Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 321
  1. #301
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    I'm playing a scenario from the old Battle Missions book tomorrow. I'm thinking of unrolling my Vengeance Weapon Battery, which I'm nearly done painting. I was wondering if there is anything in the rules where a fortification, claimed or bought by a player, can or cannot control objectives? I know you could at one point and I am curious if they still can. With all of the FAQ updates, rules changes, etc. I am wondering if perhaps I missed anything? I don't really want my VWB to control the objectives, I more want to force my opponent to have to kill it.

    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  2. #302
    Gorkagirl SonsOfStalingrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Staffordshire, UK
    Posts
    9,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    34
    From the 7th edition rulebook.

    Scoring Units
    Any unit can be a scoring unit, unless:
    • It is a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, a Zooming Flyer or is a unit currently embarked on a Zooming Flyer.
    • It has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a scoring unit.
    • It is currently Falling Back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a scoring unit again).
    • It is a building or fortification that is unclaimed (claimed buildings count as a scoring unit from the claiming player’s army).

    Reply With Quote

  3. Like Ann liked this post.
  4. #303
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    Thanks. I guess that means the VWB can score then since it meets the criteria on p. 112 of being "claimed," i.e. it is taken as part of my army. Haven't been able to find anything in the main book FAQ changing how it works but I thought it was good to ask with all of the changes.

    I noticed that they have gotten rid of that old dodge many players (including pretty much every Ork player I have ever met) used of pivoting in place to gain extra movement for one's trukks, lol.

    Last edited by Ann; 31st January 2017 at 20:16.
    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  5. #304
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    Here are a couple. I have my own opinions of course, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say before I give them here.

    1. Can a vehicle with a searchlight illuminate a target if it has line of sight but it has no weapon, either because it was already destroyed or it had no ranged weapon to begin with?

    2. Can fenrisian wolves taken as upgrades by an IC participate in any way in a challenge, either attacking or taking wounds for the IC?

    -- Ann

    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  6. #305
    Nuts. edmundblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Going left.
    Posts
    32,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Searchlights aren't weapons, so unless the vehicle has been killed until it dies from it, then it can still turn the light on - just can't do anything else. Unless of course they are specified as being all one unit, in which case no.

    The wolves would have their own profile, and unless they are shown as "Character", they can't. They can however still fetch his slippers, poo on the carpet and bite the arse off the postman.

    Reply With Quote

  7. #306
    payneib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd have to check the book on search lights, but I'm fairly certain you can only illuminate something you've targeted (with a ranged weapon). Not sure how that works with no weapons.

    Please support the Help for Heroes Calendar Girls Project at:

    www.h4hcalendargirls.blogspot.com
    Reply With Quote

  8. #307
    Nikolai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    "During the shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks."
    "If a vehicle has a searchlight , it can, after firing all of its weapons, choose to illuminate its target with its searchlight."

    A weaponless single model cannot declare a shooting attack, so therefore cannot use its searchlight. But a weaponless single model in a unit that has other models with shooting weapons can still use its searchlight.

    Reply With Quote

  9. Like Cap'n Crunch liked this post.
  10. #308
    nonamewight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally Posted by Nikolai View Post
    "During the shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks."
    "If a vehicle has a searchlight , it can, after firing all of its weapons, choose to illuminate its target with its searchlight."

    A weaponless single model cannot declare a shooting attack, so therefore cannot use its searchlight. But a weaponless single model in a unit that has other models with shooting weapons can still use its searchlight.
    I would argue that a model with no ranged weapons could still be considered to have fired all of its weapons, and therefore be allowed to use the spotlight.

    Reply With Quote

  11. #309
    payneib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally Posted by Nikolai View Post
    "During the shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks."
    "If a vehicle has a searchlight , it can, after firing all of its weapons, choose to illuminate its target with its searchlight."
    Originally Posted by nonamewight View Post

    I would argue that a model with no ranged weapons could still be considered to have fired all of its weapons, and therefore be allowed to use the spotlight.
    On what basis?

    "A unit with ranged weapons.....can be nominated....." implies that "a unit without ranged weapons CANNOT be nominated".

    So no ranged weapons, means it can't be nominated to carry out a shooting attack, which means it can't have a target, and it must have a target to illuminate.

    Having no weapons, does not work the same as having a useless weapon and using it to establish targeting.

    Please support the Help for Heroes Calendar Girls Project at:

    www.h4hcalendargirls.blogspot.com
    Reply With Quote

  12. #310
    Gorkagirl SonsOfStalingrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Staffordshire, UK
    Posts
    9,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    34
    doesn't this mean no weapon means no searchlight, but an out of range weapon is a-okay?

    Reply With Quote

  13. #311
    payneib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally Posted by SonsOfStalingrad View Post
    doesn't this mean no weapon means no searchlight, but an out of range weapon is a-okay?
    Technically, yes. I always use the "useless weapon to establish targeting" thing with my Knights. Kill a big target with the cannon, roll some random dice for the heavy stubbers (even if they can't hurt anything) to establish targeting, then charge another target.

    I'll just check the wording, but it should mean you can illuminate a target at the other end of the board, with something inconsequential, then hammer it with artillery.

    EDIT:

    Looking at the wording, you're nominating a target first, checking LOS second, selecting a weapon third, checking range fourth. And the only point that forces you to select another target, is line of sight.

    So yes, as far as I can tell, in night fighting, as long as you have line of sight, you can target a unit out of range and illuminate it with the searchlight.

    Last edited by payneib; 4th February 2017 at 16:19.
    Please support the Help for Heroes Calendar Girls Project at:

    www.h4hcalendargirls.blogspot.com
    Reply With Quote

  14. #312
    nonamewight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    424
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm only playing devil's advocate, but since the wording doesn't expressly say a model without a ranged weapon can't spotlight, that it still could.

    Reply With Quote

  15. #313
    Nikolai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally Posted by nonamewight View Post
    I'm only playing devil's advocate, but since the wording doesn't expressly say a model without a ranged weapon can't spotlight, that it still could.
    That's true, it can. I fact that's what we'eve been saying. But it can't target anything by itself without a buddy, and it requires a target to use the spotlight.

    Reply With Quote

  16. #314
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    Sorry for the lag in my reply, I've been pretty busy lately. A very interesting conversation. I'm not convinced one way or the other completely, and I'm glad (for my forces at least) it either won't come up much or if it does I'm good with doing whatever my opponent wants to do with searchlights. Still, it is an interesting question and while situational, can occasionally be important. So let me play Devil's Advocate some more on the pro side. As always, beware the use of grammar in rules discussion for there lies both madness and possibly heresy.

    In the searchlight rules on p. 98 I'm not convinced that the dependant clause "after firing all of its weapons" is a requirement for illumination. I think it is more likely imposing the order that things must be done, i.e. you can't searchlight something and then use that searchlight to shoot it.

    The rule also says nothing about "shooting" the searchlight. It uses the verb "illuminating" instead. It says nothing about "illuminating" being a shooting attack. The rules on p. 98 do refer to the object being illuminated as a "target" so it is logical to say that as a target it must be targeted, even if it doesn't say anything about it being a shooting attack. On p. 30 under "Line of Sight" we have the conditions required "to target" an enemy unit: you must have line of sight. Going to p. 14 we see that line of sight requirements, which say nothing about shooting attacks. You simply have to use your Mark I Eyeball to draw a straight line of sight.

    So it seems to me by all of this tormented looking up of stuff, then you possibly can use a searchlight without having a shooting attack. Probably not worth the argument though.

    -- Ann

    Last edited by Ann; 18th March 2017 at 15:39.
    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  17. #315
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    I've been reading through the current BRB FAQ and noticed a lot of things that are going to allow/require some changes to how I play my armies.

    The biggest one is for grenades. I've been playing it where each model with a grenade can use that same grenade in CC. So if I have ten marines with krak grenades they can each use one against a walker or MC. In reading the FAQ they make it pretty clear that this is not allowed. The funny thing is in re-reading pp. 180-1 I'm not sure why I thought I could in the first place, except that was how everyone played it and that was how I was originally taught. Maybe it was that way in a previous edition? Seems like it'll buff walkers and MC's some and make taking a meltabomb for my marine sergeant more likely in the future. Also, makes it more likely I'll consider a tank hammer or two in my tankbusta squad now, as opposed to just relying on their meltabombs.

    The main thrust of controversy with some people, from what I've read, is with the word "thrown." Some are trying to say that throwing implies it is shooting phase only, but that seems to my thinking an argument based in fluff rather than rules and ignores the fact that the FAQ is clear that only one guy can use a grenade each phase. After all, a CC attack with a grenade is one where it can be thrown, clamped, rolled, run at the target with one in each hand with the guy's last words being 'For the All Father!', deployed as a hastily deployed IED, pull the pin on the other guy's grenade and dive out of the way, or whatever other method one can think up.

    From FAQ: Only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the Assault phase. Per Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, ‘Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase’.

    Last edited by Ann; 22nd March 2017 at 18:25.
    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  18. #316
    Nikolai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally Posted by Ann View Post
    Maybe it was that way in a previous edition?
    It has been that way the entire time I have played the game, which has been sense 5th edition/before throwing grenades as shooting attack was a thing.

    It wasn't an FAQ, it was an errata. They probably wanted to buff walkers, because everyone complains about how much better MCs are.

    Reply With Quote

  19. #317
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    Originally Posted by Nikolai View Post
    They probably wanted to buff walkers, because everyone complains about how much better MCs are.
    I don't know about past editions because I don't save my old books when a new edition comes out, though I remember doing the "every guy gets a grenade in CC" both in 5th and 6th as well. As for 7th, when I re-read the section about grenades I was surprised to see that I could find nothing in the section to support playing it that way, so I'm not sure I see it as a buff so much as a reminder.

    Yes you are right, it does help walkers a bit, but I'd think it also helps MC's, because everyone I knew would cover them with krak grenades just as gleefully as they did vehicles. I'm sure my deff dread and killa kanz will get blasted out of existence in shooting just as readily as they always have, but I do have to say this is a tremendous buff to my Space Wolf axe and shield dread, except I don't play him very often.

    Of course all of this probably won't matter (for most or at least many people) soon if the pundits are right and a new edition is about to drop, I guess.

    Last edited by Ann; 25th March 2017 at 01:27.
    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  20. #318
    Nikolai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    It helps MCs, but not anywhere near as much. An MC can be wounded by a Space Marine's chainsword. A Dreadnought cannot. So walkers suddenly have a lot of models that can't harm them in close combat that still have a chance to hurt an MC.

    Reply With Quote

  21. #319
    Ann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    near Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    16
    That is all true -- they do have different vulnerabilities. Personally, I think walkers needed a bit of a buff in terms of being a little harder to kill. It'll help some of the lists I play and hurt others, so it'll be an interesting change.

    I think we'll be seeing a lot more melta bomb sergeants now, that is for sure, until the next edition comes and then who knows? I know I'll be doing that more myself now instead of just relying on krak grenades. For the orks, my tankbustas took a big hit in melee, but for the most part I'm taking them because of their tank hunter rokkits. Makes the idea of at least considering sticking a guy with a tank hammer in the unit worth thinking about whereas before I usually just figured the melta bombs were enough.

    At least one doesn't have to worry about walkers as characters, excepting Bjorn as one obvious exception, being able to challenge out the melta bomb guy out.

    Last edited by Ann; 25th March 2017 at 21:19.
    Ann's Imperium: My gaming blog on Wordpress.


    Reply With Quote

  22. #320
    Nikolai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guard Vets lose out a lot on this, and Tau loose one of the only useful assault tricks they get.

    Reply With Quote

Similar Threads

  1. 2 Q's on Barrage
    By lost_raiders in forum Warhammer 40k General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22nd November 2013, 16:53
  2. Coteaz Barrage
    By xAngelicZZ in forum Grey Knights
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15th June 2012, 10:46
  3. Blast and Double Blast...
    By Limeydog in forum Warhammer 40k General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3rd February 2010, 15:25
  4. Rules question (twin linked blast)
    By Warmaster Lucos in forum Warhammer 40k General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 5th December 2008, 17:10
  5. Psychic Powers that are Blast/Large Blast
    By valinor in forum Warhammer 40k General Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 4th December 2008, 01:44

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today’s Posts | Search Warvault Webring
An exclusive design by: ForumSkin