Some rules that came up

[seahawk]

Just for sharing information with the group, I had a couple questions come up (and one particularly sticky issue ) during the event at Draxtar on Saturday. This is so everyone (and mainly Tim and Tony G's) gets a better idea of things.

1. The new Daemon psychic powers. The old page had a line that disallowed picking all your powers from the daemon's god under the generating psychic powers part; this has been replaced and the new one does not have it. Thus, a ML3 Nurgle daemon could make 3 rolls on the discipline of nurgle.

2. Psychic powers, FMC, and flying targets. A FMC can choose to use the Skyfire rule, and if they do then all their weapons also gain Skyfire. Shots against them are resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has Skyfire.

Skyfire says a model with this special rule fires using its normal BS when shooting at Flyers, FMC, and skimmers, etc.

Witchfires are shooting attacks. Thus, they do not need to be resolved as Snap Shots because the model using them has Skyfire. The psychic powers themselves don't gain Skyfire, but they do not need to.

3. Drop pods and Line of Sight. The core rule that has been for a few years now is: True LoS. That means if part of a model blocks the view, then it blocks the view. Drop pod bits block LoS. This whole nonsense of "the entire model is treated as invisible and doesn't block LoS" is about as preposterous as "Oh yea, my stompa doesn't block LoS for any of my models, but heck, you get a cover save!"

This is called willfully ignoring the rules in order to gain an in-game advantage (and more than one person plays that way ). Houserules like ignoring it are fine for basement games, but it is inappropriate to expect other people at a standardized tournament to follow them when it only penalizes them and not you, and getting upset about them preferring to play by the actual rules instead of made up whatever is...well bad.


Anyway, I had a fun time at any rate and everything was sorted out, so on to the next!

[DCannon4Life]

As to #3; don't the drop pod rules themselves stipulate that a drop pod never blocks line of sight but does offer a cover save?

[seahawk]

No such rule has ever existed outside of house rules. As with any other vehicle, you still follow TLoS.

The only drop pod rules that refer to LoS are in the Adepticon FAQ, which say just the doors are ignored for LoS purposes, in case people model for advantage by keeping the doors closed, or by using a proxy. Fins, baseplate, interior details, and etc. all still block LoS.

[DaGrippster]

Makes sense with the demon powers. Our main question was whether they still get the demon primaris, but reading the rules solved that mystery.

I agree with you on the FMC with skyfire, but don't understand why it would specify "gains the skyfire rule, which means its weapons have skyfire" (paraphrasing slightly here, don't have the book on hand). I can see it being argued that only weapons gain skyfire, and therefore not witchfire powers. I would play as them being able to choose to use skyfire for all attacks including psychic powers, but I do think there is an argument there.

Didn't see the drop pod rule unfold, but I always play that the doors do not block line of sight. Fins would for sure, but it's really annoying to play with/against a bunch of drop pods with their doors open, so it's easier to leave them shut.

[JPA]

Regarding #3 your missing a major point, you can actually see through parts of a drop pod. The open doors provide line of sight through the model.

The wording for line of sight says:

“Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).

For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/AjAB0.l

The wording of the rule actually says you can shoot through a drop pod (or any model you can draw line of sight through for that matter).

Although I suppose you can argue not glueing the harness in this instance in modeling for advantage though...

[Frankthetank]

Hello everyone,

I was the opponent that had the drop pod line of site rule arise. I have always played that drop pods did not block line of site but do offer a cover save. I suppose this is players rarely put the harness's in the pod. This means you would basically always be able to see through your pod. I however put the harness's in my pods. I was un ware that this would create a line of site issue. Had I not out the harnesses in this would not have come up. With harness in I can effectively block line of site to a disembarked 5 man unit fairly easily. Anyhow was a vary hard fought game as all of my games where and had a good time regardless of the line of site issue and it had very little effect on the game. I am actually surprised that this made it on the forums.

( "This whole nonsense of "the entire model is treated as invisible and doesn't block LoS" is about as preposterous as "Oh yea, my stompa doesn't block LoS for any of my models, but heck, you get a cover save!" )

Very poor comparison of drop pod line of site. As a stompa you cannot see through you can see through a pod and as I stated prior the harness's is what blocks the line of site and I left them out this would not have been an issue. To try and assume that I would attempt to shoot at models through a stompa and claim that it is invisible Is just asinine.


("This is called willfully ignoring the rules in order to gain an in-game advantage (and more than one person plays that way ). Houserules like ignoring it are fine for basement games, but it is inappropriate to expect other people at a standardized tournament to follow them when it only penalizes them and not you, and getting upset about them preferring to play by the actual rules instead of made up whatever is...well bad. ")

As for it just penalizes my opponent and not me is not true either. If the case was I said it blocked line of site for you but not me then it would be a in game advantage.

I really did not get upset I was more frustrated that a rule that I assumed was accepted by everyone was actually not a legit rule now I know. How the issue was handled I asked Steve to make a ruling and he did and we moved on. I did mumble about how it has always been played a provided cover but did not block line of site. When I say has always been played that is from the play group in the area which was pretty much everyone at the tournament. I would venture to say that this issue would have came up with the majority of people playing with pods at the event. I really gave no more thought after the game and certainly did not warrant it a drawn out message board post. Anyhow that is my response... Oh the profile of the d3 str 10 shot from the exalted flamer is ap2 not ap1 for future games: )

[xSoulgrinderx]

There is a bit that specicially says you cant draw direct line of sight THROUGH the empty innards of a drop pod.

[JPA]

What page?

[seahawk]

Regarding #3 your missing a major point, you can actually see through parts of a drop pod. The open doors provide line of sight through the model.

That is the point. If bits block LoS, they block LoS. If they don't block it, they don't. That's all I was saying. Angrily of course, but just that all the same.

@Frank: I'm sorry my response wasn't professional, I really am, and afterwards I felt bad that I reacted the way I did. Remember when I said I don't like tournament attitudes, which is why I don't often attend them? It's because of my experience with the WFB crowd. They're far more bitchy about rules, and for whatever reason especially, the unwritten house rules that everyone uses that don't exist, but you get dinged in sports if you don't do it that way. Our disagreement was perfectly comparable, and looking back on it, I realized I whacked back about it in the way I was expecting it to need to go. Not cool on my part.

Anyway I wrote it up here because I was still sour (shouldn't have done that), and also because of you saying how nobody has called you on the right rule for six years. That's a long time and, judging by your frequency with tournaments, a lot of really clueless opponents! I mainly wanted everyone in this group to be all on the same level field in regards to the actual rules. I certainly don't want it to come up again in any of my games in the future, so figured it'd be best to spread the word about how to do it right.

There is a bit that specicially says you cant draw direct line of sight THROUGH the empty innards of a drop pod

Again, no, this is entirely made up and doesn't exist. TLoS is TLoS, and there's zero abstraction.

[Frankthetank]

@Seahawk No worries man and I certainly would like to play again. You are correct about the True LOS and it does make complete sense. I also could have handled the discussion better as well. I would really like to see you at tournaments you are a quality player!!!

[swampthing]

Have you considered referring to ITC tounament rules clarifications, they deal with RAW ambiguities and inconsistencies from the point of view of tournament players. Although they are not difinitive, they do offer a bridge for when GW takes forever to answer players concerns through FAQ's. IMO they are the closest we have to an educated,impartial third party opinion.

that being said, Ive always played drop pods to not block LOS. and my drop pods have harnesses and missles in them which makes them pretty 'solid' even when the doors are open.

[seahawk]

Playing by houserules like that is fine, but just know if we come together on the table, I'll plant my feet that we play by the actual rules!

While I don't care for the ITC, I haven't really come up with much that needs addressing. Buildings/ruins really, and that's it. I guess the #2 question would be a decent submission.