Rules Conundrum: Ruins and Cover Saves

This is a response to an argument originally posted here, and then repeated on BoLS.

Rules Conundrum: 40k Line of Sight

And finally, I'm back to doing what I started this blog for. Pointing out stupidly phrased rules.

One of my biggest pet peeves within the rules of 5th edition 40k was the Line of Sight segment. Of course, this is one of the few parts of the rules GW decided to simply copy and paste into sixth. So, while others gripe about double Force Organization Charts, Fliers and Allies, here's why the Line of Sight rules are next to unusable.

Rules Conundrum: 1" Apart

I've been playing some Warhammer Fantasy lately. The system has seen a slight upswing down at the club, and combined with the rerelease of the Empire, this has got me interested again.

However, this has had me look into the Fantasy ruleset again (about a year since I played last) and a few things have popped up. Which means I've actually got something to write about. Yay!

Rantette: Official Forumites

Time for a Rantette (patent still pending).

I seriously hate the system with people who are afforded the authority to make official rules decisions on forums.

Rules Conundrum: What to Do When the Rules Have Been Broken?

And he's back.

Life, work and Christmas have conspired to keep me from blogging. One's calmed down, one's taking a break, and one is basically over, so I'm back (for now, at least).

And it's time for another Rules Conundrum.

Rules Conundrum: WarmaHordes, I've had a change of heart

So, I little while ago, I wrote this:

"Firstly, it makes it unlikely that there will ever be a large number of Rules Conundrum posts about WarmaHordes".

And, while this may still be true (I am rather good at covering my rear) in that there may never be a "large number", I've found fodder for one, at least. Mostly 'cause no one gave me a good enough answer on the Privateer forums.

Which means I actually have a rules post to write.

This, of course, makes me a happy panda. Big. Kinda hairy. Happy. Yup..

40k misconceived: WYSIWYG

After my recent lapse into WarmaHordes (which is still ongoing, as it were) I thought I’d reaffirm my allegiance to the Empire of Games and do another rules thingy for 40k.

I’m gonna poke a hole in a very basic assumption.

What you see isn’t always what you get.

Rules Conundrum: The Blood Lance

Time for another Rules Conundrum. There’s been a slight gap in between them, as I rile against FAQ’s and play much too little 40k to stumble on any fun conundrums.

So this one’s been brewing for a while.

The Blood Lance.

Rules Conundrum: Valkyrie

Today's instalment of Rules Conundrum concerns the Valkyrie.

WHFB Rules Conundrum: The Impossible Combat Reform

So, skipping the customary greeting and excuse for not having posted for a while, here's the gist of today's Rules Conundrum:

It is impossible to perform any but the most basic Combat Reform.

WHFB Rules Conundrum: Obstacles and Steam Tanks

So, here goes again. Today, I bring a rules conundrum of the horticulturally destructive kind.

Rules Conundrum: Vehicular movement

Guess I did manage another post before too long had passed since the last one. Weird...

So, well, considering I've managed to get somewhat of a reader base (as a consequence of linking here from my gaming club's forum) I guess it's worth stating that this will be old news to them. I'm going to write it anyway, but hey...

Rules Conundrum: Non-rectangular vehicles

Howdy. Today's post is about armour facings.

RAW vs. FAQ: The Tyranid FAQ revisited

So, let's face it, this has been done before (I think Stelek over at Yes the Truth Hurts has, for example) but there are some things in the Tyranid FAQ that just bug me (pun unintended, sorry). So, I'm going to do what I do and apply my rules-lawyering mojo to some of the questions asked in that illustrious document. With actual rules!

The following questions are lifted directly from GW's Tyranid FAQ. The answers have been substituted with my own.

Q: If I have more than one Hive Tyrant with the Hive Commander ability, do their bonuses to reserve rolls stack?

A: Yes. “Whilst the Hive Tyrant is alive, you add +1 to your reserve rolls” (Codex: Tyranids, 34). The semantics are clear; if the ability were to not stack, it would have to say something like “Whilst there is a Hive Tyrant with this ability alive…”. But no, whilst the Tyrant is alive, you add +1. A second one also alive? You add +1 for that one too.

Q (Cont’d): Also, do I get to outflank with one Troops unit, or one Troops unit per Hive Tyrant with this upgrade?

A: This one’s less clear, and could very well go the way GW decided, so I’m not going to whine about it.

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an Independent Character join the brood before deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)?

A: This one, I don’t know about. On the one hand, the rules for reserves indicate that for those purposes, an Independent Character that joins a unit is considered part of that unit (so for the duration of its transportation, the combined unit would qualify as a single one, BBB, 94) and the closest rules we have, being those for transport vehicles, similarly allow Independent Characters to join units being transported (BBB, 67).

 However, for general purposes, the Independent Character does not explicitly count as part of the unit, but merely moves with it (BBB, 48).

 I would have allowed this, but I’m afraid this really is a grey area.

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle?

A: Why. On. Earth. Wouldn’t it? I’ll quote you the transport rules (from BBB, 66): “If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.” Clear as crystal. There are no inherent immunities from being inside a vehicle except (implicitly) from shooting. Other similar powers (like the Eldar Farseers Runes of psyker botherance) have no similar limitations. Why the heck would the all-encompassing Shadow in the Warp not affect a psyker just because he’s inside a tin can?

Deep breath. Calm and easy.

Q: Do Lash Whips affect Sweeping Advances?

A: I know this one is shaky, but I’m going to argue yes. See, the Lash Whip says: “counts their Initiative as 1 until the end of the assault phase” (Codex: Tyranids, 83). I also feel a sense of corroboration from a later entry in the Tyranid FAQ, which says that it is the new Initiative of 1 that is modified by things such as Furious Charge. Surely, if the Lash Whips were just another modification, the order would have been less clear?

So there you have it: my whining about GW's understanding of their own rules. Sorry if I got a bit riled up...

'Til next time.

Rules Conundrum: WHFB buildings, close combat and multi-character units

Guess who's back? Yay, it's me.

This edition of Rules Conundrum will be a little different. Why? 'Cause I say so. And also, because it's a weird thing, that has a fairly straightforward but completely unintuitive answer.

So, last night I had a game of Warhammer Fantasy. Watchtower scenario (oh, lord, how I hate it). Long story short, my general and Battle Standard Bearer (only survivors from a unit of Halberdiers) assault the Watchtower alone. Here's the fun bit, from the rules regarding assaulting a building:

"If characters, champions, or other models that can normally be singled out if they are in base contact are involved in the assault, then up to half the enemy models can choose to attack them [. . .]" (BRB, p. 128)

So, up to half the enemy models involved (five out of ten) can choose to attack my characters. Not each. Half his attacks are wasted, since there isn't a unit to attack instead.

And on that short note, I leave you for now. I'm hoping to get a commentary on my Tyranid list up within a couple of days. Here's to that working out.

Cheers.

Rules Conundrum: The Kustom Force Field

Here we go again. This post has been inspired by Fester's article here. Arctic Circle thing indeed. Don't get me wrong, I like his articles. I just don't agree with his (or to be fair, the seemingly most common) interpretation of this rule.

Let's get to it, then. The Kustom Force Field.
"A Kustom Force Field gives all units within 6" of the Mek a cover save of 5+. Vehicles within 6" are treated as being obscured targets." (Codex: Orks, p. 34)

So, vehicles are obscured. Let's see what that means, shall we?
"If the target is obscured and takes a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it, exactly like a normal model would do against a wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a hedge, 4+ for a building, 3+ for a fortification, and so on).
[. . .]
If a special rule or a piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured  even if it is in the open, this is a 4+ save, unless specified otherwise in the Codex." (Big Black Book, p. 62).

So, we need to check if the special rule 'specifies otherwise'. Back to the Codex we go. What have we here? "[A]ll units within 6" of the Mek [get] a cover save of 5+". Are vehicles treated as units?
"A unit will usually consist of several models that fght as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank [. . .]" (BBB, p. 3)

There's further evidence on page 5, if you want it. Vehicles, whether alone or in group, count as a unit.

So, what's my point, then? The Kustom Force Field (or KFF) gives all units within range a 5+ cover save. It makes vehicles obscured, which only tells us we need to apply this rule to vehicles. Targets that are obscured because of a piece of wargear have a 4+ save only if the wargear doesn't state differently (or if it's also obscured for some other reason, obviously), which the KFF does. It confers a 5+ save, and it doesn't matter if you're a Grot or a Battle Wagon.

Following Fester's argument, I'm a Swede, and obviously subject to the Arctic Circle thing, but hey, I feel I make a cogent argument.

So that's my take on Kustom Force Fields. Ta for now.

Rules Conundrum: Ramming a Walker

So, this one has actually come up in a real, honest to Kermit, game.

Rhino A Rams Deff Dredd B. The resultant collision immobilizes both vehicles, thus leaving them in contact ( as per the rules on page 69 of the Big Black Book: "[. . .] if the ramming tank comes into contact with another vehicle, the collision is resolved [. . .]"). In the Assault phase, the question arises whether the Deff Dredd now gets to attack the Rhino in Close Combat. Coming to the conclusion that the only way this would happen was if it had assaulted the Rhino in a previous turn, we ruled no. I stick by this judgment. See page 63 "Successive Turns" for the rules applicable here.

In the Deff Dredd's assault phase, however, something seems weird. Finding no justification for anything else, we ruled that no attacks could be made, since the Dredd couldn't assault.


I maintain that this is an accurate reading of the rules as they are. I do, however, feel that there is a case to be made for the Dredd being allowed to assault. See, there's not a single sentence (as far as I can find, and I have looked) disallowing an assault merely because the model cannot move. Oh, it will most assuredly fail, since at almost all times models must remain at least 1" apart, so an assault where you can't move will leave you with no base contact.

But, as has been established, the Dredd is in base contact, so could declare an assault, not move a bit, and end up in base contact, thus being allowed to fight. Seeing how ridiculous it feels that the enraged Ork would just sit back and enjoy the view with a perfectly fine target right under its nose, I'm going to go with this second interpretation.

And that's it for now. Happy Darwin Day.

Rules Conundrum: Vehicles shooting

Okay, so, if this blog thing seems to be working for me, and I keep doing it, this'll quite definitely be a regular feature. Why? Because I like rules lawyering, that's why.

Anyway, the point here is to lift a rules issue that either lacks a clear-cut solution, or that has a solution that sort of baffles me, sense-wise (as in it makes none). Enter the rules for vehicles shooting.

In general, the vehicle rules modify some of the general model rules, but leave others intact, yes? So, if a rule isn't explicitly changed by the vehicle rules, it still applies to vehicles. This will be the basis for the argument.

Now, we turn to page 27 of the Big Black Book. In the third paragraph under "Type", there is this little gem of a sentence:

"Remember that a player can decide that any model in a firing unit is not going to fire his weapon. However, if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect"

So what are the implications? Well, first, I take the first sentence to be a simple yes/no; so, you either fire or you do not. The bit that says "it must do so at full effect" has implications for vehicles (and Monstrous Creatures) beyond simply preventing one from firing a heavy bolter at half rate, or whatever. A model that fires must shoot as much as it can.

Now, for most vehicles, in most circumstances, this matters little. Oh, so I have to fire my Storm Bolter at that vehicle I just shot with my Lascannon? Boo-hoo. Pling, pling. For some, however, the implications are dire. Point in case: the Dark Eldar Razorwing. Comes with four one-shot, large blast missiles. Can fire any and all weapons while moving 12". Has two Dark Lances.

Problem the first: if the Razorwing decides to fire its Dark Lances while it still has those missiles, they're going to be fired too, quite possibly at a target that will just shrug them off.

Problem the second: when the Razorwing fires its missiles, its all or nothing. Loose one, and the rest will follow. No shooting some now and saving some for that other large mob of infantry targets.

The same obviosuly applies to any vehicle mounted one-shot weapon (Hunter-Killers, Bloodstrikes, possibly others), but the Dark Eldar fliers are extra vulnerable due to that usually quite nifty ability to shoot full pelt at cruising speed, which means you can't even limit yourself to one weapon by moving fast.

And with that, it's Incarias out.