Rules Questions

[Nagashsnee]

I thought it would be useful to have somewhere where people can ask rule questions, as putting them in the existing 28mm rule subgroup felt wrong.

 

My question is about knight armigers, namely they are bought in groups of 4 models do they then act on 1 model=unit basis based on the knights duty rule as they are also kngihts? Or do they form a detachment of 4 models? 

 

Secondly, if i have 2 units of tactical marines in their respective rhinos detachments, both rhinos units march and both units of passengers get out, one of the units has my commander, can he upon activation change the order of the second tactical unit to a charge? By using his master tactician rule? 

[SkimaskMohawk]

6 hours ago, Nagashsnee said:

My question is about knight armigers, namely they are bought in groups of 4 models do they then act on 1 model=unit basis based on the knights duty rule as they are also kngihts? Or do they form a detachment of 4 models? 

 

The knight paragon of duty rules are a bit confusing, but I'm pretty sure the armigers are the only entry in the knight list without independent, and those rules only affect units with independent to start with. So they'd be the detachment core and need to keep within 2" of each other, but each actual knight gets split off and can orbit it/each other in 6". Also the armigers are units of 3; the (4) is their scale.

 

7 hours ago, Nagashsnee said:

Secondly, if i have 2 units of tactical marines in their respective rhinos detachments, both rhinos units march and both units of passengers get out, one of the units has my commander, can he upon activation change the order of the second tactical unit to a charge? By using his master tactician rule?

 

It looks like yes. Master tactician says they need to be eligible for their new order (though they have no example and tell you you can break the Broken restriction as well). Just looking at the transport rules, it tells you that you can only issue certain orders while embarked, depending on transport type; the unit you want to flip orders on is no longer embarked, so should be eligible for Charge. 

 

I definitely forgot about Master tactician completely, but those transport switcheroos seem to be the best case use of it.

[Nagashsnee]

18 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

The knight paragon of duty rules are a bit confusing, but I'm pretty sure the armigers are the only entry in the knight list without independent, and those rules only affect units with independent to start with. So they'd be the detachment core and need to keep within 2" of each other, but each actual knight gets split off and can orbit it/each other in 6". Also the armigers are units of 3; the (4) is their scale.

 

 

It looks like yes. Master tactician says they need to be eligible for their new order (though they have no example and tell you you can break the Broken restriction as well). Just looking at the transport rules, it tells you that you can only issue certain orders while embarked, depending on transport type; the unit you want to flip orders on is no longer embarked, so should be eligible for Charge. 

 

I definitely forgot about Master tactician completely, but those transport switcheroos seem to be the best case use of it.

Yeah makes sense for armigers, had not noticed they are the only knights without independent haha.  Still 3 warglaives are tasty for 180 points. Them and a lancer offer allot of solution and surprising leves of durability. 

 

Master Tactican needs a faq/errata as it stands its insane. You can Deep strike termies and have a nearby master tactican make them charge, the aforementioned rhino rush and general shenanigan's.  Plus the fact that's for marines its cheap and easy to get multiple times. While for auxilia you are stuck at 1 per army.  Add in the fact that 6+ tactical on the charge will kill even a questoris knight and nothing is truly safe for the surprise charge. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Nagashsnee

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 hours ago, Nagashsnee said:

Master Tactican needs a faq/errata as it stands its insane. You can Deep strike termies and have a nearby master tactican make them charge, the aforementioned rhino rush and general shenanigan's.  Plus the fact that's for marines its cheap and easy to get multiple times. While for auxilia you are stuck at 1 per army.  Add in the fact that 6+ tactical on the charge will kill even a questoris knight and nothing is truly safe for the surprise charge. 

 

I'm not sure on this one. Your target needs to have not activated yet and also the order needs to be sequenced properly. Deepstriking in is part of it's activation; you do the placement and scatter, but it then gets to complete it's activation by moving. So you wouldn't be able to swap orders. 

 

Getting out of transports is looking like the only way to really slingshot things, though deepstriking through pods is sure to be really annoying with a couple detachments and one getting flipped. 

 

So ya, quite strong and makes me want to get some rhinos and more bolter guys. On top of wanting storm eagles, assaults, leviathans, rapiers, etc, etc....this game lol.

[Kleomenes]

You can't master tactician your own detachment either, I think. The rule states any "different" detachment may be the target. So you'd have to have another detachment with a tactician in place to order the unit that disembarked. 

[LameBeard]

Does failing a morale check in combat switch you to “Fall Back” orders?

 

page 62 on “Determine Combat Result” references Morale Check (page 64), then gives the Withdraw move rules.

 

page 64 unhelpfully says “A morale check is only caused in this manner as the result of an enemy Detachment attacking during the First Fire or Advancing stages of the Combat Phase, or due to the result of Overwatch” and then refers back to Morale checks in Engagement phase.

 

It then goes on to talk about fleeing, with very similar rules to withdrawing, with the crucial difference that in withdrawing you stop at battlefield edge, in fleeing you are destroyed at battlefield edge.

 

I assume “in this manner” refers to when the check is made, not the consequences of failing the check, and hence you do get Fall Back orders? So my losing until will have moved M + D6 + 2M. That’s quite far even for infantry.

 

And I haven’t yet read a rule that allows you to change the Fall Back order next turn. So my deeper question is, what is the point of all this? Why are we tracking fleeing units when they are basically just dead and in the way?

 

What is the point of stopping at battlefield edge in withdraw phase if I am removing the models in the end phase?

 

 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

The results of failing a morale test from Overwatch/first fire/advancing as failing a morale test from the engagement stage. Page 64 also says "The Engagement stage and casualties inflicted due to Fights cause Morale checks using the rules found in the Engagement stage section (see page 54)", though admittedly that reference is useless. That's what the "in this manner" part means; the morale test leading to the fall back order.

 

Withdrawing from combat is basically harmless as a result; you bounce off the board edge, no sweeping advances or anything to kill fleeing models, they can act the next turn. The biggest downsides are getting kicked off the objective for progressive scoring purposes, and opening your opponents up to being issued charge orders to repeat.

 

 

[LameBeard]

Thanks @SkimaskMohawk, I think I’m still missing something. The unit can only act next turn if they rally in the end phase (bottom right of page 64). But rallying happens *after* fleeing. So I still don’t see the point of stopping at board edge when withdrawing. You don’t seem to be able to rally between withdraw and flee. I guess in a few edge cases it is keeping formations above broken? I’m clutching at straws …

[Sherrypie]

The writing is messy on that part, yes. Personally I would prefer the interpretation where you aren't forced into Fall Back orders when making Withdrawals from engagements, because the alternative causes an effective 3x Move + D6" step back which is basically just the same as directly killing anything faster than a regular footslogger from your side of the table. If regrouping happened before Fleeing, maybe, but alas.

[SkimaskMohawk]

5 hours ago, LameBeard said:

Thanks @SkimaskMohawk, I think I’m still missing something. The unit can only act next turn if they rally in the end phase (bottom right of page 64). But rallying happens *after* fleeing. So I still don’t see the point of stopping at board edge when withdrawing. You don’t seem to be able to rally between withdraw and flee. I guess in a few edge cases it is keeping formations above broken? I’m clutching at straws …

 

What I'm saying is when you withdraw, you don't get the fall back marker. 

 

They slopped a lot of parts of rules up in the book, like plasma blast guns reference 3 shots in examples and marine planes having light on point defence. Stuff we know got changed in other areas. It's not a clean argument (either way), there's no silver bullet, but there is a whole lot of intent.

 

The morale rules read in a way where they changed something but never cleaned it up. What we have now is page 64 saying to use the a different set of rules for morale checks caused in the engagement step. Those rules have their own failure clause. Those rules also have some direct design contradictions , like withdraw preventing table edge and barring shooting, while fall back destroys on table edge and also... inherently stops shooting due to the fallback orders.

 

These two are not meant to happen to the same unit in a turn. Imo, when you withdraw, you solely follow the method for it; move M+d6, stop at the board edge, "auto rally", and prevented from shooting. You don't tack on a fallback marker because you didn't take morale from one of the shooting methods 

 

[LameBeard]

10 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

What I'm saying is when you withdraw, you don't get the fall back marker. 

 

They slopped a lot of parts of rules up in the book, like plasma blast guns reference 3 shots in examples and marine planes having light on point defence. Stuff we know got changed in other areas. It's not a clean argument (either way), there's no silver bullet, but there is a whole lot of intent.

 

The morale rules read in a way where they changed something but never cleaned it up. What we have now is page 64 saying to use the a different set of rules for morale checks caused in the engagement step. Those rules have their own failure clause. Those rules also have some direct design contradictions , like withdraw preventing table edge and barring shooting, while fall back destroys on table edge and also... inherently stops shooting due to the fallback orders.

 

These two are not meant to happen to the same unit in a turn. Imo, when you withdraw, you solely follow the method for it; move M+d6, stop at the board edge, "auto rally", and prevented from shooting. You don't tack on a fallback marker because you didn't take morale from one of the shooting methods 

 

Which is how I read it the first time until I talked myself out of it! What’s frustrating is that this could have been made clearer in the book in fewer words…

[Pacific81]

You could probably say that about most of the book. Goodness me I don't think I have read such a crunchy and wordy set of rules in some years, it reads like insurance contract T&C's andI can't help but read them out aloud in Mr Beans' voice!

 

Anyway! One question if I may: Is it possible to defer First Fire to fire later in the Advance Fire phase? The First Fire rule (p54) suggests not, but then the advance fire rule states 'all detachments issued with an Advance or First Fire Order must be activated in this stage". Which conflicts with the "All detachments issued with a FF must be activated in this stage" in the FF section.

I did wonder if deferring was possible in a similar way to the SM2 rule.

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Looks like no. There's no way of getting around "all detachments issues with a first fire order must be activated" and then the clause of removing the order on activation regardless of firing.

 

The rules really read like they had first fire (and morale) work a different way for a while and weren't fully ironed out when they were changed.

[Crablezworth]

Another piece of evidence that first fire worked differently before, and likely was in the movement phase, is quake doesn't make any sense. The -1 tp shooting if you cause a hit works assuming the target detachment has yet to fire any weapons, but inherently everything you shoot at has already moved rendering the half speed sorta pointless and it may even help the enemy in that if they fall back from morale, it may slow that process, but I don't think that's the intent. If it lasted loner than until the end of the round it'd make sense but as is, without first fire having been in the movement phase it really makes no sense. 

[Pacific81]

What is -1 TP please? Did they insert a Beavis and Butthead clause

[Valkyrion]

So are we thinking it could/should have been; First Fire > Move/March/Charge > Fight > Advance Fire > End Phase?

 

I might play a game testing this system, see how it works. 

I suppose a reason for changing it is that Move > Combat > End rolls smoother than shoot > move > fight > shoot again > end?

[LameBeard]

Yeah I guess they started like Adeptus Titanicus and then made it different later (maybe for good reasons that I haven’t spotted yet?). In AT, in First Fire you shoot instead of move.

[Crablezworth]

Well I think the good reason is it can create a lot of decision paralysis with movement and it likely slowed things way down. Case in point, if they were doing what they're doing with overwatch with first fire, namely the weird hypothetical position stuff, example if in the movement phase a detachment in range but out of los moved from a position out of los to another position out of los but crossing into the unit with first fires los you may have been required to like hold your movement there and complete it only after, and stuff like that gets really messy.  You already have overwatch interacting really strangely with stuff like assault marines. 

[Valkyrion]

If First Fire was to happen first, Overwatch wouldn't really be needed as a rule, would it?

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

If First Fire was to happen first, Overwatch wouldn't really be needed as a rule, would it?

 

Well it allows you to interrupt a units movement to get ahead of things like charging and interceptor. In AT, you could have a bunch of first fires set up, but if your opponent has the first activation, none of that matters and they can just slam a charge in there.

 

But ya, you can make a good argument for overwatch and and first fire jostling for the same space if first fire was in the movement phase. You can also make a way stronger version of that argument for fist fire and advance right now.

 

Id be interested in trying overwatch being locked to first fire and then trying it in both phases and see how the game changes as a result.

[Valkyrion]

Was Overwatch a thing in old epic systems? My understanding is that Overwatch is something you can do when you can't do anything - so you do it in your opponents turn in IGOUGO systems (or a Reaction in 30k) - 2nd ed 40k I think had you forgo shooting in your turn to shoot in your opponents, for instance.  Does an alternate activation system really need an interrupt? 

[SkimaskMohawk]

According to Pacific it wasn't a thing in the direct inspiration, Space Marine 2. First fire apparently did have some similar functionality allowing you to fire even in combat as a sort of pseudo overwatch.

 

Looking at netepic (also inspired by the same game)first fire gives you access to snap fire, which is pretty much the exact same thing as Overwatch but with a smaller penalty to hit (though netepic doesn't seem to be capped at 6s always hit and go to 7s).

 

So there's always been something to prevent charges from just rolling across the board and shutting down the unit they tag. 

 

 

[Valkyrion]

Without belabouring the issue too much, would First Fire going before moving chargers not mitigate your last point? Orders are revealed together and can't usually be changed, so e.g I am attempting to prevent your potential chargers by giving more of my guys first fire orders to blow them off the board before you tag my units. 

 

[Crablezworth]

My assumption is the level of firepower was always too much at range, Something like a big titan standing sentinels split firing to kingdom come probably made it just too good. 

 

 

I'd be down for trying overwatch only on first fire outside of point defense. I don't know if it'd be an immediate and noticeable improvement, but the current issue is advance is just too flexible, especially in the context of like no units yet requiring you not move to fire or even an incentive to stay still. There are some special rules in the book that do give benefits like ripple fire and siege weapon but nothing has those yet, so maybe after the next book we'll see more first fire in general but the overwatch change would make it feel better I think. Would cut down the sillyness of everything just dump firing into planes. At least they'd have not move and get ready for it. 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

Without belabouring the issue too much, would First Fire going before moving chargers not mitigate your last point? Orders are revealed together and can't usually be changed, so e.g I am attempting to prevent your potential chargers by giving more of my guys first fire orders to blow them off the board before you tag my units. 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by mitigate? 

 

Ya, movement phase/the version of first fire i read where you get to shoot while engaged removes the necessity of Overwatch. Current/netepic style requires something else.

 

My only points are that these games have always had some sort of mechanic to not just get tagged by charges, and all the past ones tied that mechanic into first fire. It's not tied into first fire now while also keeping that phase in the combat phase, making the order really bad and Overwatch really easy to apply en masse.