Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We all play house rules. Everyone’s understanding of the rules is different - in part this is one of the reasons for GT’s reputation for being a bit prickly. It can be something of a shock to discover that your opponent interprets what you regard as obvious completely differently, especially when that assumption underpins a move you’ve just made!

Most rules issues I’ve had have simply been a matter of different understandings of how the game is played due to different ‘house’ rules or easy misreadings of the text. As an example, I played a guy named Marcus in game 2 at the GT final, and you could hear out discussion at the other end of the hall. I don’t think he was being difficult, but he had a different understanding of how the rules worked. Had we discussed our understanding of the rules first, we probably would have had a simpler game.

So, with that out the way, my question is, is it worth compiling a list of rules ‘rubbing points’ worth rehearsing before a game? By this I don’t mean controversies that require decrypting the rules to understand, but about more general assumptions.

The disagreements I had were:

Vehicles and Armour Facings:

A vehicle’s armour is calculated by arc, not by visible facing. I twice had situations where I fired at the side of a vehicle, only to be told I could only see the front armour. My opponents had, quite reasonably, positioned their vehicles such that they thought I could only see the front armour, despite my shots clearly coming from the side arc.

Vehicles Wrecks are not Level 3 Area Terrain:

A Vehicle that is wrecked does not become area terrain. A wreck becomes difficult ground and gives a 4+ cover save, but blocks line of sight as its profile, not as level 3 terrain. i.e. you can’t hide a hammerhead behind a wrecked hammerhead unless you match the profile. And you certainly can’t hide one behind a wrecked Piranha!

Are there other things you should clarify? I play 40K infrequently, and went I first went down the local club and suggested to my opponent we roll for missions, he said “what’s a mission?”, so, as you can see, I’m not in the best position to predict these sort of things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Clarify whether your both gonna be nobbers and use the short board edge of your deployment zones to move Reserves on. Having your opponent move units on 15" up the board in a Recon to strike at an unexpected quarter is pretty gash.

Explain the 2 unit line of unassaultability, explain how pathetic someone must be to use such a move.

Clarify whether troops in a transport can claim objectives since they aren't 'on the board'.


Thankfully I've only come up against 1 of these loopholes, and it bit him in the ass when I used the same loophole against him to much better effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
What level are hills! :?
Will someone at GW PLEASE give an answer!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Nope!
Level 2, Level 3, cover save, no cover save, the rulings are endless!
Personally depending on the rest of the terrain I'd usually play them no cover level 2 although It would be nice to get a definitive answer from the HQ bods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Having a GT where each of your opponent has the same interpretation of hills as you is like getting a new ork codex!!

Personally i try and play hills as level 3. Ive had quite a few games with hills as level 2 at GTs and it made for a less interesting game as one army sat back and out shot the other. With them as level 3 it was more interesting - though i keep seeming to lose them!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
I had a night fight one come up vs The Tomato. I thought the spotting distance acted like a maximum range on a model by model basis. Turns out that if one can see, all can see.

Lately I've been playing hills as wysiwyg, with the 5+ cover suggested by the rulebook. The BGB suggests that most terrain shoud be wysiwyg, except things like woods. There are so many ways of playing terrain its ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
How about whether or not you can charge a unit with an IC if another unit that you will not be in assault with will be within 1"?

We don't have to worry about this in the states - charge away. However, it seems to come up in the UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Lately I've been playing hills as wysiwyg, with the 5+ cover suggested by the rulebook. The BGB suggests that most terrain shoud be wysiwyg, except things like woods. There are so many ways of playing terrain its ridiculous.
Problem with that is most GW Hills are 1-1.5" tall, so hiding barely anything. Add that to the fact they are often half the terrain put on the board at tournaments it makes for a piss poor game IMO. Harking back to the grim days of 3rd Ed, he with the SAFH wins by rolling more dice at you.

Like Fallen Angel, I try to argue Level 3 all the time, it means there are lots of areas to hide behind, to advance behind, etc. Saying this as a predominantly shooty player it makes for a far more interesting and interactive game than not moving after deployment.

I'm not a fan of level 2 because it discourages vehicles. And aside from skimmers, vehicles are pathetic enough, especially transports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
I'm actually not that fussed about playing hills either way. Sometimes not having everything as size 3 makes for an interesting game. If there isn't much to hide behind, then size 3 for hills is definitely a good idea. If there's already a lot of stuff that's size 3 wysiwyg may make for a better game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I agree that hills are an issue. I dislike WYSIWYG hills as it leaves things open to contention, as a model's eye viewpoint is actually pretty hard to achieve. Personally I prefer to play GW hills as level 2, with a 6+ cover save for being on them, as:
i) a tank can be seen over the height of the hills
ii) all other terrain tends to be level 3.

That said, this is something you almost certainly will discuss before the game, if for no other reason than that the rulespack advises players to discuss terrain IIRC.

what constitutes the 'board edge' is a good one. As a similar issue I had someone claim a unit could hold only one objective in secure and control, so recapitulating all aspects of the mission is probably one for the list (what scores and how, where reserves come from, what constitutes off the table for deep strike, others?)

The anti-siren exploitation of the 1" rule needs dealing with in the GT FAQ. If we can't get an answer on this from Brian A, then it certainly needs to go in the list.

Should the question of units inside transports be raised with the Brian as a GT FAQ question? IThe question of entering via the short-board edge from reserve could perhaps be answered that way too as it is based on very partial readings of the rules.

This perhaps leads into another question. Should we begin assembling questions for a GT FAQ, assuming Brian will do one again this year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
torgoch said:
This perhaps leads into another question. Should we begin assembling questions for a GT FAQ, assuming Brian will do one again this year?
I think we should try something like that as Brian does visit this site. At any rate, it might give some solutions for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I've PMd him to ask him what they are doing re FAQ this year. If they are, then I'll start a thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Prophaniti said:
I had a night fight one come up vs The Tomato. I thought the spotting distance acted like a maximum range on a model by model basis. Turns out that if one can see, all can see.
BGB said:
Roll 2D6 and multiply the result by 3, rolling once per unit only. This is the maximum range that any non-barrage weapons can be fired at
So, no, only those in the unit that can see, can shoot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I always thought the other way too - a hang over from 3rd edition perhaps? - and have mostly seen it played incorrectly.

Definitely one for the list :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Actually, one that's worth clarifying is the effects of area terrain, notably that level 2 terrain hides infantry from infantry, but infantry can shoot a tank, and tanks can shoot at infantry. Although this is reasonably well understood, the example in the rulebook is actually wrong, so can leave to some poor soul getting understandably confused
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
On the subject of area terrain, how cover saves when shooting over area terrain.

i.e. size 2 model shoots size 2 model over size 1 AT

i) target is at edge of AT. Does it get cover save?
ii) target does not contact AT but shots still pass over (to majority of unit) do they get cover save?

IIRC (being at work, no book) the BGB rather vaguely advises they do in both instances although i don't recall having actually taken one...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Another one to remind people of is that if a model has half of its base in cover, but the half outside cover is charged, you go in Initiative order as the charging unit has not had to pass through terrain.

Also, being partially in cover in relation to cover saves.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top