Common Rule Misconceptions.

[Mr Mystery]

Morning.

So, currently a bit of lull in my working day, so having a wee sneaky thread posting to keep me busyish.

And it's about rules you often see misinterpreted online.

To start with.....

Necrons Quantam Shielding thing. So often, I see people claiming it makes their stuff AV13 all round....which isn't true. It bumps up the front and side armour only, leaving your bum end hanging in the breeze.

One from 5th Ed? People adamant that the bog standard Power Weapon was specialist, so didn't get the +1 attack unless paired with another specialist weapon. It wasn't. The BRB had a definitive list of the generic weapons to which 'specialist' applied (from rough memory, Powerfists, Thunderhammer, Lightning Claw? May have been one or two others more army specific, but certainly not power weapons!)

Right, over to you! Keep it clean!

And please, no dodgy interpretation rulings and that. Just stuff people misquote despite the rule itself being exceedingly clear!

[Wolfshade]

Wound allocation from (large) blast weapons that aren't barrage, trying to allocate from the hole.

Oh and the difficulties some have with firing Bassies either direct or indirect...

[DarkLink]

Look Out Sir. It doesn't work the way anyone seems to think it does. I literally can't believe how many different, wrong, ways I've seen people play it. The FAQ only made it worse, because while it does technically simplify the rule, people are still so stupid that they can't understand that you don't always have to roll one single save at a time, every time.

[John Bower]

Look Out Sir. It doesn't work the way anyone seems to think it does. I literally can't believe how many different, wrong, ways I've seen people play it. The FAQ only made it worse, because while it does technically simplify the rule, people are still so stupid that they can't understand that you don't always have to roll one single save at a time, every time.

Oh Ye Gods I hear that, we had a guy at my club like that, insisted that you MUST take LoS before you save; even when it was a blob of Space Marines all with the same save, it only works like that if you have different saves on the models; like a Termi captain attached to a normally armoured squad of marines. The rules are very clear on that.

another misconception I've come across is that IC's can't use emplacements as they are 'artillery pieces' just because they have the same profile.

[Mr Mystery]

Look Out Sir, whilst not exactly the most elegantly written rule does seem to suffer from people actively trying to overcomplicate it.

As said, no real need for it to be a 'one at a time' affair. Batches, fair enough, and waiting for a batch to resolve before deciding the next batch, fair enough.

Still not a great rule, but not as clunky as some insist on making it :)

[John Bower]

I do think the wording (as it stood) of the FAQ unnecessarily complicated matters and caused a misconception; as I pointed out to somebody once, the way they worded that would mean you couldn't LoS a lascannon shot as it technically would be an 'unsaved wound'. We all know that was not what they meant, all they were trying to do was clarify the situation, but that was how the wording could be read.

[DarkLink]

Technically, the FAQ requires that you always LOS before saves, even when it makes no sense to do so. The LOS rules originally were not actually very difficult to understand. If everyone had the same save, roll your saves, then LOS. If you had different saves, work through the saves one at a time (really, in as large a batch as possible), then LOS. That's really all there is to it.

You should also be required to declare all LOS at once. None of this 'roll one save and one LOS at a time until I take X wounds on this character' crap. That's just terrible game design.

Really, what they should do is return to 5th ed wound allocation, with the modification that you only distinguish between models by save, not by unique wargear. It was the ability to mix up wargear to optimize wound allocation that was a problem in 5th, but the overall system was easy to use.

[Gleipnir]

Technically, the FAQ requires that you always LOS before saves, even when it makes no sense to do so. The LOS rules originally were not actually very difficult to understand. If everyone had the same save, roll your saves, then LOS. If you had different saves, work through the saves one at a time (really, in as large a batch as possible), then LOS. That's really all there is to it.

Yet the errata clearly requires you to use the Mixed Saves method if the unit contains a character, allocating wounds and resolving saves model by model. I agree that a mutually agreeable method could always be used to speed things up. For example nothing prevents you from using the Fast Dice method described pg. 16 though I've always read Fast Dice to be optional method and not the rule perhaps because it is worded "you can instead" not you must, or do this instead. Hence need for it to be mutually agreeable.

[DarkLink]

Plus, despite that it calls for always using mixed saves, there's literally no actual difference between methods if everyone has the same armor save except that the mixed save method takes far, far, far longer.

[Gleipnir]

Correct so since the guy rolling those saves has the option rolling using the fast method would be best way to manage it, unless you actually have different saves or multi wound models that make it to your advantage to resolve them one at a time, the guy attacking you gets to control the order of the wounds you are rolling on after all.

Though for Look out Sir the # of dice in each grouping rolled would need to be limited to the number of models in the unit within 6" of the character or you are potentially allowing for more Look out sir rolls than he would be entitled to.

[DarkLink]

Or, more accurately you keep removing wounds until you run out of models within 6" and are forced to remove wounds on the character despite passing LOS. But, yes, that's correct.

[Gleipnir]

One of the most common rule misconceptions I see though is determining line of sight to things like weapons and wings or measuring vehicle cover on exposed turrets rather than the hull.

[Houghten]

One of the most common rule misconceptions I see though is determining line of sight and cover saves from things like weapons and wings or turrets rather than the hull

Actually, you do determine line of sight from weapon muzzles for vehicles, even Walkers. Page 71, second paragraph.

Unless you meant "to" and not "from"? For shooting at vehicles, you'd be right...

[John Bower]

which is a little silly, you don't stick your head down the muzzle to see your target, so you should really be measuring from the turret. I know the rule, I'm just saying it doesn't really add up.

[SaveModifier]

But the round or laser bolt or whatever DOES fire from the muzzle, at least, thats my understanding of how guns work, but I'm British so I'll admit I don't know a lot about them

[TimmyPowerGamer]

BRB Pg.71, second paragraph. Hardly a misconception here, except by Gleipnir.

[John Bower]

But the round or laser bolt or whatever DOES fire from the muzzle, at least, thats my understanding of how guns work, but I'm British so I'll admit I don't know a lot about them

I know the bullet/bolt/laser beam does, but what I meant is we're not only talking about that, what about 'seeing' your target, you would be looking from the turret like in any tank, if you can't see it, it doesn't matter that your gun barrel can, you can't so wouldn't be firing at that target would you? Even the best modern tank (which technologically is far and away better equipped in the electronics warfare department than anything in 40k) doesn't have a camera on the barrel, it's on the turret. I understand why they do that, and yes okay it's their game their rules, I'm just saying that realistically it doesn't make sense to be measuring a vehicle/target you can't see in a game that purportedly uses True line of sight.

[Nabterayl]

I get what you're saying, John, but I think there are more cases where the turret can see the target but the gun can't (in which case there should be no shot) than there are cases in which the gun can see the target but the turret can't. Remember after all that the line of sight doesn't originate at the muzzle. It originates at the turret, and has to pass through the muzzle.

[George Labour]

D weapons instant killing any nin vejicle that they hit is one I run into a lot. Very few people seem to have actually read the new chart and simply go off of exaggerated internet rumors or the old apocalyps rules.

D3+1 wounds is the most common result though. Much to my friend's relief and my warhounds' eternal annoyance.

[Pyredragon]

Me and my friends for the longest time thought moving through cover was roll 2d6 and drop the HIGHEST... we used to avoid cover like the plague unless we started in it.

Made for a good laugh when we figured out that screw up.

[Gir]

D weapons instant killing any nin vejicle that they hit is one I run into a lot. Very few people seem to have actually read the new chart and simply go off of exaggerated internet rumors or the old apocalyps rules.

D3+1 wounds is the most common result though. Much to my friend's relief and my warhounds' eternal annoyance.

It's D3+3.

[George Labour]

The charts and rules inn three different books say D3+1 and I'm not seeing any errata on the shrine of knowledge. So do you have a eference that says otherwise?

[John Bower]

D weapons instant killing any nin vejicle that they hit is one I run into a lot. Very few people seem to have actually read the new chart and simply go off of exaggerated internet rumors or the old apocalyps rules.

D3+1 wounds is the most common result though. Much to my friend's relief and my warhounds' eternal annoyance.

That's not wounds on the 'unit' though, that's wounds on each and every model under the template, so if you have 10 marines and they get hit by a D weapon, the chances are still good that 9 of them will die. The only survivors will be the dudes that roll a '1' and jump out of the way.

[Archon Charybdis]

The charts and rules inn three different books say D3+1 and I'm not seeing any errata on the shrine of knowledge. So do you have a eference that says otherwise?

You're correct, it's d3+1 unless you happen to roll a 6.

[George Labour]

That's not wounds on the 'unit' though, that's wounds on each and every model under the template, so if you have 10 marines and they get hit by a D weapon, the chances are still good that 9 of them will die. The only survivors will be the dudes that roll a '1' and jump out of the way.

I'm afraid that's going to require you to quote some errata as well.

Going by what is actually written in the entries in all three books D weapon hits are not wounds. Rather it specifically says to roll on the chart instead of rolling to wound or to penetrate. It also specifically says model, not unit or remaining models within a unit. So each roll on that chart can only kill one model at a time.

EDIT: Essentially you roll to see what happens to the model, and then apply the effect. You're not actually rolling to wound nor to penetrate its armor as you would with a traditional attack.

[John Bower]

That's more or less what I'm saying, you have the marker for e.g., then for each model under it you roll on the table, on a 1 that model gets out of the way, on a 2 up with only 1 wound he's a goner. So 10 models is 10 rolls on that table and each 2 up is a model removed. that's how it works. It doesn't need errata as it's simply worded. Hence why it says 'model' not unit. So if only 1 model is under that marker, only 1 model can die from the D class weapon.

[George Labour]

My apologies then.

I had read that to quickly and thought you were saying that each time I did D3+1, or D6+6 wounds that the entire unit took those wounds instead of what the book actually says. It seems we were both on the same page, and I simply need to only read forum posts when I have more than two minutes to do replies for them. XD

However my point was that I often run into those saying D weapons instantly remove any and every model they hit, unless a 1 is rolled. For some reason a lot of folks simply refuse to believe it works the way it (now) does.

[Gleipnir]

That's more or less what I'm saying, you have the marker for e.g., then for each model under it you roll on the table, on a 1 that model gets out of the way, on a 2 up with only 1 wound he's a goner. So 10 models is 10 rolls on that table and each 2 up is a model removed. that's how it works. It doesn't need errata as it's simply worded. Hence why it says 'model' not unit. So if only 1 model is under that marker, only 1 model can die from the D class weapon.

Actually incorrect in most cases the Roll to Wound is applied model to model the same way as any attack of its type is applied, example a D weapon shooting is applied to the closest model in the unit first, a Blast that covers 6 targets even 6 towards the back of the target unit is resolved against the 6 closest models in the unit hit first, attacks resolved using a Barrage rules such as Vortex weapons are from the center of the marker outwards, and Assault would be models in base contact first

Nowhere in D weapon rules does it say you change from the standard methods of allocating wounds just what table you roll on to determine what result occurred for each hit.

[Asuryan]

Actually incorrect in most cases the Roll to Wound is applied model to model the same way as any attack of its type is applied, example a D weapon shooting is applied to the closest model in the unit first, a Blast that covers 6 targets even 6 towards the back of the target unit is resolved against the 6 closest models in the unit hit first, attacks resolved using a Barrage rules such as Vortex weapons are from the center of the marker outwards, and Assault would be models in base contact first

Nowhere in D weapon rules does it say you change from the standard methods of allocating wounds just what table you roll on to determine what result occurred for each hit.

I find it funny that this is the 2nd time in a row John has said something and had someone misread his post or such, and then state their interpretation of the rule which in both cases are correct, but also they are the same as what John has said.

Conclusion: John should stop posting and confusing people.

[John Bower]

Cheers, I wasn't implying it changes allocation, just you make a roll for 'each model' under the template, of course you take the closest unless of course it's a barrage, in which case you do the ones nearest the centre first. I had a headache and was tired at the time, sorry.
edit: and of course if it's CC then yes it's the dude(s) in Base contact first.

[Charistoph]

One of the biggest misconceptions I've seen is IC's like Cypher and Shrike being able to grant Infiltration deployment to a unit that does not have it.

Their justification is that the game starts before the game is prepared...?

[daboarder]

One of the biggest misconceptions I've seen is IC's like Cypher and Shrike being able to grant Infiltration deployment to a unit that does not have it.

Their justification is that the game starts before the game is prepared...?

just no, go away, that is not a misconception it is an unresolved rules dispute, the rules themselves say two different things in different locations.