Warhammer 40K Tabletop VII: Common Sense is not RAW.

[Cheesegear]

Well... You said Rogue Trader/2nd Edition was the most fluffy...

I love how you Straw Man to get your argument across. I also love how you can't even get that right.

3rd was the most fluffy. 2nd just had the most fluff. Which is totally different. Chaplains did not have Crozii in 2nd. Therefore the models didn't.

And, I know Wraith said it, but, nowhere does it say that old models are still legal. Some are. Some aren't. I know, specifically, that the old Screamer-Killer Carnifii and walking Zoanthropes are no longer legal.

*cough* MANTA *cough*

That might be the case, but the original point, IIRC, was that Tau don't have superheavies

That's a lie. I love how you Straw Man and fail.

I said that Tau don't really get anything [good] out of Apocolypse. And, considering the context - that Imperial Armour wasn't allowed - the Manta isn't applicable.

Second, the Manta is pretty bad in comparison to everything else in Apocolypse. So, once again, the Tau don't really get anything out of it. Tau is one of the worse-off races you can play.

And it doesn't look anything like it.

I know other people have defended me, but, I posted a picture of Asmodai artwork where he was totally without a Mk III helmet. So, I don't see why you devote a whole post to something I've already accepted that I could be wrong about.

The model looks like it might have a Mk III helmet. But, that's only from pictures I can see on the 'net, and the robe makes it difficult (for me) to tell. I did say that it probably wasn't Mk. III, considering his artwork.

Of course, people who actually have the model have went on to prove me wrong, without resorting to Straw Men arguments and without painting themselves in a negative light.

Without repeating one of my earlier arguments that I've said in response to you and your posts many times, I'll just repeat Wraith. QFT.

Sooo... After that heated discussion about pre-Heresy armors, no one really wants to talk about then when they were finally 'done right'?

Only you. Apparently.

You mean that same page which accommodates counts-as and proxying?

Lies. The rule accomodates 'count as' as it applies to Wargear. Not whole, actual models. As I've said before, there aren't too many people who will complain when you tell them that the wargear on the model is actually 'nothing', which is what the example in the box is.

'Count As' is not an officially supported rule, in the rulebook. And your opponents and more than a few tournaments that I've seen overseas (not in my area, that is) are fully within their rights to deny you your Count As models. There aren't too many people that will. But, 'Count As' is not in the rulebook, and WYSIWYG is. I know which takes precedence.

Count As, is a policy developed by GW to accommodate creativity and diversity within the hobby. It's not very often people talk about it, because it's not part of the rules, and that's why you don't see too many people (except veteran hobbyists) who actually use the policy.
However, like I've said about six hundred times, if your model either
a) Doesn't conform to the rules, including base size and LoS equivalents or
b) Doesn't look anything like the thing you're saying that it is

They don't have to allow it.

Which is more or less where I was going - so long as it didn't look like a captain I don't see why it should be treated as one.

Because you said Power Weapon and Iron Halo. != Crozius Arcanum and Rosarius.

Most of the other lists I've seen on the internet deviate from the format you've demonstrated. Wildly.

Wildly? Link or it didn't happen.

Here are some lists that follow my format. Not exactly. But, you can see the format is pretty clear and very similar to mine. Here's some lists from Dakka. One of the foremost 40K forums on the 'net.

Space Marine list
Another one
Space Wolves
Orks
More Orks

You can see that all Dedicated Transports are clearly indicated as being attached to their units. The format is clearly HQ => Elites => Troops=> etc. Except in the case of the Space Marines where they go Troops => Elites. And most units are only taking up minimum line spacing (albeit one long one line in most cases). The only thing I'd change about any of those lists is the fact that a lot of the use 'with' or 'w/', and try and shorten the lines.

It's definitely not 'my' format. It's the standard. Zorg (whom we all know, trust and love) tried to catch me once on this fact before, until I linked to a few lists posted on Collegia Titanica which were staggeringly similar to those above and what I wrote anyway.

Speaking of CT...There's more stories of Captain West.

[Zorg]

3rd was the most fluffy. 2nd just had the most fluff. Which is totally different. Chaplains did not have Crozii in 2nd. Therefore the models didn't.

The Crozius has its own entry on pg8 of the 2nd ed Wargear book. However it was an optional piece of equipment, as it also was in RT, so Chaplains could take it, or they could leave it at home for safekeeping (I have a 2nd ed Chaplain with Crozius to boot).

It's definitely not 'my' format. It's the standard. Zorg (whom we all know, trust and love) tried to catch me once on this fact before, until I linked to a few lists posted on Collegia Titanica which were staggeringly similar to those above and what I wrote anyway.

Speaking of CT...There's more stories of Captain West.

My umbrage was not with the format, but that a whole host of people s(who you, Cheese, were the last) had simply said 'use the format' rather than actually providing advice on how to achieve a more readable style

If you're luck the next one might have illustrations (but the next bit is very, very silly).

[crazedloon]

I know, specifically, that the old Screamer-Killer Carnifii and walking Zoanthropes are no longer legal.

where in the ridiculous world did you get this ridiculous idea? What about these models are illegal? Once again I will refer to my previous post WYSIWYG refers simply to the fact that a model (more specifically character models but it is safe and best to assume it means all models) need only display what war gear it has. How do ether of those models not meet the WYSIWYG?

[EndlessWrath]

So.. I'm a bit new to this game. I've had about a 1000 pt space marine army for the past 2 weeks. I'm also..pretty poor in general since I'm paying my way through school. in any case... I now find the opportunity to add to my army either a full tactical squad of space marines, or two 5 man tact squads.. AND a squad of 5 scout troopers..with snipers. Worth adding to my group? I currently have...
2x 10 man tactical squads. I can separate them into 4x 5 man squads...
2x Rhinos/razorbacks.
1 squad of Terminators with power fists (sergeant has sword)
1 Captain
1 Chaplain
1 Dreadnaught

I know I need a bit of heavy support... But unless my friend sells me his predator for cheap, I'm going to be looking at proxy. Since i play with friends who accept proxies (long as its the same size/shape and the points are paid for!) this wont be a big deal. Also..possible land raider in the ..near/distant future. Seems like a normal one though. The scouts and Tactical squad worth it? It'd be very cheap..maybe a fourth of normal price. I don't know if it'll benefit my army much better though, or should i focus toward something else as a goal?

Also. I don't have a rulebook handy (friend has the current copy). Can anyone explain how Poison and snipers work. Two separate things. I understand snipers range, that they're heavy weapons. Str X if I'm correct is = to opponents toughness. But I'm hearing two different things from friends. One says that for snipers the to hit is a 2 up roll. But the other friend is saying it requires the ballistic score..which is 3. so 4 up. Help? Poison I have NO idea how it actually works.

Finally.. I have a gut feeling 5 man tactical squads would be very effective. lets negate the obvious pro of having a flamer / rocket launcher... Whats the pros/cons of having..a 2x 5 man squads or 1x 10 man squad?

-Wrath

[Arcanoi]

Space Marines have Combat Squads. A Combat-Squading squad of 10 is better than two squads of five, as one of the Combat Squads can take a Heavy Weapon, while the other can go cruising with the Rhino/Razorback.

[crazedloon]

Finally.. I have a gut feeling 5 man tactical squads would be very effective. lets negate the obvious pro of having a flamer / rocket launcher... Whats the pros/cons of having..a 2x 5 man squads or 1x 10 man squad?

the difference comes down to a few things
-the special weapons available. At 10 man you have access to a heavy weapon while at 5 man you are restricted to 1 special.
-you pay 10 points more for bare-bone units of 5 becuase each has a sergeant
-you can pack more power weapons in a 5 man squad becuase of the extra sergeant

Now the best idea would prolly be to run them 10 large (with a heavy and special) and than combat squad it to 2x5 men w/1 special in a unit and the heavy in the other (sarge with the special since they tend to have a shorter range)

[EndlessWrath]

Space Marines have Combat Squads .

I seem to detect you correcting me from Tactical Squad as the name of the squad unit, to combat squad. According to the 5th edition Standard space marine Codex. Under the troops section..it is Tactical squad. This is what I'm referring to. Sorry. Maybe you're thinking something else?

A Combat-Squading squad of 10 is better than two squads of five, as one of the Combat Squads can take a Heavy Weapon, while the other can go cruising with the Rhino/Razorback.

Edit: The only difference I've used them in.. is the 10 man squad I've put into a rhino and the 5 man into a razorback... which only carries 6 guys total. I have used the rhino as an armored support for the heavy / special weapons guys. Since.. firing points are on it

the difference comes down to a few things
-the special weapons available. At 10 man you have access to a heavy weapon while at 5 man you are restricted to 1 special.
-you pay 10 points more for bare-bone units of 5 becuase each has a sergeant
-you can pack more power weapons in a 5 man squad becuase of the extra sergeant

Now the best idea would prolly be to run them 10 large (with a heavy and special) and than combat squad it to 2x5 men w/1 special in a unit and the heavy in the other (sarge with the special since they tend to have a shorter range)

To my understanding I can only get the Heavy and the special if I have 10 models in the squad. If I'm missing something please let me know, but I have the codex in front of me. "If the squad numbers ten models, one space marine may replace his boltgun with one of the following:".

I imagine... 2 squads would be better for assault oriented or Objective oriented squads. Can move the squads separately, If one's assaulting, not all ten men will be locked in combat, a few more attacks in assault as well, since 2 sergeants.
-Wrath

[Arcanoi]

Page 51. Combat Squads is an ability that a whole smattering of Space Marine squads have. It lets you split your 1x10 squad into 2x5 squads, while still having the advantages of 1x10, namely the ability to take a Heavy Weapon and take up only one Force Org slot.

So you take a Rhino/Razorback, and you can put one 5-man squad into it, with a Sergeant and a Flamer or similar special weapon, and the other squad can hang back in cover with a Plasma Cannon or Missile Launcher.

[EndlessWrath]

Page 51. Combat Squads is an ability that a whole smattering of Space Marine squads have. It lets you split your 1x10 squad into 2x5 squads, while still having the advantages of 1x10, namely the ability to take a Heavy Weapon and take up only one Force Org slot.

So you take a Rhino/Razorback, and you can put one 5-man squad into it, with a Sergeant and a Flamer or similar special weapon, and the other squad can hang back in cover with a Plasma Cannon or Missile Launcher.

See, I didn't know this. It was insisted that I couldn't do this EVEN when I brought up the concept of doing this.. Fun times you've shown me this. I retract my previous statement

If this is the case.. I'd be doing this almost every game. If I can keep the advantage of a moving flamer group and the advantage of a stationary "heavy" group. say..4 marines and the heavy or what not. This is advantageous. Question.. When I split the unit, I still retain the normal models. 1 sergeant, 1 flamer, 1 heavy, 7 boltgun marines. correct?
-Wrath

-Wrath

[Arcanoi]

Question.. When I split the unit, I still retain the normal models. 1 sergeant, 1 flamer, 1 heavy, 7 boltgun marines. correct?
-Wrath

This is correct.

[Cheesegear]

How do ether of those models not meet the WYSIWYG?

Size matters. It's the same reason you don't see 2nd Ed. Terminators in tournaments. Ever. The Official models are 'this' big. By having smaller models you're breaking the LoS 'guideline' for that unit, therefore, the model is illegal.

I don't make this stuff up.

Originally posted by Me
However, like I've said about six hundred times, if your model either
a) Doesn't conform to the rules, including base size and LoS equivalents or
b) Doesn't look anything like the thing you're saying that it is

They don't have to allow it.

Where 'they' includes GW. Maybe it's a way for them to get to you spend mondey extort money from you. I don't know. I just know that it's not a case of 'my store' being my store. Some old models are illegal. Fact. The reasons why usually depend on just what the model is.

In the case of old, 2nd Ed. models, the reason is usually size/LoS differences.

[crazedloon]

Size matters. It's the same reason you don't see 2nd Ed. Terminators in tournaments. Ever. The Official models are 'this' big. By having smaller models you're breaking the LoS 'guideline' for that unit, therefore, the model is illegal.

I don't make this stuff up.

I personally have never heard of this "rule" (Unless you can show a page number it is a local "store" rule)

With this being the norm you can not convert your models in any way shape or form which would change their size. A model on a rock (for scenic purposes) is illegal because it can see over a wall a normal model can't. A model on his knees (for scenic purposes) is also illegal becuase he can hide behind smaller walls.

Lets extrapolate this even more (using real pieces as an example) The SM command sprue includes a set of kneeling legs (so no conversion) and you like the idea of your marines taking aim while kneeling (perhaps its a defense oriented army whatever your reasoning for liking the look) So you make a whole army with those legs. This army is illegal because your tactical marines do not have the same LoS as the normal boxed marines?

That is the dumbest rule I have ever heard. At best I could see the argument that some older models come on smaller bases and should be updated to the larger bases (I'm looking at you 2nd/3rd edition termies) but even then those are legal models becuase they are on the bases they came with.

[Winterwind]

Also. I don't have a rulebook handy (friend has the current copy). Can anyone explain how Poison and snipers work. Two separate things. I understand snipers range, that they're heavy weapons. Str X if I'm correct is = to opponents toughness. But I'm hearing two different things from friends. One says that for snipers the to hit is a 2 up roll. But the other friend is saying it requires the ballistic score..which is 3. so 4 up. Help?

Snipers used to always hit at 2+ in the 4th edition and use their ballistic score in the 5th (current) one. You'll find that in spite of how long the 5th edition's been out, there still are plenty of people who don't know about many changes, even some very major ones.
EDIT: Though I think some snipers in some armies may have special rules allowing them to hit at lower numbers. But that's something the codex in question should clarify then.

Poison I have NO idea how it actually works.

Poison means you always wound at certain rolls (usually 4+, but more deadly poisons can also specify 3+ or 2+), no matter the target's Toughness.
EDIT: And if your strength is higher than (or perhaps higher than or equal, I'm not sure and away from my rulebook) to the target's Toughness, you get to re-roll your failed To-Wound rolls.

See, I didn't know this. It was insisted that I couldn't do this EVEN when I brought up the concept of doing this..

Well, it's something only Space Marines can do, as it's a special rule in their codex. If your friends are unfamiliar with the Space Marine codex, that would explain why they were not aware of you having that option.

[Cheesegear]

Lets extrapolate this even more (using real pieces as an example) The SM command sprue includes a set of kneeling legs (so no conversion) and you like the idea of your marines taking aim while kneeling (perhaps its a defense oriented army whatever your reasoning for liking the look) So you make a whole army with those legs.

Exactly. And that's why units where the players devise entire units with the 'kneeling' legs have been disallowed. You're spot on. You'll get no argument from me.

Unless you were being satirical to prove a point. In which case you are accidentally 100% correct.

[banjo1985]

With this being the norm you can not convert your models in any way shape or form which would change their size. A model on a rock (for scenic purposes) is illegal because it can see over a wall a normal model can't. A model on his knees (for scenic purposes) is also illegal becuase he can hide behind smaller walls.

It's at a point like this when the slightly clunky War Machine method of LOS starts to sound good. The size of the base determine how high and wide the model on it is for LOS purposes. Though to be honest, a bit of common sense shown on the behalf of both players in a game makes the point moot.

By the way, I'm by no means arguing that the rule doesn't exist in store and tournament play. I'm just saying IMO it's a little foolish and broken by some of it's own moulds for it's models.

EDIT - I'm fully aware of the irony of expecting some 40k players to use common sense to prevent arguments...but still, eternal optimism and all that.

[crazedloon]

indeed I was being satirical because I have never heard such a rule in any of the Tournaments around my area. Mainly due to the strict adherence to these rules, whenever a new set for a unit comes out you must replace all your "old" models with the new ones. Because even if it is only a slight change in mold it can effect LoS. Or worse forge world models are outright illegal.

[Ninja Chocobo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'm never going to Queensland.

[dsmiles]

It's at a point like this when the slightly clunky War Machine method of LOS starts to sound good. The size of the base determine how high and wide the model on it is for LOS purposes. Though to be honest, a bit of common sense shown on the behalf of both players in a game makes the point moot.

By the way, I'm by no means arguing that the rule doesn't exist in store and tournament play. I'm just saying IMO it's a little foolish and broken by some of it's own moulds for it's models.

EDIT - I'm fully aware of the irony of expecting some 40k players to use common sense to prevent arguments...but still, eternal optimism and all that.

Big fan of the WM LOS ruling, because 1 of the Tau Pathfinders w/Rail Rifles are lying down, and and another is taking a knee. They're all metal minis, and can't be re-posed (without some serious skillz, which I don't have).

[Klose_the_Sith]

Lies. The rule accomodates 'count as' as it applies to Wargear. Not whole, actual models. As I've said before, there aren't too many people who will complain when you tell them that the wargear on the model is actually 'nothing', which is what the example in the box is.

'Count As' is not an officially supported rule, in the rulebook. And your opponents and more than a few tournaments that I've seen overseas (not in my area, that is) are fully within their rights to deny you your Count As models. There aren't too many people that will. But, 'Count As' is not in the rulebook, and WYSIWYG is. I know which takes precedence.

Count As, is a policy developed by GW to accommodate creativity and diversity within the hobby. It's not very often people talk about it, because it's not part of the rules, and that's why you don't see too many people (except veteran hobbyists) who actually use the policy.
However, like I've said about six hundred times, if your model either
a) Doesn't conform to the rules, including base size and LoS equivalents or
b) Doesn't look anything like the thing you're saying that it is

They don't have to allow it.

The page seemed to be suggestion an equivalent to counts as, at least. Although I suppose that 'Common Sense is not RAW' so w/evs.

Because you said Power Weapon and Iron Halo. != Crozius Arcanum and Rosarius.

Well I meant that I don't see why the rules bother stopping it, but eh. Still works, I guess.

Wildly? Link or it didn't happen.

How strange, I don't seem to have bookmarked every poorly written lest I ever saw. Tragic.

Here are some lists that follow my format. Not exactly. But, you can see the format is pretty clear and very similar to mine. Here's some lists from Dakka. One of the foremost 40K forums on the 'net.

Your honour, the prosecution rests.

</lists>

Except of course that the defence is right. I just like saying that "the prosecution rests'.

[Gruffard]

'Count As' is not an officially supported rule, in the rulebook. And your opponents and more than a few tournaments that I've seen overseas (not in my area, that is) are fully within their rights to deny you your Count As models. There aren't too many people that will. But, 'Count As' is not in the rulebook, and WYSIWYG is. I know which takes precedence.

Count As, is a policy developed by GW to accommodate creativity and diversity within the hobby. It's not very often people talk about it, because it's not part of the rules, and that's why you don't see too many people (except veteran hobbyists) who actually use the policy.
However, like I've said about six hundred times, if your model either
a) Doesn't conform to the rules, including base size and LoS equivalents or
b) Doesn't look anything like the thing you're saying that it is

They don't have to allow it.

Hey! On this note, I will repeat my question. Is the Forge World SV88-2 to be legal in this respect? My first idea would just be to force in on a mid sized base simular to my crisis suits and normal broadsides. Because I like the design and have already bought a set of three, but at the same time I do not want play something that is unfair. Would just changing the base be fine?

[crazedloon]

Hey! On this note, I will repeat my question. Is the Forge World SV88-2 to be legal in this respect? My first idea would just be to force in on a mid sized base simular to my crisis suits and normal broadsides. Because I like the design and have already bought a set of three, but at the same time I do not want play something that is unfair. Would just changing the base be fine?

by those rules nothing from forge world is legal

However from a saner and more likely situation you should be fine. The only rule about bases is that they can not be smaller than the ones that they are provided with.

[MountainKing]

I personally have never heard of this "rule" (Unless you can show a page number it is a local "store" rule)

There are plenty of rules I haven't heard of yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a learning game. However, it makes perfect sense as to why it'd be a rule; denying LOS is the biggest element to surviving a Shoot phase. There's all kinds of shenanigans that could be undertaken using models built specifically to screw with LOS, and that is, quite frankly, rather unfair.

[Gruffard]

Well the XV88-2 seems to be bigger (haven't finished making any) so the LOS thing shouldn't be a problem (He's bigger), but I think I will buy a bag of bases and mount them on a normal base for Tau suits.

[Keris]

The only rule about bases is that they can not be smaller than the ones that they are provided with.

That was the rule for bases, back in fourth edition. It's one of the many things that changed in 5E, and nowadays if you're using a non-standard base you need to check before the game that your opponent doesn't mind.

[dsmiles]

Well the XV88-2 seems to be bigger (haven't finished making any) so the LOS thing shouldn't be a problem (He's bigger), but I think I will buy a bag of bases and mount them on a normal base for Tau suits.

XV88-2's aren't really bigger, but the bigger base, and the way their railguns and missile pods are positioned make them seem that way. I just built a few, and they come with the standard XV8 body sprue. Same thing with the XV8 variants, I just built an XV81 for my Shas'O, and it used the same body, but still manages to look bigger.

[crazedloon]

There are plenty of rules I haven't heard of yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a learning game. However, it makes perfect sense as to why it'd be a rule; denying LOS is the biggest element to surviving a Shoot phase. There's all kinds of shenanigans that could be undertaken using models built specifically to screw with LOS, and that is, quite frankly, rather unfair.

true only to a point. Because you must remember if your opponent can not see yo than you in turn can not see them.

The only time this can be abusive is if you model everything so just their head can be seen. Than you get a cover save but your opponent does not. However then you are tailoring to specific terrain and outside those pieces you are once again "even."

also this abuse is not even all that great since people already manuever their men to take advantage of cover (hiding half the unit behind cover while the other half can still shoot). Indeed its this sort of thing that makes me prefer area terrain. Anything in area terrain gets a cover save (so it comes down to if the model can see and if you can see you can be seen) and anything behind normal area terrain (which tends to be around 6" or more) still gets that cover save so no modeling shenanigans.

So at best if you have modeled an entire army ,on knees for example, the best you get is half your unit can now shoot (where half was wasted from hiding) or nothing can shoot and you best hope your opponent deployed foolishly close to the "abusable" terrain so you can assault.

Also to make sure I am not talking out my rear end I gave the main rules a quick skim and saw nothing on this "LoS rule" which seems to support the fact it is some local shenanigans

edit:

That was the rule for bases, back in fourth edition. It's one of the many things that changed in 5E, and nowadays if you're using a non-standard base you need to check before the game that your opponent doesn't mind.

well that is a dumb change, but presumably it is to avoid so abuse a larger base may give... (only a few things can actually gain anything from it)

[Ninja Chocobo]

TLOS is seriously the worst thing to happen to any wargame.

Also to make sure I am not talking out my rear end I gave the main rules a quick skim and saw nothing on this "LoS rule" which seems to support the fact it is some local shenanigans

Cheese's local scene is craAaAazy. We've established this.

[dsmiles]

TLOS is seriously the worst thing to happen to any wargame.

+1 to you, Ninja Chocobo

[Winterwind]

true only to a point. Because you must remember if your opponent can not see yo than you in turn can not see them.

The only time this can be abusive is if you model everything so just their head can be seen. Than you get a cover save but your opponent does not. However then you are tailoring to specific terrain and outside those pieces you are once again "even."

Or, y'know, if all you care about is close combat and you not being able to shoot at the enemy is utterly irrelevant to you because you don't even have anything to shoot with.

And for the record, if a Tyranid player modeled all his Genestealers to be lying flat on the ground to be more difficult to be seen, I would most definitely consider that abuse. Pretty extreme abuse, even.

[Lycan 01]

So my Catachan guy carrying an Autocannon like Rambo can't be counted as a Heavy Weapon Team?

Meh, I'll just call him a Gun Servitor and say its a Heavy Bolter, then.