4th edition question (and maybe answers).

[Beliman]

For anyone interested in 4th editions rules. First question:

Can a unit use Covering-Fire if the same unit used Redeploy previously in the same turn?

Note: Shoot ability explicity says that can't be used on an unit that RUN &/or RETREAT in the same turn (Redeploy has RUN), but Covering-Fire doesn't have anything like that.

[Arzalyn]

23 minutes ago, Beliman said:

For anyone interested in 4th editions rules. First question:

Can a unit use Covering-Fire if the same unit used Redeploy previously in the same turn?

Note: Shoot ability explicity says that can't be used on an unit that RUN &/or RETREAT in the same turn (Redeploy has RUN), but Covering-Fire doesn't have anything like that.

By the wording I think they can. Covering-Fire just say to resolve shooting attacks rather than use the shoot ability and just the shoot ability has the restriction if you run.

[Urauloth]

Per the rulebook, definitely. I wouldn't want to count on actually being able to do this post-launch, as it might turn out to be an oversight that gets hit with a day one FAQ. (The restrictions on covering fire vs shoot make me think it's deliberate though)

[Chikout]

I’m saying the answer is no you you can’t. The covering fire ability has the shoot keyword. You can see that the countercharge ability doesn’t have any key words. The only reason to include the key word is if the ability is treated as a shoot ability. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 hours ago, Chikout said:

I’m saying the answer is no you you can’t. The covering fire ability has the shoot keyword. You can see that the countercharge ability doesn’t have any key words. The only reason to include the key word is if the ability is treated as a shoot ability. 

I'd have to disagree. Other rules like warscroll abilities can key off of the SHOOT keyword on Covering Fire, there is reason to have this keyword there other than blocking the use of it with RUN abilities.

Personally, I would say that unless there is a universal rule that prevents running and shooting, then that restriction is part of the declaration of the Shoot ability and does not affect other SHOOT abilities by default.

[Chikout]

50 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'd have to disagree. Other rules like warscroll abilities can key off of the SHOOT keyword on Covering Fire, there is reason to have this keyword there other than blocking the use of it with RUN abilities.

Personally, I would say that unless there is a universal rule that prevents running and shooting, then that restriction is part of the declaration of the Shoot ability and does not affect other SHOOT abilities by default.

There is a universal rule that prevents running and shooting. That was my point. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

10 minutes ago, Chikout said:

There is a universal rule that prevents running and shooting. That was my point. 

I see where you are coming from, but compare Covering Fire to Counter Charge:

Counter Charge works by letting you use any CHARGE ability during your opponent's turn. Covering Fire, by contrast, makes no reference to other abilities. It just tells you to "resolve shooting attacks", which is just the effect of the Shoot core ability without the restrictions from the Declare step.

[Marcvs]

6 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Counter Charge works by letting you use any CHARGE ability during your opponent's turn. Covering Fire, by contrast, makes no reference to other abilities. It just tells you to "resolve shooting attacks", which is just the effect of the Shoot core ability without the restrictions from the Declare step.

yes, this would be my argument in favour of being able to use both Redeploy and Covering Fire as well. I would also add that a 2 CPs "combo" is immediately an expensive one (basically, it puts it in the Counter Charge category, which is hugely impactful).

[Chikout]

Ok, I think I'm persuaded. The covering fire ability is another ability with the shoot ability keyword but there's no ability hierarchy. It doesn't have to follow the rules of the core shoot ability. 

 

Edited June 26 by Chikout

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

yes, this would be my argument in favour of being able to use both Redeploy and Covering Fire as well. I would also add that a 2 CPs "combo" is immediately an expensive one (basically, it puts it in the Counter Charge category, which is hugely impactful).

I can see it being occasionally useful to get around the "nearest target" restriction of Covering Fire. That might potentially lead to a high-value piece being removed and might be worth the steep 2 CP price tag. But since access to mortal wounds on the hit roll for shooting has seemingly been removed from the game, the -1 to hit penalty is a pretty big deal. Cannon-like weapons seem to all hit on 4+, and I would guess the same is true for most "standard" shooting units. Coming up with +1 or better yet +2 to hit in the opponent's shooting phase is going to be pretty difficult.

[Gailon]

The key here for me is that there is NOT a core rule that says you can’t run and shoot. 
 

The core shoot ability says to pick a unit that has not run to use the ability. But that limitation is inside that ability. 
 

covering fire doesn’t have that limitation. So it doesn’t matter that it has the shoot keyword. It’s a different ability. . 

[BlazerVX]

If there was a way to for a unit to have the same anti-  (+1 rend) ability twice, do they stack or only applied once? 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Other than list building restrictions, what reasons are there to care about bringing HERO units? What I have in mind here is stuff like command ranges and heroic actions in 3rd ed.

As far as I can tell, HERO units behave nearly the same as other units once they hit the table. The only special thing I have found so far is that you need the HERO keyword to activate places of power.

[Beliman]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Other than list building restrictions, what reasons are there to care about bringing HERO units? What I have in mind here is stuff like command ranges and heroic actions in 3rd ed.

As far as I can tell, HERO units behave nearly the same as other units once they hit the table. The only special thing I have found so far is that you need the HERO keyword to activate places of power.

Imo, their abilities:

• Most support heroes have at least one ability to buff your units.
• Wizards have the option to cast spells/manifestations, unbind, banish manifestations.
• Priests have the option to chant prayers or unbind spells.
• If they are non-unique, they have the option to take Artefacts and Heroic Traits, that makes them the only customizable model in your army.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, Beliman said:

Imo, their abilities:

• Most support heroes have at least one ability to buff your units.
• Wizards have the option to cast spells/manifestations, unbind, banish manifestations.
• Priests have the option to chant prayers or unbind spells.
• If they are non-unique, they have the option to take Artefacts and Heroic Traits, that makes them the only customizable model in your army.

That's what I figured. I am trying to find out whether there is a reason to go higher drops just to have more hero units on the board independently of their warscrolls.

It seems to me that once you have your artefacts and traits applied there is not much reason to add extra heroes outside of their particular abilities and maybe if your allegiance abilities care about the HERO keyword.

I am thinking about how to value bringing a Steam Tank vs a Steam Tank Commander here. In 3rd ed, the commander was a lot better. Or a Zombie Dragon vs. Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon.

[Beliman]

Another question:

If Manifestations are not units, but they can use FIGHT abilities, can they be buffed with passive abilities from their army that doens't require a keyword?
For example:

This Lumineth Realm-lords ability can be used by Lumineth Realm-Lords army (no keyword required). This ability affects the player.
Manifestations, even if they are not units, they can use a FIGHT ability:

[Lucentia]

The advanced rules FAQ says says that manifestations are not affected by 'friendly abilities' period.

[Acrozatarim]

On 7/9/2024 at 9:07 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

That's what I figured. I am trying to find out whether there is a reason to go higher drops just to have more hero units on the board independently of their warscrolls.

It seems to me that once you have your artefacts and traits applied there is not much reason to add extra heroes outside of their particular abilities and maybe if your allegiance abilities care about the HERO keyword.

I am thinking about how to value bringing a Steam Tank vs a Steam Tank Commander here. In 3rd ed, the commander was a lot better. Or a Zombie Dragon vs. Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon.

Yeah, there isn't an awful lot of value in a Hero in and of just being a Hero - instead it's all about whether they actually bring anything worthwhile with their warscroll or the specifics of what they let you pick for their retinue.

It's why the Clawlord on foot for Skaven is a bit of a non-starter - his abilities don't do anything meaningful to enhance other units, his combat profile means he's got equal or worse damage output than equal points of regular units you can take, and they'll be harder to kill to boot. If you just want access to the Verminus units, he's the same price as a Grey Seer - who can actually cast spells and gives access to every Skaven unit.

It's a real shame the foot Clawlord brings absolutely zero to the table, as I'd love a reason to actually take him in my lists.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Lucentia said:

The advanced rules FAQ says says that manifestations are not affected by 'friendly abilities' period.

Perfect, that's exactly what I needed

[brocktoon]

There are abilities that do D3 MW on a 2+. Does this mean:

a) An actual 1 on the D6 you roll to determine the D3. So 1 no wounds, 2 is one wound, 3-4 is 2 wounds, 5-6 is 3 wounds.

b) A 1 or 2 on the D6 you roll to determine the D3. So 1-2 no wounds (as this is a 1 on a D3), 3-4 is 2 wounds, 5-6 is 3 wounds.

My overwhelming instinct is that it's a) but I want to make certain

[PraetorDragoon]

34 minutes ago, brocktoon said:

There are abilities that do D3 MW on a 2+. Does this mean:

a) An actual 1 on the D6 you roll to determine the D3. So 1 no wounds, 2 is one wound, 3-4 is 2 wounds, 5-6 is 3 wounds.

b) A 1 or 2 on the D6 you roll to determine the D3. So 1-2 no wounds (as this is a 1 on a D3), 3-4 is 2 wounds, 5-6 is 3 wounds.

My overwhelming instinct is that it's a) but I want to make certain

For "on a roll of 2+, deal d3 mortal wounds"

First you roll a dice, if you roll a 2 or more you roll a D3. The result of that D3 is mortal wounds.

If the ability says "Roll a D3, on a 2+ deal mortal wounds equal to the roll",

You roll a d3, then if you roll 2 or more you deal mortal wounds equal to the result, i.e. on a 1, no damage, on a 2, two damage, on a 3, three damage.

[Beliman]

So, another question. How can I (Kharadrons) kill Sevireth?
I mean, I can only shoot him if I'm within 9" or go melee. But to do that, I need to catch him. If I'm not wrong, Sevireth has all this movement shenanigans going on:

• 18" move
• Can Run and still shoot (18"+1D6")
• Can Move again after Shooting (12" range +18" move)
• Redeploy

[Marcvs]

15 minutes ago, Beliman said:

So, another question. How can I (Kharadrons) kill Sevireth?
I mean, I can only shoot him if I'm within 9" or go melee. But to do that, I need to catch him. If I'm not wrong, Sevireth has all this movement shenanigans going on:

• 18" move
• Can Run and still shoot (18"+1D6")
• Can Move again after Shooting (12" range +18" move)
• Redeploy

you get 3.1" from him and, unless he rolls a 6 on redeploy, you shoot him. Then charge him (this is no different from all other unit which can redeploy).

The move after shooting is only in their turn.

[Beliman]

32 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

you get 3.1" from him and, unless he rolls a 6 on redeploy, you shoot him. Then charge him (this is no different from all other unit which can redeploy).

The move after shooting is only in their turn.

Yeah, that part of being 3.1" of Sevireth is the part that it's more in the opponents hand than me.

[Marcvs]

10 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Yeah, that part of being 3.1" of Sevireth is the part that it's more in the opponents hand than me.

yes, agree on this, but they will also roll a 1 on Redeploy sometimes. I'd say the idea is to make sure you have another target to shoot/charge and force them to keep spending Redeploy on Sevireth

Edited July 16 by Marcvs