Dark Angels Index

[Harleqvin]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:30 PM, ValourousHeart said:

 

That is total BS, and you know it.  Everyone knows that drawing A is what table quarters means.  Anyone trying to claim that table quarters means B, C, or D is cheating.

 

it's not bs. GW made an issue, and had to resolve it, due to how the game is being done by them.

and they weren't cheating. By the rules at the time, they followed what was said.

It's not the players fault for playing the game how it's written when the makers of the game have made it to be that way. the issue is you are used to it only being like A in that image. Nothing in the rules had any statement saying that's what quarter did in fact mean (while yes I agree it is like A, and that has been pretty much how it's always been for 40k from showing of how most table set ups are quartered that way, even though they have had in the past some battlefield layouts be long ways quartered, too.) The problem is with GW making the game to be done "you do what is written."

 

If someone says put these tables flush with the wall, and didn't tell you which way and you did it = instead of ll, the person at fault would be the person who gave the unclear direction of what they wanted to be done.

 

That's the issue here. GW, making their game be "you do what is written" has the obligation to make sure the rules are plainly clear and not up for "player" interpretation for how the game is supposed to be played.

I am fine with that being what GW is doing. It makes it less open to interpretation, just sometimes seemingly redundant rules (and sometimes mistakes happen.) But thems the breaks when you are trying to make the game as clear as you can to prevent player interpretation of the game system they plated for the masses.

 

So I don't blame any of the players for thinking the -1 damage would make damage go to 0, when pretty much all of the abilities that had it (except for like one instance,) had no statement of it being capped at minimum of 1 damage. I blame GW for not making the rule properly stated.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Harleqvin

[ValourousHeart]

I'm not blaming players for having wishful thoughts that -1 damage could take weapon damage to 0.  I've only ever said, don't get your hopes up because every time players get that idea in their heads, GW has struck it down.

 

No what I'm blaming players for is rules that unscrupulous players willfully misinterpret.

 

When I got into the hobby in 2nd edition, the Callidus assassin had deployment rules that said she replaced a model in an enemy unit.  There was a similar rule for the Ork Shock Attack Gun that in the game on a certain dice roll allowed the Ork player to take control of a model from the opponent's army.  There were several more example of this back then and even in later editions, for example Chaos had a way of turning models in to Chaos Spawn.  I believe the wording in most of those rules might have been "take that model off the board, and replace it with..." or "take control of that model as though it was part of your army" and similar.  Some players interpreted the word "take" as meaning the player had permission to steal the other player's model.  The fact that GW eventually released a statement clarifying that rules didn't permit stealing, in no way indicates that stealing was ever an appropriate interpretation of those rules.

 

You can also tell that a rules interpretation is complete BS when that rules concept has been in the game for 25-35 years and only ever been understood one way, like with table quarters meaning drawing A.  And then in the last couple of months some twit tries to get you to read their geometry text book to explain all of the other ways a geometric plane can be divided into 4 sections with equal surface area.

 

I'm not claiming that GW is never to blame for their rules.  Players will always push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and sometimes they will push to far.  To be intellectually honest you have to be willing to call out both sides when then go to far.  However many people will defend the players stealing other people's models because they are unwilling to call out misbehaving players.

 

But you mentioned something interesting.  You said something about seeing a battlefield with table quarters not matching drawing A.  I'm assuming you have first hand knowledge of this.  Please provide that example.  Where did you see this?  When did you see this?  What was the mission used on that map and did it require taking control of certain sections of the board?

[Harleqvin]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:24 PM, ValourousHeart said:

I'm not blaming players for having wishful thoughts that -1 damage could take weapon damage to 0.  I've only ever said, don't get your hopes up because every time players get that idea in their heads, GW has struck it down.

 

No what I'm blaming players for is rules that unscrupulous players willfully misinterpret.

 

When I got into the hobby in 2nd edition, the Callidus assassin had deployment rules that said she replaced a model in an enemy unit.  There was a similar rule for the Ork Shock Attack Gun that in the game on a certain dice roll allowed the Ork player to take control of a model from the opponent's army.  There were several more example of this back then and even in later editions, for example Chaos had a way of turning models in to Chaos Spawn.  I believe the wording in most of those rules might have been "take that model off the board, and replace it with..." or "take control of that model as though it was part of your army" and similar.  Some players interpreted the word "take" as meaning the player had permission to steal the other player's model.  The fact that GW eventually released a statement clarifying that rules didn't permit stealing, in no way indicates that stealing was ever an appropriate interpretation of those rules.

 

You can also tell that a rules interpretation is complete BS when that rules concept has been in the game for 25-35 years and only ever been understood one way, like with table quarters meaning drawing A.  And then in the last couple of months some twit tries to get you to read their geometry text book to explain all of the other ways a geometric plane can be divided into 4 sections with equal surface area.

 

I'm not claiming that GW is never to blame for their rules.  Players will always push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and sometimes they will push to far.  To be intellectually honest you have to be willing to call out both sides when then go to far.  However many people will defend the players stealing other people's models because they are unwilling to call out misbehaving players.

 

But you mentioned something interesting.  You said something about seeing a battlefield with table quarters not matching drawing A.  I'm assuming you have first hand knowledge of this.  Please provide that example.  Where did you see this?  When did you see this?  What was the mission used on that map and did it require taking control of certain sections of the board?

 

Once again, the issue isn't about player interpretation for the last several editions. It's GW making the rules do what what is written (to get away from player interpretation,) and not making the rule clear (when that happens, it allows for players to do things within the rules given.) Some of the rules they have done required further statement (and some of the things in this very new edition needed it, and the commentary seems to be written with that in mind before the core rules were released instead of being a part of it... but oh well, they released what was needed. mostly... but that's something else.)

 

older editions, and I think even with something from one of the fantasy systems, had lengthway quarters of the board. Not a lot, but I remember playing them. There's been a whole lot of maps over the years, in the core books, supplements, and WD issues. The usual was showing quarters as +, which most played as it was simplest/easiest/most common.

 

It's the problem of having a system be "do what is written" and not making those rules clear as to what those things mean (which sadly will happen. Overall GW has gotten around to fixing those things making it clear. But as said it happens from time to time with GW thinking people will understand what they meant, even though they started making the rules simply do what is written starting with 8th ed.)

 

[ValourousHeart]

26 minutes ago, Harleqvin said:

 

Once again, the issue isn't about player interpretation for the last several editions. It's GW making the rules do what what is written (to get away from player interpretation,) and not making the rule clear (when that happens, it allows for players to do things within the rules given.) Some of the rules they have done required further statement (and some of the things in this very new edition needed it, and the commentary seems to be written with that in mind before the core rules were released instead of being a part of it... but oh well, they released what was needed. mostly... but that's something else.)

 

older editions, and I think even with something from one of the fantasy systems, had lengthway quarters of the board. Not a lot, but I remember playing them. There's been a whole lot of maps over the years, in the core books, supplements, and WD issues. The usual was showing quarters as +, which most played as it was simplest/easiest/most common.

 

It's the problem of having a system be "do what is written" and not making those rules clear as to what those things mean (which sadly will happen. Overall GW has gotten around to fixing those things making it clear. But as said it happens from time to time with GW thinking people will understand what they meant, even though they started making the rules simply do what is written starting with 8th ed.)

 

 

Well I guess we are at an impasse.

 

I'm willing to admit that GW has some rules that need to be clarified.  We seem to agree on this point.

 

But I'm also willing to acknowledge the some players in the community that "want it the way they want it."

 

There were 2 players in the last month with that attitude at my FLGS.  I think I mentioned the first one already trying to include the Cruelboys Regiment of Renown in a Cruelboys army.  The second one wants to give his IG Epic Hero an Enhancement.  That is against the rules.  He is the type of player that will most likely still give that Epic Hero that Enhancement and if he is caught claim that he didn't know.

 

I say neither rule was ambiguous, but certainly not the rule about Epic Heroes and Enhancements.

 

What do you think?  Here is the rule.  Is GW at fault for being ambiguous?  Or does that player bear the responsibility.

 

[FarFromSam]

Can anyone fabricate an in-game reason why the doopy new storm speeders are T9 while fully enclosed aircraft are T8... and real speeders are... T7? 

[shabbadoo]

Because aircraft systems are more fragile than those of an equivalently-sized floaty tank.

 

Who else is just pleased as punch that our Taskforce rule has gone back to being not just a reactionary rule, but a situationally reactive rule in response to our units having had their arses handed to them and then failing a Battle Shock test?

Edited June 23, 2023 by shabbadoo

[FerociousBeast]

Well, what if an army had a detachment rule of 4+ FNP versus all Psychic attacks, and enemy attacks couldn’t overcharge Psychic attacks? That would be reactive too but would be considered pretty strong in that it reduced the effectiveness of a whole swath of the rulebook. 
 

Grim Resolve does the same. Battle shock is a much bigger part of the game now than morale has been in previous editions, and while DA aren’t immune to it, they are significantly less vulnerable to it and gain a lot of buffs when it does happen.

 

@ValourousHeart you seem to be arguing that GW doesn’t need to write clear and tight rules because “everyone knows” what the true interpretation is and they are being wicked or willfully obtuse if they choose to ignore it. I disagree with all of these premises.
 

1) Yes, GW needs to write rules as airtight as reasonably (and readably) possible.

2) Anytime anyone uses the statement “everyone knows” they are wrong. 
3) It is not morally wrong to play the rules the way they are written. The “RAWyers” sometimes even end up proven right in their debates with the RAI crowd (which I am part of for what it’s worth).

Edited June 23, 2023 by FerociousBeast

[Tacitus]

Battle shock MAY be a much bigger part of the game.  In that a FEW factions can build a theme around it - and even then it will be of questionable use if you can't make it count.  Just forcing a Battleshock failure will not do much - you have to make the opponent either lose the objective, or want to make a Desperate Escape Fall Back even with the risks to try and salvage as much as they can from your overwhelming/combo force that caused a healthy unit to fail (most likely on your turn after your movement, and charge phase) otherwise the unit will just recover from the Battleshock in the beginning of the opponent turn and mean very little.  Right now I'd rank Battleshock in general at about the same level as Preferred Enemy.  If the enemy isn't preferred/Battle Shock Themed it doesn't matter. 

[shabbadoo]

1 hour ago, FerociousBeast said:

Grim Resolve does the same. Battle shock is a much bigger part of the game now than morale has been in previous editions, and while DA aren’t immune to it, they are significantly less vulnerable to it and gain a lot of buffs when it does happen.

What "a lot of buffs?" Units get OC 1 instead of 0. Nothing else is mentioned. Am I missing something? We also have access to the Gladius Task Force Doctrine/stratagems though.

[bigtrouble]

After a few test games of 10th, I would recommend using the Gladius detachment  for competitive games.

 

Battle shock can be a factor, but the game is still lethal enough that units aren’t likely to survive focused shooting, so it’s value is reduced to maybe 1 or 2 instances per game.

 

Doctrines with the Gladius strategems is much more consistently applicable. 

 

Unforgiven detachment isn’t bad, it’s just not the better option.

[Vardus]

2 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Battle shock MAY be a much bigger part of the game.  In that a FEW factions can build a theme around it - and even then it will be of questionable use if you can't make it count.  Just forcing a Battleshock failure will not do much - you have to make the opponent either lose the objective, or want to make a Desperate Escape Fall Back even with the risks to try and salvage as much as they can from your overwhelming/combo force that caused a healthy unit to fail (most likely on your turn after your movement, and charge phase) otherwise the unit will just recover from the Battleshock in the beginning of the opponent turn and mean very little.  Right now I'd rank Battleshock in general at about the same level as Preferred Enemy.  If the enemy isn't preferred/Battle Shock Themed it doesn't matter. 

 

My understanding is that Objective Scoring occurs at the end of the Command Phase and anything that is said to occur at the end of the Command Phase happens after Battleshock tests. Any unit that is Battleshocked has an Objective Control value of 0 and can not contest objectives, which forces the opponent to lose the objective unless they have other scoring units nearby to contest your scoring units. So not automatically losing an objective does have some merits, whether it's strong or not remains to be seen.

 

[ValourousHeart]

5 hours ago, FerociousBeast said:

@ValourousHeart you seem to be arguing that GW doesn’t need to write clear and tight rules because “everyone knows” what the true interpretation is and they are being wicked or willfully obtuse if they choose to ignore it. I disagree with all of these premises.
 

1) Yes, GW needs to write rules as airtight as reasonably (and readably) possible.

2) Anytime anyone uses the statement “everyone knows” they are wrong. 
3) It is not morally wrong to play the rules the way they are written. The “RAWyers” sometimes even end up proven right in their debates with the RAI crowd (which I am part of for what it’s worth).

 

I have never made the argument that GW doesn't need to write clear rules!

My argument this entire time is that SOME players cheat.

Is that really such a difficult reality to admit?

 

The very last example I gave was about Epic Heroes and Enhancements.

 

GW's rule - Epic Heroes CAN NOT be given ANY Enhancements.

Player at my FLGS - I'm going to do it anyway.

 

Are you really claiming that there is ambiguity in the rule about Epic Heroes and Enhancements?

 

I think it is important we at least find a consensus on this question before we dive into the next point.

If, as you say, I'm wrong about table quarters, then please show me an example from a GW publication or a tournament circuit where table quarters was defined differently than the way GW recently defined it?

[Hoots]

** So I found the answer to my own question below***

It's on the Deathwing Terminator datasheet itself on the bottom right where it says attached unit!! who'd have thought!!!  

 

Ok, so I'm just browsing and can't see this anywhere as the chat above is kind of off topic but can someone please help.

 

Terminator librarians form the space marine datasheets can be leaders of relic, assault and regular terminator squads but I don't see anything allowing them to lead a deathwing terminator squad? 

 

Please tell me I'm wrong, I'm getting fed up thinking up combos only to find I cant attach certain leaders to certain units, Azrael not being able to join any 1st born except sternguard is just   

Edited June 23, 2023 by Hoots
answer found

[davextreme]

It's in the Deathwing Terminator Squad's entry:

 

Quote

ATTACHED UNIT
If a Character unit from your army with the Leader ability can be attached to a Terminator Squad, it can be attached to this unit instead.

 

[Tacitus]

12 hours ago, Vardus said:

 

My understanding is that Objective Scoring occurs at the end of the Command Phase and anything that is said to occur at the end of the Command Phase happens after Battleshock tests. Any unit that is Battleshocked has an Objective Control value of 0 and can not contest objectives, which forces the opponent to lose the objective unless they have other scoring units nearby to contest your scoring units. So not automatically losing an objective does have some merits, whether it's strong or not remains to be seen.

 

OK lets say I drop a unit of Reivers next to your Terminator Command Squad Deathstar brick, causing a check at -1.  I shoot it with some infernusators causing a check at -1.  I do the third thing I can't remember causing a check at -1 - all before the first casualty.  80% of the time at least one of those fails, and you're Battle Shocked.  We do the rest of the turn, and now it's your turn.  You recover from Battleshock, and then scoring happens.  Battleshock was not very effective - best case you didn't get to use a melee strat on your Death Star while I beat on them.   Battleshock can be potent, but you have to be able to force/do something after the battleshock changes the rules.   That's the point I was making - Battleshock for the sake of battleshock isn't a thing yet. 

[FerociousBeast]

14 hours ago, shabbadoo said:

What "a lot of buffs?" Units get OC 1 instead of 0. Nothing else is mentioned. Am I missing something? We also have access to the Gladius Task Force Doctrine/stratagems though.

Grim resolve enhancements and stratagems are supercharged when the unit is battle shocked. 

[Isual]

4 hours ago, FerociousBeast said:

Grim resolve enhancements and stratagems are supercharged when the unit is battle shocked. 

 

And that's a bloody stupid mechanic. 
I'm glad I decided to start a Tyranid project anyway a while ago.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yep, we get to lose a little less badly.

That's not what the Lion wanted.

[Tacitus]

3 hours ago, Isual said:

 

And that's a bloody stupid mechanic. 
 

Its Preferred Enemy: Battleshock for this to be a decent mechanic, they needed to make Battleshock Shenanigans a much more common gimmick in many more factions. 

[phandaal]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:10 PM, ValourousHeart said:

I have never made the argument that GW doesn't need to write clear rules!

My argument this entire time is that SOME players cheat.

Is that really such a difficult reality to admit?

 

Hard to believe this is even something that needs to be argued. People do cheat, and yes, people do (mis)interpret rules to their advantage.

[Grotsmasha]

It been pointed out for a few Editions now, that some Rules are so well understood that GW forgets to make a point of clarifying them.

I feel like the Table Quarters and -1D are both prime examples of this.

For players of multiple editions, these rules are plain and clear, for newer players the ambiguity isn't cleared by experience.

[twopounder]

6 hours ago, Grotsmasha said:

It been pointed out for a few Editions now, that some Rules are so well understood that GW forgets to make a point of clarifying them.

I feel like the Table Quarters and -1D are both prime examples of this.

For players of multiple editions, these rules are plain and clear, for newer players the ambiguity isn't cleared by experience.

Pretty much this. As I pointed out previously, being unable to wound something was a core mechanic of past editions, so it didn't seem off to me. I'd just bring a bigger gun.

[ValourousHeart]

21 hours ago, phandaal said:

Hard to believe this is even something that needs to be argued. People do cheat, and yes, people do (mis)interpret rules to their advantage.

 

My point was that we still need to police the community when the "(mis)interpret rules to their advantage".

The one and only response can't be just blame GW.

It could be inexperience, or it could be someone trying to take advantage.

 

8 hours ago, twopounder said:

Pretty much this. As I pointed out previously, being unable to wound something was a core mechanic of past editions, so it didn't seem off to me. I'd just bring a bigger gun.

 

I'm a little torn on this one.  Back in the day armor 14 was immune to weapons S7 and less.  Sure big scary things should be hard to take down, but not impossible.  It should just be a lot easier with the right tools.

 

I played my first 10th edition game yesterday.  My Imperial Knights vs Blood Angels.  The boltguns were struggling to deal with my Knights.  But that Repulsor Executioner was one shotting Armigers.  My Knight weapons were effective against his infantry, but were mostly ineffective against the Executioner.  It wasn't until I got close enough with my Harpoon that I was able to deal with the tank, and even then I rolled a 3 on the damage roll, so if the vehicle had a INV or FNP it could have survived.

 

So even though GW got rid of the "Our Weapons are Useless" aspect of the game and every weapon now has a chance to do something against every target, big things are very resilient.

 

It will be interesting to see what people come up with for their All Comers lists.

[Tacitus]

9 hours ago, ValourousHeart said:

It will be interesting to see what people come up with for their All Comers lists.

Marines have it somewhat easier with the plethora of Lethal Hits, and Anti-Vehicle grav - Pod Devs with Grav, Lethal Hitting Hellblasters, etc.  I have the feeling multiple 4x Grav Devs are going to be ubiquitous - Sisters are in a world of hurt right now by comparison. 

[Progenitor]

When some factions struggle to get above S10 with their weapons in any meaningful amount (except Marines ofc) I imagine the meta will be mechanised very heavily or big T monsters too.