Signals from the Frontline #387

signalsthumb387

Show Notes

11-9-15

Intro

  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, and YouTube!  Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.

News

  • Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth…wow! It’s mega popular, just as expected. We only have a few of them left, so do not hesitate to grab yours today, at the 25% off pre-order special price.

horus

  • New release for Warmachine: Cygnar character light Warjack, Ace, Trollbloods Pyg Bushwacker UA,

pp1_ace

pp2_pyg

  • Wyrd previews a new miniature, the Guild Sargeant:

wyrd1

  • New IoS video game: Arcane Magic released, featuring Lizardmen. Very cool!

Lustria01

  • Forge World announces Legion upgrade kits for your plastic 30k armies!

99020187153_NightLordsTaskForce01

  • LVO 40k Championships tickets still available! We opened up 80 more spots and we have a few tickets left, be sure to grab yours now before they sell out…again! We’ll have 352 players in the champs, and 412 40k players in one room at one time. WOW! Going to be awesome.

lvo2016-234x300

Upcoming ITC Events

ITC

Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from  any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.

  • Farsight Enclave Tau supplement to be released in a few weeks? Most likely to include another “Decurion” style detachment, Warlord Traits, Relics and formations. Cool!
  • Supposedly, a White Dwarf employee answered another rules question about GMCs and shooting, saying they can each fire each weapon at a different target and each at a different target to the other members of their unit assuming they are in a unit.
  • Images of a Legion Crusade Host formation floating around

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

  • Tank Shocking video and further discussion. How do you read the rule?

  • Further Tau Hunter Contingent discussion.

Completed Commissions

List Review

—Combined Arms Detachment—

Vulkan He’stan

Techmarine

+ servo-harness

+ auspex

5 Tactical Marines

+ meltagun

+ combi-melta

  • Rhino

5 Tactical Marines

+ meltagun

+ combi-melta

  • Rhino

Drop Pod

Relic Whirlwind Scorpius

+ Battle Of Keyleck

Fire Raptor Gunship

3 Devastator Centurions

+ 2× grav-cannon and grav-amp

+ grav-cannon and grav-amp

+ omniscope

—Skyhammer Annihilation Force—

  • 10 Assault Marines

+ 2× flamer

+ melta bombs

  • 10 Assault Marines

+ 2× flamer

+ melta bombs

  • 5 Devastator Marines

+ 5× multi-melta

  • Drop Pod

5 Devastator Marines

+ 4× multi-melta

  • Drop Pod

1,850 pts

The plan is to stick Vulkan with the centurion in the pod. Everything currently has the Salamanders trait. I know Ultramarines traits are probably stronger for skyhammer, but everything is painted as salamanders and I didn’t want to bring about any confusion.

The techmarine with servo harness could switch with Vulkan if the centurions’ target is rocking cover, so they can get the benefit of the auspex. I took him because I assume in order to unlock multiple relic vehicles, I had to take him since the Master of the Forge no longer exists. Tried to find the ITC ruling, but didn’t see it in the faq. How are you guys ruling it?

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

33 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #387”

  1. Tautastic November 9, 2015 4:44 pm #

    Any more definite time frame when the vote will occur?

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 9, 2015 5:19 pm #

      No set date, yet. We’ll get that taken care of sooner than later, though.

      • Tautastic November 9, 2015 5:45 pm #

        I can’t wait to get out of this limbo on how to build my Tau army 😀

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 9, 2015 6:21 pm #

          Fair point! We’ll get to it, quickly!

          • Ryan November 12, 2015 6:59 pm
            #

            Let’s put the custom stompa on there too! More orks!!

  2. Mmimzie November 9, 2015 8:49 pm #

    So there are a few way to imagine this rule:

    1. Shortest distance, and if they after distance can’t be 1″ away or are out of coherency, than they die.

    2. Shortest distance that satisfies ” 1″ away and unit coherency”

    3. (the way you did it in the video) shortest distance from the front of the tank.

    I’ll rule out #3 as it goes against the rules. The first line is “If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches it’s final position…. blah blah blah” At 3;51 in the tank shock video you killed basicly all the orcs. By way of the first line your shortest distance is from your current position pre tank shock to some space that is 1″ away from the tank.

    So now that we have ruled out #3 lets look at #1 and #2. Now i’m gonna do some intro grammar nazy stuff here to express the point clearly, and show why the # i choose is RAW/

    You can use a comma in a few ways (I F***ing told you i was gonna grammar nazy. Deal with it :P). The most Common ways and the only ways that could potential matter are:

    1. First one you learn in grade school. Is to seperate series. Now we could possible have a series here as multiple stipulations are being laid out here. However, for clarity you must put commas in between each element. Since and is used twice in the added clause one can not assume that this is how the comma is being used. That is to say that the rule isn’t stating “Shortest distance, leaving 1″, Coherency, and staying on the board.” as the commas aren’t thier and whlist breaks any possible elements in a series as that join coherency to being 1″ away from the vehicle which is sorta dumb.

    2. School house rock. You know the one Conjunction Junction blah blah blah. Basically it’s joining two sentences using a conjunction and a comma. As we have no Conjunction after the comma these are not separate self contained sentences, but one long sentence.

    3. Uselss intro info. As such this would make the Shortest distance part completely useless. So i’m gonna say it’s say to say that this is not the case.

    4. Now onto the money. To add additional information. This basically enhances the previous statement. This stuff is usualy added as common sense information that don’t really need to be added, but is added to reduce confusion. This means it’s not realing making a new it’s simply reference old stuff and showing you it bares on this. SO using this The wording is really “Moving the shortest legal distance” or “moving the shortest distance that allows the models to obey normal unit rules” or “Moving the shortest distance such that they keep in unit coherency, 1″ from enemy units, and stay on the board” So we can rule out #1, and #2 is our winner. If #1 were it would have been a conjunction.

    SO i believe it’s #2 You must move the model the shortest distance such that coherency is maintained, 1″ away from stuff, and on the board.

    One added thought the model must be in coherency which simple means it’s 2″ from another model. Then on the players turn they get to move and run to get into coherency, Which they will keep doing until they eventually get into coherency, every turn ending thier movement closer to eachother or not at all. Otherwise you end up cleaving units in half and you then decide which half you want to keep which isn’t explained, and thus require more rules to be made.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 10, 2015 11:28 am #

      Where did you get that it is always measured from the front of the tank?

      Also, in your reading of the rule, Crunch would never actually occur. The rule would have no purpose. You would also get situations wherein models suddenly move across a tank 6″ or more in order to maintain coherency and not be placed on another unit, it would be very bizarre.

      I do very much appreciate your considered and logical response, though.

  3. Dbiesto November 9, 2015 11:12 pm #

    is the Equilibrium Games tournament on the 28 in Concord, CA still part of the ITC? Was searching for East Bay California tournaments this month and it’s the only one I’ve found I could make it to. Definitely going to look into the IOS Arcane Magic app, Fantasy Video Games are usually fun.

  4. Toranaga November 10, 2015 9:09 am #

    How about a Chaos Knight of Slaanesh with a rending battle cannon and stubber?

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 10, 2015 11:23 am #

      Yeah, that is interesting. I think it’s only melee attacks though, as for the same reason, Knights don’t get Strikedown on their Heavy stubbers, etc.

      • Dbiesto November 10, 2015 2:04 pm #

        http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Chaos_Knight.pdf

        From what I’m reading, not only does it reduce modes to initiative 1 in combat with it, it gains all of the rules for the daemon alignment chosen, so yes, it has rending

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 10, 2015 2:27 pm #

          Well, it is debatable. You have to remember the Damon rules were not written for the chaos Knight. And for the same reason all of their weapons don’t have strike down, you can argue all of the weapons don’t get rending.

          • Dbiesto November 10, 2015 3:00 pm
            #

            I’m a bit confused as to why it is so expensive to give a chaos knight the daemon upgrade then, why would it say it counts as a daemon aligned with Slaanesh? Just for fluff?

          • Dbiesto November 10, 2015 3:05 pm
            #

            In the Chaos Daemons book, it even says Daemonic Alignment before it lists each type and rules.

          • Adam
            Adam (thediceabide.com) November 10, 2015 3:10 pm
            #

            The biggest thing I see against that is if they wanted them to have Daemon of _____, it would have been really easy to list that. Instead they list it as gaining the Daemon rule, along with the Hatred (Daemons of opposite), and basically do everything they could to make it work mechanically like a Daemon of _____, except for giving it the additional bonuses that Daemon of _____ gives.

          • Dbiesto November 10, 2015 3:43 pm
            #

            Ah, now I understand better. Still, allowing Chaos to take a naked Knight is useful, especially with all the psyker buffs available.

          • Adam
            Adam (thediceabide.com) November 10, 2015 4:09 pm
            #

            Also, you have to remember the price you’re paying also gives you a 5++ to all sides not covered by the shield, and it also works in melee, that’s huge! Figure Sanctuary is 15 points for a 6++ that doesn’t work in Melee!

  5. Codi November 10, 2015 9:47 am #

    We started playing tank shock the way you (Reece) describe it. I was against that interpretation when I first heard if from Travis on TFG Radio until I realized using the softer interpretation means that Crunch! would never happen.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 10, 2015 11:16 am #

      Exactly. If you read it that they can’t be placed on another tank or that you always stay in unit coherency, the other part of the rule would be irrelevant.

    • Adam
      Adam (thediceabide.com) November 10, 2015 3:51 pm #

      Actually, Crunch would happen, it’s not even a rule, it’s a catch all statement, it’s not supposed to happen all the time.

      Here’s a great way it could happen:
      http://www.thediceabide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/crunch.jpg

      By playing the way they suggest it would mean that tank shock becomes more powerful than Destroyer when used en masse. You get to remove models from play, the enemy may get little to no recourse and you don’t even need to roll a dice for it. Additionally, you need to make up extra rules for handling GMC as I mentioned below.

      • Codi November 10, 2015 5:25 pm #

        So let me rephrase, Crunch would only happen in contrived situations that are not likely to ever occur in game.

        In addition Unstoppable states “attacks that inflict…” I would argue that tank shock is not an attack.

        Tank Shocks effective range is 12″, it’s not that scary to a model that moves 12″ especially if both players are aware of the rule.

        Next time I find something in the rulebook I don’t like, I will just say “That’s not a rule it’s a statement.” I think that is pretty clever.

        • Adam
          Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 10, 2015 10:27 pm #

          I would like to know the RAW interpretation of the full sentence containing crunch, which is “Crunch!” Can you tell me how that word is used as a rule? Do I get to crunch your model? Is it describing peanut butter? The rule about removing models is a catch all for the situations I illustrated, to prevent silly discussions like this.

          • Adam
            Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 11, 2015 12:14 am
            #

            To take it one step further, using this wacky interpretation that models don’t move to maintain coherency… What if you tank shock between two MC’s, both are forced to move and thus break coherency, are they both dead too? Can you just outright kill a squad of MC’s or GMC’s that way?

            If five in a squad are pushed to one side and five to the other of a tank shocking rhino, who is out of coherency? Do they all die? Do they all live because they are within coherency of another model despite the squad having broken coherency? If they are not allowed to move the shortest distance that is also in coherency then tank shocking completely through a squad will outright kill it, if they cannot stop it with death or glory.

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 11, 2015 10:03 am
            #

            There are absurd applications of the rule both ways.

          • Codi November 11, 2015 9:08 am
            #

            At least we can agree there is a rule in there somewhere. Can we agree that Crunch! refers to the rule about removing models and move on?

            In the example you illustrated what would happen if the rhino moved all,the way to the boatd edge? I believe under your interpretation they would all pop out behind the rhino.

            In the examples bellow I would guess that half the unit dies. It is not clearly defined in the rules (I think you know that). You could end up in the same situation under your interpretation of rules by surrounding a unit a tank shocking with a skimmer.

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 11, 2015 10:02 am
            #

            @Adam Ok Mr. Pedantic, lol, the rule defines what happens when you crunch: you remove the models form the table with no saves of any kind.

  6. Adam
    Adam (thediceabide.com) November 10, 2015 3:07 pm #

    I know that’s how you guys play Tank Shock, but I think you’re doing it wrong, for two reasons I think. 🙂

    1. The “whilst” maintaining coherency part of the rule means that it must satisfy both conditions with it’s move, not just moving the shortest distance, but moving the shortest distance whilst maintaining coherency.

    2. Aside from that, playing it where it moves the shortest distance to successfully move out of the way, which means you could move through the tank itself, prevents the game from breaking when you tank shock a GMC, which wouldn’t get removed (it only suffers D3 wounds), yet would need to occupy the same space of the tank shocking model or the models it moved onto. To make that work with your ruling, you’d then need to make up another rule allowing GMC to then be placed somewhere they can fit, or for the tank shocking vehicle to move backwards so that the GMC can stay in place, or the GMC is actually removed from play contrary to it’s rule preventing that from occurring.

    Really, the crunch rule is really just written as a catch all, which is something that GW doesn’t do often enough as catch alls are fantastic for the conditions where you’re not sure what to do. In this case it might be incredibly rare that it’s ever used, but it’s not actually impossible, just highly improbable.

    • Dbiesto November 10, 2015 9:26 pm #

      Another thing that bothers me about tank shock: what if the unit keeps passing morale checks but it has already moved out of the way of a tank shock? Can the unit continuously dodge each tank or do they only get to move once during the opponents movement phase? Moving the minimal distance to keep unit coherency will still be between 4-6″ correct? So the person controlling the unit getting tank shocked has to keep track of how far his unit has already moved to dodge or is it that they continuously dodge? All it says in the brb is the unit moves the shortest distance out of the way, but what happens if the unit has already moved its max distance( 6″/ 12″)? Can they keep moving out of the way of further tank shocks?

      • Adam
        Adam (Thediceabide.com) November 10, 2015 11:13 pm #

        Presumably you can keep moving since its involuntary, just like how fleeing can move you more than 6″.

  7. Richard November 10, 2015 3:18 pm #

    Farsight supplement and some clarity on the Combined Fire rule – such a huge swing.

    Would it be prudent to await the Farsight supplement rules, they may have additional wording to combined fire.

    GW must appreciate people are holding off, due to the ambiguity of it (or have they stopped FAQ’s entirely?).

  8. col_impact November 11, 2015 3:50 pm #

    The fix for Tank Shock is to simply apply all the rules in the BRB.

    The models that have been Tank Shocked and are being forced to move are still subject to the “Models in the Way” rule.

    Models in the Way –
    A model cannot move within 1″ of an enemy model unless they are charging into close
    combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another
    model (friend or foe) AT ANY TIME. To move past, they must go around.

    As the rule indicates that rule is in effect “at any time” with specific exception given to models that are charging into close combat.

    And it is still very possible to get Crunch results when you apply all the rules.

  9. col_impact November 11, 2015 4:39 pm #

    And for any of you that want to argue that “Models in the Way” rule is not in effect since it only applies in the movement phase, there are several problems with that view.

    First, the rule clearly indicates that it is in effect “at any time.”

    Tank Shocks happen in a movement phase anyway.

    The Models in the Way rule itself mentions models charging into close combat. Why would it do that if the rule only applies to the movement phase?

    There will also be a problem in the Shooting Phase if a unit elects to run. If Models in the Way rule is not in effect “at any time” then you are allowing models to come into bases contact with enemy models when they run. And they can also move through enemy models.

  10. col_impact November 11, 2015 8:20 pm #

    Ok, let’s dig into the actual grammar. Reecius’ fixation on the significance of the comma is far too simplistic and his read of the grammar of the Tank Shock rule is wrong. To be fair though, it’s a very grammatically complicated sentence.

    Here’s the rule:

    “If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is Falling Back or not), these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board.”

    1) What kind of sentence is this?

    Answer:
    This whole sentence is a complex sentence composed of a dependent clause (“If..”), followed by an independent clause (“these..”), and then followed by another dependent clause (“leaving..”).

    2) What is the whole sentence essentially doing?
    “these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance”

    This is the independent clause. It describes the action of the whole sentence (ie “models moved). For those curious, “must” is a modal verb and acts as an auxiliary verb, modifying and governing the meaning of the verb “be moved.”

    3) What about the confusing dependent clause at the end?

    “leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board.”

    This is a dependent participle clause comprised of three adverbial present participle phrases (each joined by conjunctions “whilst” and “and”).

    a) “leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle”

    b) “maintaining unit coherency”

    c) “staying on the board”

    Each of the present participle phrases acts adverbially on the main independent clause by describing how the one move is to be made. The rules writer used a string of present participle phrases in a participle clause to lazily tag on a set of criteria for a successful move.

    The move made in the independent clause is described as “leaving at least 1″ between them and the vehicle” “maintaining unit coherency” and “staying on the board”

    Basically the rule tells you to move the models the shortest distance that also meets a, b, and c.

    Anybody who wants to double check my grammatical anyalysis need only look into present participles.

Leave a Reply