Bell of Lost Souls - Latest Comments in 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Gudbrandur — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:26:23 -0000

This seems like a comparison between armies with hig ferocity vs low ferocity, if you find yourself "needing" good rolls to win then youre probably not playing quite right, i mean, a tau warrior squad really "needs" hot rolls to win a combat with terminators, but you an me both know that the warrior squad isnt supposed to be in that combat to start with. Of course you need to judge this on a case by case basis and usually its far from as obvious as "firewarriors against termies", i played a green tide horde army at Uk GT last year, with some lootas, lots of grot/Kff cover and of course Thraka, a very low ferocity army thats allabout the charge, this army faced off against a swarm of D-eldar skimmers.
The sheer amount of speed that the d-eldar had going for them evened the odds immensely, not to mention the huge amount of woods i had to march through to get the objektive marker on his side. Both players rolled average, both had their good moments, but the game was from A to B dictated by him. Why? He could charge wherever-whenever and the outcome of the combat was all a matter of moving his skimmers properly and thus, geting the most favorable charges, blocking mine as he went.
In the end, strategy won the match.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Anon156 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:42:33 -0000

And that's the reason I really like the Blessed Hull on my BT LRC's :-)

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

MVB — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:17:54 -0000

Just for the record, when Buffo said that Marines were a forgiving army in his first post just about, people probably should have turned off the negative toned dorkus.

Any army built around expensive basic troops that die to any type of weapon on a roll of a 1 or a 2 is quite the opposite of forgiving.

If you expose 30 guardsmen in cover to a bunch of pistol shots, or artillery shots, or anything that doesn't ignore cover, there's a good chance by the odds that they'll simply be there anyway ... so who really cares if they get shot at.

If you expose a marine to a couple of lasguns at ALL, he can die simply by rolling a single bad dice, and there goes a ton of your points.

The most forgiving armies are the ones where any loss of units does very little to cripple you, so that "bad dice rolling" will impact you less. Marines are the LEAST forgiving, b/c you have to struggle to not expose yourself to defensive dice rolling AT ALL, since any variance in the odds boofs you hardcore from the get-go.

Redundancy for cheap = forgiving, read: guard, orks, nids, etc. /facepalm

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

ACee — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:23:41 -0000

I am posting this here because I want to address several issues on the transport mystery unit issue.

In regards to the rules it clearly says on page 92 of the rule book under the A Note On Secrecy that it is the norm in tournament play that full disclosure is used which means you indicate what squad is in what transport during deployment. I am not sure how much clearer the rule book can be.

If you want further proof of the need of disclosure it stresses it on page 94 under reserves that you have to disclose everything that is being held in reserved including if you are joining an IC to a squad, if a squad is in a transport, and which squad is coming in with which transport. It doesn't make sense that in deployment you can be vague ("Yeah that vehicle has guys in it") and when declaring reserves you have to be specific ("That Farseer is with my Seer Council and they are coming in the Wave Serpent B").

Further, if you have a bunch of transports but do not disclose which transport has which unit and merely just show your roster list to your opponent, that would give a huge advantage against an army that has all foot sloggers and you can see what infantry unit is anti-vehicle and which unit is anti-infantry where your opponent has to guess. Now if you want, you can hide what units are in your vehicles if I can put out generic infantry models and as I shoot or charge I get to actual put out there what they are. That would even the playing field.

As for the other aspect of why you have to disclose what is in your transports is the aspect of cheating. I am not calling anyone out there a specific cheater, but I am saying that hiding units in vehicles can lead to cheating. If I play against someone who cheats and someone who is being honest then how am I suppose to know the difference?

In the final analysis, someone who doesn't fully disclose what units are in which transports is trying to seek an unfair advantage in tournament settings. If I was across the table from one I would make them fully disclose what unit is in what transport and if they refused to do so I would refuse to play until a judge was called in. At best, they are trying to get an undue advantage and at worst they are cheaters.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

sittingduck — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:10:08 -0000

I agree that should does not mean must; however in this case it is a mandate as "should" is followed by "always." So the question to ask is when "should" you tell someone what is in which transport? The answer is always.

The preceding sentence starts out with "To keep things fair." With that in mind, the sentence structure "In the same spirit" means fairness.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

zlotnik — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:09:07 -0000

oh also "in the same spirit" part, i would argue that if you take my interpritation of the first sentence then this follows suite.

like to hear your thoughts on this aspect.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Matthew_Rider — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:06:24 -0000

That's retarded- according to this logic I could have extremely converted or even really old models that don't actually look like they're modern counterparts- then the opponent can't find out what they are by asking

So according to you making my army look like they have different wargear than they do is a huge advantage? If someone asks were a particular unit is on the battlefield you have to tell them

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

zlotnik — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:04:03 -0000

In most home games we play, we have always taken for granted that telling your opponent your list was implied in the rules.
but when further reading the rules i must agree with buffo. GW will usually use the word "must" if they are implying that you have to do something, they have in this case either deliberately or accidentally (not for us to make that decision) used the word "should"

(To keep things fair, you should ALWAYS allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game. IN THE SAME SPIRIT, ALWAYS make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicl)

'should' does not imply must.

*this is just my opinion, and how my gaming group generally approaches rules*

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

BlackSly — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:48:01 -0000

I'm with Duck and Khanaris. The language I see clearly state that the optional part that players have to agree about is whether lists can be read before/during games. The other parts in that rule, about disclosing lists after the game and about stating which unit is embarked in which transport, do not seem optional, not with the word "always" in the sentence.

The "others prefer" sentence clearly is modifying the "it is a good idea to agree" sentence, not the entire topic of the rule.

Therefore,
1) you must declare what is in what transport
2) you must show lists after the game
3) you MAY agree that lists have to be shown before/during the game, but in a spirit of secrecy, you MAY choose not to agree to do this.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

TheRealChris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:02:39 -0000

Surely you have to say what is in the transport? Otherwise I simply accuse you of cheating and game over. After all where is your proof? And writting it down and not showing me is no good as you could have done many scribbles on many bits of paper.

Anyway goes to show playing 40k competitively ain't as much fun as playing, for, well, fun.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Saark — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:01:38 -0000

If Sixii wants to press the issue, the unit actually is still "on the table" under Embarking (p.66)

"Embarking..
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."

Note that the statement isn't "shooting at it (target)" it is "its shooting (shooter)" there are other reasons why you aren't allowed to shoot at them, but "not being on the table" isn't that reason. Because of the permissive rules set, the only way to damage a unit inside a transport is described in the "Damage Effects on Passengers table."

That's twice today I've had to fix your rules. Are you hitting the same bottle of whiskey and ether you normally inflate those balloon animals with, again?

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

thorlock — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:58:47 -0000

They changed that in the errata on the GW site.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

khanaris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:32:23 -0000

After going through it again, I tend to agree. The point about showing lists does seem to be distinct from the point about transports. If you really want to play a game of bluffing, maybe it is better to keep that for friendly games where you know your opponent pretty well. But you should be able to compete in tournaments without squeezing easter eggs out of the rules.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

khanaris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:28:31 -0000

The choice is between you and your opponent in a friendly game, which is what the rulebook was written for. In a tournament, the choice belongs to the tournament organizers and judges. You are trying to weasel around the disclosure requirements by making your transports identical. You are not doing it to "make the game really entertaining". You are doing it because you want to win and you think doing this will help.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Saark — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:16:48 -0000

Why not twenty? At some point if you throw your entire 1500pt list at a single unit it will fall.

Why not reverse the situation?

That DAVU Wave Serpent slows down and unloads a TL Scatter Laser barrage into the side of your squadron of Hydras (just as likely as a Hydra squadron shooting at a WS where there is no cover but Flat Out), the math is even more spectacular.

4 TL BS3 shots. 50% hit (2), 50% re-rolls hit (1) = 3 hits, one per Hydra each with a 50% chance to glance and therefore render the Hydra worthless (no shooting is the best you can get on a glance) So even if 1.5 of those hits are glances, your squadron is not doing its job at full capacity.

Even stunned, shaken and weaponless, the Serpent still does its job. Keeping its cargo safe until drop point. With Spirit Stones, it's even still mobile.

But my original point is that the statement: "The Hydra is the end of the DAVU Wave Serpent" is just wishful thinking. 1 to 1 it's not scared and more than that you have to figure in real cover into the equation. Or you have to start including other units on the opponent's side.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

khanaris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:15:07 -0000

"It is impractical to demand that a tournament player MUST have modeled units onto their transport, and in terms of transports."

Trukks and Raiders are constructed so that it is pretty easy to simply put one or two infantry models on the transport. The original point was never that it was too hard. The player in question just wanted to squeeze an advantage out of their list. WYSIWYG is not a fluff or realism argument and never has been, so the relative size of the transport models is irrelevant. It is a gameplay mechanism that attempts to make the models as representative as possible.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

khanaris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:10:49 -0000

But if you have a system of telling the transports apart and remembering which unit is where, that is going to be a part of full disclosure. If your opponent looks at your list and asks which transport corresponds to which model, you need to tell him. That will give away the shell game. If all the transports are absolutely identical, there is nothing to stop you from cheating (and you would routinely forget what was where by accident). This, along with WYSIWYG, is not just a Rulebook rule, so your point about references is meaningless. It is a tournament rule, so you reference it to the individual tournaments and to the judges overseeing them. It may not be cheating by the absolute letter of the main rulebook, but it is pretty close.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Saark — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:59:57 -0000

Just in case you need clarification on the "Codex trumps rulebook" comment, it's right in the Universal Special Rules introduction:

"As this is just a summary. if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race)."

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

sittingduck — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:55:25 -0000

1) Showing your army list after a game is not optional.

2) In the same spirit, ALWAYS tell your opponent what unit is in which transport. This has nothing to do with the list. The rule is simple. You must tell your opponent what unit is in which transport regardless of when the lists are exchanged. If I ask in the middle of a game " Hey, what unit is in that rhino" my opponent must tell me regardless of whether or not we have agreed to exchange list prior to or during the game.

3) The only reference to optional disclosure concerns when lists will be disclosed. Nothing else. Lists must be disclosed at the end of the game regardless of whether or not you chose to disclose them prior to or during the game. That is clearly not optional.

4) For the 20th time I just showed you the rule. It clearly exists. I quoted it in my first post.

The only optional part of secrecy is when list are disclosed. It is very clear.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

Saark — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:53:48 -0000

That's because it's in the Wargear section (p.14) that describes the Reaver Jetbike and it's ability to Turbo Boost.

"makes it Jetbike Turbo Booster, its saving throw becomes invulnerable."

So 4+ becomes 4++ rather than gain a 3+ Cover save as per Turbo Boosters USR. Codex trumps BRB. Which is why Grey Knights still have "Heavy 3 Jams" Assault Cannons.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

BuFFo — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:39:50 -0000

The unit is not in range because it is not on the table. Sure you don't need line of sight, but you still need to measure range to the base of the models.

There are none.

I fail to see how you are arguing "Okay, if you don't want to ride in the car with me, then I can go ahead and walk through walls!"

Okay, go ahead!

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

BuFFo — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:37:43 -0000

It is actually quite clear....

1) Showing the army list is optional.

2) Telling what unit is in what transport is done in 'the same spirit', which means it is also optional.

3) At the end of the pargraph, what I quoted, clearly states it is my choice whether I want to disclose anything at all.

4) For the 20th time, there is no rule that anyone can ind in the book which FORCES me to show you a) my list and b) what units are in what transport. It simply does not exist.

The rule as written (A Note On Secrecy) is optional. Period.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

sittingduck — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:37:51 -0000

I disagree. The statement regarding the choice only refers to the disclosure of army lists before and during a game. It does not allow for the option of not disclosing your list after a game, and it doesn't allow for the option of not disclosing the contents of your transports.

Look at the sentence that you quote. Others prefer to leave a feel of secrecy around their LISTS. That in no way can be interpreted to mean that you don't have to disclose the contents of transports. It's unambiguous.

The rule as written requires you to specifically disclose what unit is in which transport regardless of when you disclose your army list.

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

UltramarineFan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:34:43 -0000

I'm wondering, if someone asked you "What's in that transport." would you repley with "I don't have to tell you and so I won't." ?

Re: 40K EDITORIAL: Hot Versus Cold Armies

QBall78 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:21:59 -0000

Maybe I'm wrong with this because I couldn't find WYSIWYG in the Index of my rulebook, but by looking through it I was only able to find one entrance for WYSIWYG. And this one was very specifically referring to independent Charakters.

So please tell me when I'm wrong, but it seems to me that in 5th Ed. WYSIWYG is for ICM's only.

So if you apply it to something else it's not more than just good sportsmanship (prevents people from cheating). But not more (except for ICM's of course).