Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

"Wait...is that right?!" Why not ask? This is the place to share a rules question (or revelation) you learned at the table.
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby MrScotty » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:33 pm

I am also much more inclined to grant "smart tactics" to an opponent if a choice is not obvious, or if it contains some trade-off. For a shooting unit, there is no trade off to clumping up on a ledge - it grants you superior LOS, it grants you cover vs shooting, it allows you now complete immunity to damage from melee and if you have an objective up there (There's now another ruling in the FAQ that definitively kills "pillar objectives" - you measure vertical distance as well when determining if you're within 3") you also make that objective effectively un-claimable.

It creates a situation where it's generally understood that on a game board with no terrain, a shooting army will pretty much beat a melee army, and conversely, more terrain means that you've given a certain type of shooting army even MORE of an advantage because you've given them cover saves and melee immunity (and unclaimable objectives, just in case your opponent is playing a lot of bikes or tanks).

The tradeoff previously to being up high was that once you're up there, you're stuck, and you can't run away from melee units that might want to munch on your faces. This makes pretty much any small platform terrain piece an unassailable fortress for shooting infantry - far better even than the actual fortresses that you pay points for, because those can usually be attacked and killed.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!
User avatar
Ascion
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:49 am
Name: Alex N
Experience Level: Novice
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: Thousand Sons

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby Ascion » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:26 am

MrScotty I found the answer!

https://i.imgur.com/cIAVJGV.jpg

Clearly in jest, though amusingly there isn't a rule about orientation....
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby MrScotty » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:43 am

Ascion wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:26 am
MrScotty I found the answer!

https://i.imgur.com/cIAVJGV.jpg

Clearly in jest, though amusingly there isn't a rule about orientation....
My Harlequins and Jetbikes will now be played upside-down in game with the bases up in the air. That's their fluff. They're weird, upside-down flying biker clowns.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!
User avatar
Draaen
Member
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:02 pm
Name: Mark
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: Tau, Space Marines, Daemons

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby Draaen » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:02 pm

Well here we go attached drones are definitely not counted in the rule of 3.

Image

Love the mortarion pic. I see peoples point now on the assaulting bit. To me I would have said Mortarion would have been able to charge with a wobbly model syndrome in that picture. I was thinking more like a squad of 30 ork boyz trying to get up there. I'd move the models and let my opponent have wobbly model on the edges. That way he can shoot the unit in cover with grenades or pistols to open some gaps to pile into. The guys aren't invulnerable up top and you still play by the standard combat rules which seems reasonable and fair to me. I also think for big models like knights though that they should be able to attack people in buildings. Heck if people were up a bit higher it might make it easier for them lol.

I would argue there are trade-offs for shooting models that are on a ledge or up high in ruins. You can't re-position easily so your firing lanes are set allowing your opponent to use LOS blockers or move outside of your threat range. Since they are higher up it is easier for your opponent to see them to shoot at. Per the FAQ flying models ignore vertical distances so if you are really high your opponent can make a significantly more likely assault out of deep strike or a re-positioning ability like DA Jump. Further you aren't placing the terrain like you do your army so you are deploying your army around pieces of terrain. This includes supporting units as well beyond just the unit in terrain. There also might not be appropriate terrain so you can't depend on the tactic and your investment is a bit less efficient in those cases. Maybe they aren't huge opportunity costs and some units don't care at all about the costs but they are costs and some units will thrive in certain situations.

I'd let people get the full charge off if they felt strongly about it. I thought maybe a more middle of the road vs everybody can make it in even if they can't fit or no one can make it in if they can't fit option is something worth considering. I've used it whenever the debate came up in Mordheim, shadow war Armageddon and previous editions of 40k when the rules were ambiguous and it seemed to be well received and considered fair.
Game Preferences:
Current Beta rules in effect
I'm happy to play lower points levels with people who are staring out or building up new forces
Fair warning my doofy daemons have 3rd party models, scratch builds, old warhammer models and I haven't moved all their bases over to the 40k ones yet! Happy to switch to either Tau or White Scars.
User avatar
The cosmic serpent
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:37 am
Name: Keith
Experience Level: Intermediate
Play Style: Casual
Armies: Eldar (CWE, DE, H), GK, Crons, Tau, AL
Location: Chelmsford MA

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby The cosmic serpent » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:11 pm

My uncles brother's cousin that knows a guy at GW that can photoshop lol :)

Also poor insider Ryan is so publicly busted now for leaking from the rules team.

I'm happy it looks like they are using some sense for this exception.
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby MrScotty » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:00 pm

The "Get up on the edge, claim Wobbly Model, front row and only front row gets to make its melee attacks" interpretation is what the FAQ question there is specifically resolving, as it was a rules interpretation picked up by many major competitive events as a de facto replacement to the "attacking up levels" rule that existed in every edition up til now.

Similarly to how the nightmare scenario so often trotted out on internet forums of baneblades drawing line of sight from their antenna to fire their full payload at a single square inch of rhino viewed through a window rarely happens in practice, I don't anticipate this being much of a big problem. The extra distance gained from being on the top level of a ruin is generally enough to discourage charging anyway, and people are rarely such mustache-twirling powergamers as to deploy all their objectives up on the top levels of terrain to deny vehicle-heavy armies from ever scoring.

All the same, I'd like to see the game move more in the direction of specific posing decisions making fewer positive or negative impacts on gameplay. I sent a suggestion to the GW faq team that two rules be added to the Ruin terrain type (or other terrain pieces intended to mirror Ruins)

1) Any structure large enough to be considered a Ruin by the players will be dense enough that soldiers trying to aim through the structure would be significantly impeded. As such, regardless of how the terrain is modeled, Line of Sight for shooting attacks cannot be drawn through the ground floor of any Ruin.

2) The upper stories of Ruins make excellent defensive structures, allowing attackers to deny a foe the advantage of numbers in an assault by forcing them to clamber up the walls or stairs to engage them. When measuring charge distance to a unit on an upper level of a ruin, charging models within 1" of a wall one level below may be counted as within 1" of the enemy models above. Models positioned in this way may make close combat attacks in the Fight phase, but they do not enable other friendly models within 1" to also make close combat attacks as normal.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!
User avatar
Indy
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:57 pm
Name: JP Anderson
Experience Level: Intermediate
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: Blood Angels
Location: Melrose

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby Indy » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:54 pm

MrScotty wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:00 pm
The "Get up on the edge, claim Wobbly Model, front row and only front row gets to make its melee attacks" interpretation is what the FAQ question there is specifically resolving, as it was a rules interpretation picked up by many major competitive events as a de facto replacement to the "attacking up levels" rule that existed in every edition up til now.

Similarly to how the nightmare scenario so often trotted out on internet forums of baneblades drawing line of sight from their antenna to fire their full payload at a single square inch of rhino viewed through a window rarely happens in practice, I don't anticipate this being much of a big problem. The extra distance gained from being on the top level of a ruin is generally enough to discourage charging anyway, and people are rarely such mustache-twirling powergamers as to deploy all their objectives up on the top levels of terrain to deny vehicle-heavy armies from ever scoring.

All the same, I'd like to see the game move more in the direction of specific posing decisions making fewer positive or negative impacts on gameplay. I sent a suggestion to the GW faq team that two rules be added to the Ruin terrain type (or other terrain pieces intended to mirror Ruins)

1) Any structure large enough to be considered a Ruin by the players will be dense enough that soldiers trying to aim through the structure would be significantly impeded. As such, regardless of how the terrain is modeled, Line of Sight for shooting attacks cannot be drawn through the ground floor of any Ruin.

2) The upper stories of Ruins make excellent defensive structures, allowing attackers to deny a foe the advantage of numbers in an assault by forcing them to clamber up the walls or stairs to engage them. When measuring charge distance to a unit on an upper level of a ruin, charging models within 1" of a wall one level below may be counted as within 1" of the enemy models above. Models positioned in this way may make close combat attacks in the Fight phase, but they do not enable other friendly models within 1" to also make close combat attacks as normal.
#2 is quite elegantly put with a good dash of fairness and realism
“Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.”

-G.K. Chesteron
User avatar
Eisenfresser
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:18 pm
Name: Steven Hirsch
Experience Level: Intermediate
Play Style: Casual
Armies: IG Tanks

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby Eisenfresser » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:57 pm

MrScotty wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:00 pm
1) Any structure large enough to be considered a Ruin by the players will be dense enough that soldiers trying to aim through the structure would be significantly impeded. As such, regardless of how the terrain is modeled, Line of Sight for shooting attacks cannot be drawn through the ground floor of any Ruin.
Is this what's already being used by some major tournaments (ITC I think)?

And just to idiot proof your meaning - I can shoot at a unit on the ground floor, I just can't shoot at a unit on the other side of the ruin, right?
Game preferences:
+1 to going first roll if you finish deploying first
All terrain is "statuary"
No First Blood - it's basically a bonus VP for going first
Current Beta rules

Army
4,500 points of Imperial Guard
2,800 of tanks alone
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby MrScotty » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:05 pm

Eisenfresser wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:57 pm
MrScotty wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:00 pm
1) Any structure large enough to be considered a Ruin by the players will be dense enough that soldiers trying to aim through the structure would be significantly impeded. As such, regardless of how the terrain is modeled, Line of Sight for shooting attacks cannot be drawn through the ground floor of any Ruin.
Is this what's already being used by some major tournaments (ITC I think)?

And just to idiot proof your meaning - I can shoot at a unit on the ground floor, I just can't shoot at a unit on the other side of the ruin, right?
Right. Because currently, being inside a ruin grants a cover save, but being BEHIND a ruin (which should logically make you even harder to hit) gives you none.

THat's a lot of why I like my Statuary Terrain workaround right now.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!
User avatar
smbarne
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:32 pm
Name: Stephen Barnes
Experience Level: Intermediate
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: Raven Guard & Black Templar
Location: Somerville

Re: Spring 40k FAQ Discussion Thread

Postby smbarne » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:12 am

I feel like I'm one of the few people who isn't a fan of the ITC first floor ruins rules for blocking LOS always. I completely get the idea - blocking LOS theoretically helps balance gunline armies ( except most has LOS ignoring units because of this now ). What I've found that this encourages is:

- melee units that hide in LOS blocking ruins but magically teleport through them while moving or charging because <INFANTRY>
- LOS ignoring units ( Reapers, Hive Guard ) in LOS blocking terrain with tons of bubble wrap

I find this less fun than playing standard terrain rules *or* the statuary hack. LOS blocking terrain you can inhabit Seema to break 8th more than impassible LOS blocking.