Multiple units intercepting one unit?

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's in my AoD box rulebook too, but whatever. 

 

Very interesting to see know how they screwed up adding rules iterations. What, were all the PDFs just kept next to each other, the person responsible was on vacation and someone else just chose the wrong one in the mix?

 

And Im a bit sad the hard limit of 3 wasn't kept. Would really balance out the strength of augury scanners.

[armarnis]

Yeah, Scanner and similar Gear/Rules really skew Things. But probably they will never fix this to avoid to aknowledge their mistakes 

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

I have a U.S. English version. That last sentence definitely isn't in my book.

Super weird. 

They even changed some things in the eBooks as well without telling anyone and now apparently in some US books. 

[Spagunk]

14 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

That is not in my book.

Weird, it is in mine. This was from the AoD boxset in the US though.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Spagunk

[Lord Krungharr]

I also have the US English version bought in Illinois, and it does have that last sentence.  But maybe mine is from the UK?

 

Also, jump packs and Kharybdisses allow charging after deepstriking?!

[MichaelCarmine]

44 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:

I also have the US English version bought in Illinois, and it does have that last sentence.  But maybe mine is from the UK?

 

Also, jump packs and Kharybdisses allow charging after deepstriking?!

Kharybdis-passengers can only benefit from that in the Drop Pod Assault RoW, since you are not allowed to charge after disembarking from a deep striking vehicle.

The DPA Rite of War specifically allows it. And even in Turn one, instead of turn two.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Not having the last sentence isn't a surprise. There are so many typos and misinformation pieces in my book already. On top of that the rulebook is a jumbled mess. In any case the rulebook is very confusing in general. The core of the game is still better than 40k though.

[Gorgoff]

6 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

 

Also, jump packs and Kharybdisses allow charging after deepstriking?!

Jump Packs doesn't allow that. You can charge after Deep Strike in general. And outflanking as well by the way. Only regular reserves can't. 

You can't charge in a turn you disembarked out of a vehicle coming out of reserves though. 

6 hours ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Kharybdis-passengers can only benefit from that in the Drop Pod Assault RoW, since you are not allowed to charge after disembarking from a deep striking vehicle.

The DPA Rite of War specifically allows it. And even in Turn one, instead of turn two.

That is the exception of the general rule. Same with the numbers of Interceptions you can make. 

Generally soeaking 3 are max unless you have a gimmik which allows you to do that.

[Lord Krungharr]

Holy cow, this is blowing my mind!   Time to think about some army reworkings and new units.....like more pods, with claws.

[The Unseen]

The rule definitely needs an FAQ here, but I hope it goes towards DBH interpretation, having a 10 pt piece of wargear that can be applied all over the place letting things both intercept fire AND do it as many times as you purchased it, and not even be capped by the hard 3 limit per phase just turns MY movement phase into a shooting gallery. Which doesn't feel good, and heavily outweighs the benefits Deep Strike gained this edition.

Or go with you can't stack multiple reactions on the same action, so while your entire army can intercept fire, each of my units only has to eat 1 units worth, which might be RAW, I haven't dug through the wording on reaction timings, but also makes stacking interceptions less useful.

[LameBeard]

2 hours ago, The Unseen said:

Or go with you can't stack multiple reactions on the same action, so while your entire army can intercept fire, each of my units only has to eat 1 units worth, which might be RAW, I haven't dug through the wording on reaction timings, but also makes stacking interceptions less useful.

This seems a good rule, maybe even what was intended, but I can’t see anything in the rule book to this effect.

 

Everything is about reinforcing the Reaction Allotment restriction - which  turns out isn’t much of a restriction at all with augury scanners.

 

I also think I prefer the page 159 hard limit of 3 “regardless” rule, to the page 158 “unless” rule. 

[Gorgoff]

17 hours ago, LameBeard said:

This seems a good rule, maybe even what was intended, but I can’t see anything in the rule book to this effect.

 

Everything is about reinforcing the Reaction Allotment restriction - which  turns out isn’t much of a restriction at all with augury scanners.

 

I also think I prefer the page 159 hard limit of 3 “regardless” rule, to the page 158 “unless” rule. 

Doesn't matter because things like Augury Scanners or Tyrants Siege Terminators specifically allow to make more than 3 reactions. Even if the rulebook would say otherwise, special rules override core rules. That's what makes them special rules. 

But since the rulebook meantions exceptions anyway there is no need for an FAQ to allow that.

 

Having said that you could make the case that it would make the game better when they would bring an errata to change it so that only 3 can ever be made not matter the special rules. But this would be a change to the rules.

They alreqdy changed their core rules for reactions, so we will see. 

 

[LameBeard]

5 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Doesn't matter because things like Augury Scanners or Tyrants Siege Terminators specifically allow to make more than 3 reactions. Even if the rulebook would say otherwise, special rules override core rules. That's what makes them special rules. 

But since the rulebook meantions exceptions anyway there is no need for an FAQ to allow that.

 

Having said that you could make the case that it would make the game better when they would bring an errata to change it so that only 3 can ever be made not matter the special rules. But this would be a change to the rules.

They alreqdy changed their core rules for reactions, so we will see. 

 

Oh for sure, no doubt what the rule is, I was thinking about how we might houserule it.

 

I think there is some irony that pages 158 - 159 bang on and on about the reactions allotment, but actually apart from Warlord traits, how do you increase your limit? What way is there to go beyond 3 where that rule actually bites?

 

If they had written augury scanners instead as: “add one to your reaction allotment for the movement phase” would it have been game-breaking? No, and it would have fitted in the framework of the rule they had written, rather than tying themselves in knots.

 

 

[Gorgoff]

It would be better if they never had made exceptions to the cap of 3. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 11/27/2022 at 6:30 AM, LameBeard said:

Oh for sure, no doubt what the rule is, I was thinking about how we might houserule it.

 

I think there is some irony that pages 158 - 159 bang on and on about the reactions allotment, but actually apart from Warlord traits, how do you increase your limit? What way is there to go beyond 3 where that rule actually bites?

 

If they had written augury scanners instead as: “add one to your reaction allotment for the movement phase” would it have been game-breaking? No, and it would have fitted in the framework of the rule they had written, rather than tying themselves in knots.

 

 

 

There's actually very few rules that interact with the allotment, even warlord traits. In the traitor book it's angron and Horus who actually increase the allotment; everything else gets an "additional" reaction. 

 

Imo it seems like a change in writing that was never kept consistent and shouldn't really affect any reaction spending, it's not like augury where a specific unit gets to do a specific reaction for free; any unit can use any reaction, and you would have to go out of your way to say "I'm using my allotment instead of my extra one for this reaction, locking me out of any more". Except for exceptions like Khârn; his can only be used for advanced reactions, meaning you can lock yourself out of his extra reaction going by RAW.

 

Still don't think it's intended and shouldn't be played that way though. 

 

 

[Xenith]

The line on p158 is in my book also, UK English version.

 

Intercept is indeed powerful, and just kind of feels bad?

[LameBeard]

4 hours ago, Xenith said:

The line on p158 is in my book also, UK English version.

 

Intercept is indeed powerful, and just kind of feels bad?

But if I recall the parallel rule in HH v1.0 was also powerful? Maybe someone had bad experience of a rampaging deep strike army that needed some hard counters.

[Slips]

1 hour ago, LameBeard said:

But if I recall the parallel rule in HH v1.0 was also powerful? Maybe someone had bad experience of a rampaging deep strike army that needed some hard counters.

It was powerful, sure, but it had a range limit outside of Dreads with Helical Targeting Arrays.  In 1.0, Augury Scanners only allowed Interceptor with Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons on units that deep strike'd within 18" of the model with the Augury Scanner.

[TheTrans]

It was quite often tied to a character of some kind...most easily accessible Augury scanners I can think of was slapping one on an apoth or techmarine, so it was 50 points instead if 10. 

 

Also if you interceptored you lost the shooting ij your next shooting phase. 

 

It was quite powerful, but had its downsides and range limitations (generally) and required some 'unlocking' to get to it. 

 

Augury scanners being a no brainer 10 point item on most infantry squads was a dumb move. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 11/30/2022 at 12:08 AM, TheTrans said:

It was quite often tied to a character of some kind...most easily accessible Augury scanners I can think of was slapping one on an apoth or techmarine, so it was 50 points instead if 10. 

 

Also if you interceptored you lost the shooting ij your next shooting phase. 

 

It was quite powerful, but had its downsides and range limitations (generally) and required some 'unlocking' to get to it. 

 

Augury scanners being a no brainer 10 point item on most infantry squads was a dumb move. 

 

And to add to this even more, prior to the February 2019 faq, also only activated against deep strike and restricted the intercept to rapid fire and heavy weapons. 

 

Is deepstrike better thank in 1st? Ya, no doubt for melee units. But it's now a pretty binary Player A feels bad or Player B feels bad.

 

[Gorgoff]

To be fair we have to say that deep strike has become way more powerful as well. 

[Gorgoff]

I thought of a simpler identifier for the English print runs. If I'm not mistaken, the first English print run has "Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2021" in the small print on page 4, the second print run has "Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2022" written there.

 

Could y'all check our books?

[SkimaskMohawk]

My paper rule book is ©2021.

 

It's still hilariously sad to think they printed a whole run of books for the starter set in 2021 and realised it wasn't the actual rules, so had to do a separate version. 

[Gorgoff]

On 11/23/2022 at 12:05 PM, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Not having the last sentence isn't a surprise. There are so many typos and misinformation pieces in my book already. On top of that the rulebook is a jumbled mess. In any case the rulebook is very confusing in general. The core of the game is still better than 40k though.

I wonder which version you have. 

Because the dude who told me about it said that the 2022 version is the updated and therefore the current one.

 

He also told me that GW has a list of things they changed in the new version.... which means no less than GW doesn't tell us and let us stay in the dark on purpose. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

I wonder which version you have. 

Because the dude who told me about it said that the 2022 version is the updated and therefore the current one.

 

He also told me that GW has a list of things they changed in the new version.... which means no less than GW doesn't tell us and let us stay in the dark on purpose. 

 

From the answers in the thread and from what I've checked out in real life, every NA English copy has the sentence. The ©2021 box version, the ©2022 standalone, the Epub; they all have the same version of the rule. Now maybe he got a different version like Australian, or European English, and that variant is missing it. But it seems more likely that there was just a non reading of the page before the hole was dug.