use templates (no sniper frag missiles or flamers).

 

See what I mean?

Oh, I've seen what you mean before you posted that. But I disagree.

Veterans with Marksmen are way to good compared to... almost every other power armoured marines.

Now you have to decide:

Do you want more infantry killing power?

Do you want to kill machines?

 

Do you understand? ;

It's a feature because before that Veterans with Marksmen where broke. Now they're cool but not so good that all the other possible Veteran traits seems to be rubbish.

 

You can use outdated FAQ so you don't have to change your army but I like challanges. ;)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If that is how your group wants to play that is great but don't act like it is THE right way. You have stated your reason why you want it so - transparent .

[Gorgoff]

If that is how your group wants to play that is great but don't act like it is THE right way. You have stated your reason why you want it so - transparent .

Of course.

That's the nice thing about a game.

If you don't like a rule you can change it.

I guess every group has some kind of houserules or gentlemens agreement of their own and all of them are totally acceptable.

At least until the Forgeworld Rule Enforcement Agency bangs in your door. ;)