January 40k tournament?

[Brett Kielick]

Is there going to be one? If so, how many points and what day? Thanks,

Brett

[Justin M]

The 25th, 1850, keep an eye on the calendar in the bottom on the home page to see if it changes and they usually post some of the logistics in the forum the week of.
Bring your big gun, my heirophants looking pretty good.

[James Hedgepeth]

I haven't been to a tournament since the fall. Have the Redcap tournament rules changed at all with the release of Escalation and Stronghold Assault?

[Joseph Kopena]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 2:47 AM, James Hedgepeth <jhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't been to a tournament since the fall. Have the Redcap tournament
> rules changed at all with the release of Escalation and Stronghold Assault?

Previously Benn was saying that everything's in.

Assuming that's still the case, it would be useful to have a couple
clarifications. Most importantly:

- How do Blast and Template weapons work against Void Shields?
Rules-wise it seems the full complement of hits would resolve against
the shield and then carry over onto the units underneath, but
certainly many people are interpreting them as a single hit on the
shield.

- Are Stronghold's building rules in use never/always/only if at least
1 player is using the book? For anybody who hasn't read it,
Stronghold updates the BRB's buildings rules pretty substantively.
Battlements are no longer considered a separate building, the effect
of collapses on gun emplacements is clarified, collapses are more
streamlined rules-wise and less lethal to units occupying buildings or
on battlements, and units can assault out of buildings.


GW really should have put out the latter as a free PDF errata to the
main rules. They're simpler in a good way and much more clear about
resolving building damage than the main rulebook is. Releasing them
only as a wildly overpriced supplement just fragments the core ruleset
and shared understanding more than new units or weapons do.

--
- joe kopena
right here and now

[James Hedgepeth]

Those are some of the things I was wondering and many points I hadn't even considered. Thanks Joe. I imagine the marker/template issue is only for the void shield field and wouldn't affect how a void shield purchased for a building would react?

Also, my main concern is the chance of facing larger than Large markers/templates, or weapons above S10. Will it be expected that a player wishing to fire a weapon that needs the apocalypse-sized markers/templates will need to own them, and cannot just measure out the blast size?

I'm just curious and would want to know how these new things really work before committing and commuting.

Thanks, James

[John O'Connell]

I didn't realize the void shield rule was ambiguous--my copy of stronghold assault says that after collapse, further hits strike the original target instead. I took that to mean that you have to have another hit to damage the target behind the shield. That said, I'm no expert on divining the intent of GW's words.

[Joseph Kopena]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:29 PM, James Hedgepeth <jhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those are some of the things I was wondering and many points I
> hadn't even considered. Thanks Joe. I imagine the marker/template
> issue is only for the void shield field and wouldn't affect how a
> void shield purchased for a building would react?

No, it would affect any building with battlements. The rules note
that any units on the battlements are also protected, so it would have
the same problem as the projected shield.

The question is how many hits do blasts and templates generate.

Say I have 10 Guardsmen huddled on a battlement w/ 2 Shields. You
land a D weapon Blast directly on top of all of them. Is that 10 D
hits, so 2 collapse the shields and 8 Guardsmen die? Or do you just
take down one shield w/ the one D weapon shot?

Rules-wise, as written it almost certainly has to be the former, in
particular as multiple shots from a non-Blast weapon would pretty
clearly take down the Shields and then hit the unit. But many people,
including myself, on first read are just assuming that the Blast would
be one hit against the Shield. The other reading never even occurred
to me until I saw people talking about it online.

That would explain why the Shields are so cheap, but beyond that it's
hard to believe the rules as written are the actual intent. In
particular, in that reading, you would basically never actually want
to put units on battlements with shields. Since the Guardsmen are
hit, the building underneath is necessarily also hit. As the
attacker, I resolve the Guardsmen to destruct the shields, and then
the hit on the building sails through to blow up the bunker. In
contrast, if the Guardsmen weren't there, there'd be just the single
hit on the building, it'd take down one shield, and my bunker would
survive just fine, with a remaining shield to boot.


Basically, they copy & pasted the Void Shields rules from those for
Titans, but that was a much simpler case because it was only ever 1
hit against 1 model, so now there are a bunch of issues.

[Owen Montgomery]

I hadn't even considered that.  I just re-read the rules myself, and Joe is totally right.  The intent is clearly that the void shield absorbs "one shooting attack" rather than absorbing one "HIT."  Should this be house ruled?  Normally I am not in favor of that as a solution, because it opens up quite a big can of worms.

It is a shame that the inat FAQ was never updated for 6th edition, mostly because of things like this (the "expansions" having rules which directly conflict with the BRB).

-Owen Montgomery

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Redcap's Corner Warhammer 40K" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to redcapscorner40k+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to redcapsc...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redcapscorner40k.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[John Lamanna]

Here's a good discussion on the topic. ~20ish pages of light reading:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570101.page

I agree that the RAI is that it absorbs the shooting attack. The Void Shield entry states "Any shooting attack that originates outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield." Since you target a unit, and it calls out a shooting attack, I have to think that's what the intent is.But, it's a poorly written rule either way. I can see the RAW argument for bleed through.

[John Lamanna]

You know, the more I read this the more I think the RAW is inline with the discussed RAI. 

"Any shooting attack that originates outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield."

Any shooting attack that hits a target within the void shield hits the void shields. Given that all hits from the same unit hit at the same time, even if you put 10 hits with a D-weapon blast on a target unit under a void shield, I'd reckon all 10 go to the shield. Sure, first one breaks it - but the rule doesn't say "if the shield fails, the hits return to the original target." 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:09:21 PM UTC-5, John Lamanna wrote:

Here's a good discussion on the topic. ~20ish pages of light reading:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570101.page

I agree that the RAI is that it absorbs the shooting attack. The Void Shield entry states "Any shooting attack that originates outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield." Since you target a unit, and it calls out a shooting attack, I have to think that's what the intent is.But, it's a poorly written rule either way. I can see the RAW argument for bleed through.

On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:08:16 PM UTC-5, owen.montgomery wrote:

[Joseph Kopena]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:37 PM, John Lamanna <jlama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, the more I read this the more I think the RAW is inline
> with the discussed RAI.
>
> "Any shooting attack that originates outside a Void Shield Zone and
> hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected
> void shield."

That supports the intent reading, but not the RAW. That sentence says
the shooting attack hits the shield, which it has to, otherwise hits
would go to the models like usual as the shield isn't physically
there. But in resolving those hits, the next paragraph states:

"A glancing or penetrating hit (or any hit from a Destroyer weapon)
scored against a projected void shield causes it to collapse. If all
the projected void shields have collapsed, further hits strike the
original target instead."

That doesn't say anything about shooting attacks, and is clearly
applying itself to individual hits.

The text for the Void Shields upgrade also phrases the top part
differently, as "Any hits from shooting attacks" rather than "Any
shooting attacks."

The RAW on resolving the hits is pretty clearly about hits, but
conflicts with the potential RAI reading from the first paragraph as
being about shooting attacks.

[John Lamanna]

Heh, good point. I guess I just want it to not be true?

[Redcap's Corner]

Sorry about the wait on this, guys. I've been reading over the rules and chewing over the options. Here's what I think:

1) Void shields effectively alter the targeting of a shooting attack until they've collapsed, at which point the remaining hits hit the original target. For flamers and template weapons, the same holds true. Resolve those attacks normally with the first X hits being resolved against AV 12, where X is the number of hits it takes to break all the void shields.

2) Anyone using Escalation material that utilizes Apocalypse templates must own the Apocalypse templates, just as anyone using normal templates must own them.

3) The rules for buildings are now superseded by the rules in Stronghold Assault. There's no clean way to handle this, but they're better rules. I'm not going to require people own Stronghold Assault unless they're using a fortification found in it, but people should try to familiarize themselves with the changes. If people have better suggestions for how to handle this, I'm open.

I hope that helps! If anyone has any other questions, feel free to get in touch!

--Benn.

[Owen Montgomery]

Quick question:  What is the format for the tournament this weekend?  Standard 1850 this time around?

-Owen Montgomery

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Redcap's Corner Warhammer 40K" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to redcapscorner4...@googlegroups.com.

[Redcap's Corner]

Yeah, standard 1850!

--Benn.

[colin....@gmail.com]

Benn, any insight on missions for tomorrow? 

[Joseph Kopena]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:36 PM, <colin....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Benn, any insight on missions for tomorrow?

Be prepared to break 900 points of Void Shields, heretic!

[Redcap's Corner]

The last few months we've not been revealing the missions in advance. Some people were complaining about people tailoring their lists too heavily for the missions. If people want advance missions back, let us know at the tournament today.

--Benn.

[colin....@gmail.com]

OK, that's fine. I don't feel strongly either way, but if word was out on the missions, I didn't want to be the only one NOT tailoring my list to the missions, especially the bonus points. As long as the playing field is level I don't care...

[colin....@gmail.com]

And I've got something for your void shields, Joe...

[Brett Kielick]

Also, are the Burning Skies rules from Death from the Skies supplement allowed to be used in Redcaps Tourneys? Considering Escalation and Stronghold Assault are in, I don't see why they shouldn't be. Basically, there are some rules for Flyer on Flyer dogfighting, and some special maneuvers. Unfortunately, I'm no longer going to be attending today, but depending on when the tournament is going to be held next month, I should be there.

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM, <colin....@gmail.com> wrote:

And I've got something for your void shields, Joe...

--