Some 5th Ed Rules questions - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    Some 5th Ed Rules questions

    Hey hey,

    A couple of 5th ed questions.

    I have played a couple of games and these two questions came up.

    1) I understand about wound allocation from shooting, but...

    A unit of three marines (Bolter, Flamer, Missile Launcher) suffers six wounds from shooting. Four wounds are caused by bolters and two are caused by a melta gun.
    I allocate the wounds. One melta to the bolter, one bolter to the flamer and one bolter to the M.L. Now all marines have one wound allocated to them. Now I continue... A second melta to the bolter, a second bolter to the flamer and a second bolter to the M.L.

    My question is can I rack up the nasty shots (Low AP) on a single model? And when you have lots of models with the same weapons, if you have allocated two 'no saves' to a single model do you only take one un-saved casualty?

    I know it is a long question and I will try to clarify it better if needs be.

    2) Vehicle squadrons.

    If a vehicle in a squadron suffers an immobilised result it counts as wrecked. O.K.
    What happens if this is in assault?
    I charged a unit of killer kans with some 'stealers. In the first turn of combat I immoblised one of the Kans.
    Now common sense suggests that the Kan can still attack back. But the rules state that it is wrecked?

    Any thoughts on this one?
    Should vehicles in a squadron that are immobilised in assault be allowed to attack back? Or are they wrecked immedietly?

    Cheers,

    Bloodthirster


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Member Lode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    39 (x1)

    1)The way you allocated the wounds are correct! :) So yes, in a way, if there's enough shots and not enough guys to take them, you can end up "racking up" the nasty wounds on a specific model like you did.

    And as for your other question in there, keep in mind that the casualties are all taken from the same "identical group" of models. So let's say you have 3 identical marines facing 4 bolter shots and 2 melta shots, even though you assign the 2 melta shot to the same Marine, you'll still be throwing all your saving throws at the same time. So you'll throw 4 saving throws for your marines and add to that the 2 "no-saves" wounds and remove the casualties from there (so basically in this example, 2 Marines will die for sure because of the melta wounds, and the 3rd will too if you miss one of the 4 saves you're taking because of the bolter shots)

    Read carefully the example at the bottom of p25 of the rulebook, it can help you makes sense of it, too :)


    2) I can answer that one quickly for you :) Since Killer Kans are Vehicles with the subtype "Walkers", they actually follow the rules outlined for them in p73 of the rulebook ;)
    Last edited by Lode; July 16th, 2008 at 00:32.

  4. #3
    Suffer not the Unclean InquisitorAffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    381 (x8)

    Yeah, I noticed that about walker squadrons the other day. It's pretty silly. Hopefully it's an oversight that gets FAQ'd.

  5. #4
    Member Lode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    39 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by InquisitorAffe View Post
    Yeah, I noticed that about walker squadrons the other day. It's pretty silly. Hopefully it's an oversight that gets FAQ'd.
    What oversight? I'm confused...

    Bloodthirster just have had his rules mixed-up between Vehicles squadrons and Walkers squadrons... did you too as well?

  6. #5
    Suffer not the Unclean InquisitorAffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    381 (x8)

    p73:
    Squadrons of Walkers
    ... Damage results are resolved as for vehicle squadrons, ...


    What have I missed that would prevent a member of a walker squadron that suffers an Immobilized result during an assault from becoming Destroyed?

  7. #6
    Member Lode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    39 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by InquisitorAffe View Post
    p73:
    Squadrons of Walkers
    ... Damage results are resolved as for vehicle squadrons, ...


    What have I missed that would prevent a member of a walker squadron that suffers an Immobilized result during an assault from becoming Destroyed?
    When you quote, quote the complete sentence, it'll prevent it from being taken out of context and won't be misinterpreted

    "Damage results are resolved as described for
    vehicle squadrons, however, and they attack back,
    perform sweeping advances, pile-in moves and
    consolidations like walkers (see Walkers and Assault)."

    Then if you go read the "Walkers and Assault" section, specifically the 4th paragraph, you'll see what happen when a Walker is Immobilized.

  8. #7
    Senior Member omegoku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cork, Ireland
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,076
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    216 (x7)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lode View Post
    When you quote, quote the complete sentence, it'll prevent it from being taken out of context and won't be misinterpreted

    "Damage results are resolved as described for
    vehicle squadrons, however, and they attack back,
    perform sweeping advances, pile-in moves and
    consolidations like walkers (see Walkers and Assault)."

    Then if you go read the "Walkers and Assault" section, specifically the 4th paragraph, you'll see what happen when a Walker is Immobilized.
    Thats debatable too.
    If the damage results are anything but destroyed or Immobilized then the walkers can attack back. And as they are all mobile they can sweep, pile in and consolidate as normal.
    I myself think that walkers in combat, should not be destroyed on a roll of Immobilized and ignore shaken and stunned in combat. Assuming the walkers win the combat, an immobilized walkers should then be destroyed and the squad continue as normal.

    I still think the rule should allow the squadron to not destroy their buddies if they do not move, once they move, the damaged vehicles could then be destroyed. But Iguess that would complicate things.


    So as the rule stands. Walkers in combat do not get any exceptions to the destroyed on immobilized rule. A bit harsh, but thems the rules.
    Arch Overfiend & Grand Despot
    I currently play:
    Doom Eagle Space Marines
    Hive Fleet Omega Tyranids
    Goff Ork Boyz(dead)
    Tau of O'me
    Inquisitorial Xeno Hunters

    and my attempted foray into fantasy
    'Dark Angel Green' Dark Elves in need of fluff

  9. #8
    Striving for the right Ravenscraig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In exile on Earth - currently in Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    941
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    144 (x3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lode View Post
    When you quote, quote the complete sentence, it'll prevent it from being taken out of context and won't be misinterpreted
    Actually, it's probably best if you don't quote at all. We're no longer talking about 5th Ed rumours any longer, so normal copyright rules apply, and we all have to be extremely careful indeed in this regard.

    ~ Raven ~

    "The choice between good and evil, is made by all who live, with every single heartbeat ... ... ..."

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenGamer View Post
    Simple wording. On a forum, any forum, wording is all one has to go by to determine tone and intent.

  10. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    Thankyou

    Cheers for the swift responses.

    The wound allocation is now cleared up thankyou.

    O.K.

    Walkers in combat.

    Two rules I see are:

    - Walkers attack in close combat as infantry.
    - Walker squadrons auffer damage results in the same way as normal squadrons.

    So they should be wrecked in close combat if they are immobilised.

    Any thoughts?

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    3 (x1)

    I agree with your statement that walkers in a squadron in close combat should be wrecked if they are immobilized.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts