Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

leopard wrote:
have seen first fire quite a bit, any unit not planning to move tends to be on it here specifically so it can get its shots out nice and early

In my experience they rarely pre-empt anything, it's not often we see for example a close combat/engagement where one of detachments is bigger and able to be targeted. It may also be that even with 2000pts, 5x4 has been fairly spread out in terms of detachments being spread out. Outside of charge it's often been to some advantage at time going second, at least once planes are largely gone.

main utility seems to be to fire at aircraft before aircraft can fire, and to splat stuff thats had to move to get into range to fire back

e.g. Vanquishers sitting pretty, the enemy has to move up to engage and first fire means not much may be left.

you are giving up the initiative though to do it, so needs care or a canny player will use knowing you are not moving to advance but stay out of sight.

has worked well though at the air defence stuff, first fire can avoid having to overwatch them (of course you still can, but first fire means more units can do it)

leopard wrote:


has worked well though at the air defence stuff, first fire can avoid having to overwatch them (of course you still can, but first fire means more units can do it)

Yes but the necessity of that overwatch might be in the extreme if its to pre-empt a bombing run for example, especially considering dedicated AA like tarantulas can't overwatch and would basically have to survive a bombing run before activating in the movement phase because they're allowed to with what's left and firing back.

To be fair if an air strike is going for a Tarantula battery the robots can take their chances, it means something valuable is safer, for a turn

to be honest the aircraft rules are plain weird, stuff that cannot drop to hover seems to have no way to remain on the table, that or I'm missing something, so any bombing run is within range of its own table edge?

leopard wrote:
To be fair if an air strike is going for a Tarantula battery the robots can take their chances, it means something valuable is safer, for a turn

to be honest the aircraft rules are plain weird, stuff that cannot drop to hover seems to have no way to remain on the table, that or I'm missing something, so any bombing run is within range of its own table edge?

I also find it odd how top weighted it is, games I've seen that have even like 4-6 planes can often have vey abrupt and rapid endings if things go well. Which is why If find it odd that of all the things that can't overwatch it's the dedicated AA unit both armies have access to. Like don't get me wrong, they're very affordable points wise and fairly flexible in terms of you may be limited by targeting but still can decide whether or not to fire them in the movement or shooting phase. It's just that it's a damn shame the counter to bombing runs is dump fire overwatch with whatever you can, If your opponent has like 2-4 bombers it can get pretty disgusting no matter what. Only thing even limiting skew is availability for now it seems.

counter to bombing runs it seems is to stay in your own table half where they can't reach you

the auto AA stuff fires in the movement phase when activated (unless no targets then if can fire later), so its not exactly overwatch but if you activate after the fliers turn up they fire

non-auto AA has to use overwatch, or be on first fire to get a shot before the aircraft do

to be honest so far the best AA is your own interceptors and having a few more activations

the laughable bit is the description of the thunderbolt as managing to get home with damage others couldn't.. 4+ save, 1 wound...

and yes I'm aware that "shot down" could actually just be "driven off"

Here's a new low for rules discussion.

People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's a new low for rules discussion.

People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.

they will be the same people who insist on following the letter of other rules, except that one, and the same ones who will milk every obscure rules reading but then claim the 40k points for painted "doesn't apply"

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's a new low for rules discussion.

People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.

they will be the same people who insist on following the letter of other rules, except that one, and the same ones who will milk every obscure rules reading but then claim the 40k points for painted "doesn't apply"

But it's actually kind of amazing the level of gymnastics these people are going to, It's not enough to just say "I don't care for that limitation, hopefully my opponent will be ok with ignoring it" That comes off entitled to me but at least that person is existing in the same universe and we're both at least reading the same thing, whether or not out reactions or opinions are in sync. But these people are literally seeing whatever they want to see.

Like if they themselves ordered a full order of wings at the pub and only got a half order of wings they wouldn't then say "close enough",

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's a new low for rules discussion.

People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.

they will be the same people who insist on following the letter of other rules, except that one, and the same ones who will milk every obscure rules reading but then claim the 40k points for painted "doesn't apply"

Point limit is chosen before armies are built. Page 126.

Point limit isn't same as how much your army list is. If it was i could bring my full collection to game. That's my point limit after all.

1 per 1500 limit involves point limit.

A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the pointslimit
(e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.)

Note. Limit. Not points spent.

Not surprised crablezworth wants to arque he can bring whole collection to game though. Worst angle shooter i have seen. Can't win fair game, rather than learn to play take 10000 army. After all after adding 10000 to army his army limit is 10000 according to him

But as page 126 shows point limit locked before even allegiance shown...

pg178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)" You need 1500pt list to take 1, a 3000pt list to take 2. It's stated explicitly with clear example. All this mean is you have to hit 1500 on the nose including the 16pts of that for the legate, but if its 1499, you have to bump it back down to the 10pt commander. Same time if you're playing over 1500, like 2000 you know you're good for 1 even if the list is like 1996pts or something. But same thing applies up to 3k if you want 2, you gotta hit 3k on the nose or more.

But I'm sorry, it's incredibly explicit. If you order a full order of wings and receive only a half order of wings, it's not a full order. The word full has a definition:

full
/fo͝ol/
adjective
1.
containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space.
2.
not lacking or omitting anything; complete.


FULL 1500 points, full stop.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Not surprised crablezworth wants to arque he can bring whole collection to game though. Worst angle shooter i have seen. Can't win fair game, rather than learn to play take 10000 army. After all after adding 10000 to army his army limit is 10000 according to him

But as page 126 shows point limit locked before even allegiance shown...

I'm not the topic timo.

I think Crablezworth is being a bit over literal.

Whilst they’ve clearly explained their thinking, as long as it’s a 1,500 point game? I’d be happy to see a Legate, because I’m more persuaded it’s tied to Points Limit, not Points Spent. And that is indeed what the rule says.

Just above, but emphasis mine wrote: A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per full 1500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)

The limit is the defining factor in that wording. Not spent. 1 per 1,500 points of the points limit.

Lol tneva doing an odd pairing of being embarrassingly wrong with almost every statement, while also going into weird diatribe personal attacks whenever crabz posts.

Literally just being a troll I guess?

@mad doc it says per full 1500 points of the points limit, which means the complete amount. Going by your interpretation "full" is meaningless in the sentence and could be removed without impacting the mechanic at all.

So if one interpretation uses the actual wording to derive the intended mechanics, and another interpretation doesn't rely on the wording, which is the more accurate interpretation? Its the former, at least in areas of law, statutory interpretation, and technical writing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think Crablezworth is being a bit over literal.

Whilst they’ve clearly explained their thinking, as long as it’s a 1,500 point game? I’d be happy to see a Legate, because I’m more persuaded it’s tied to Points Limit, not Points Spent. And that is indeed what the rule says.

Just above, but emphasis mine wrote: A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per full 1500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)

The limit is the defining factor in that wording. Not spent. 1 per 1,500 points of the points limit.

One does not get to characterize that I'm being over literal while literally editing out the word FULL to suit one's argument. One really can't get to do both.

What the rules say and how one approach/fix/edit them are not the same thing and its quite disingenuous to edit out the key word in a sentence then try and gaslight.


Again I'll highlight the meaning of the word full


But I'm sorry, it's incredibly explicit. If you order a full order of wings and receive only a half order of wings, it's not a full order. The word full has a definition:

full
/fo͝ol/
adjective
1.
containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space.
2.
not lacking or omitting anything; complete.


A FULL 1500 point solar auxillia force would be a force that utilizes a full 1500 points. Full.



"I just put a full tank of gas in the car" "oh so a subjective number not defined by objective physical limits?" "no, the tank is full, it cannot contain any more gas" "Oh so how I'd approach that is just selectively hearing part of what you say" "This doesn't seem like a good strategy for dealing with objective reality"

No. Go back and read my explanation.

The examples given support my interpretation.

At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.

Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.

And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Go back and read my explanation.

The examples given support my interpretation.

At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.

Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.

And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.

g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)

I've quoted the rules, your turn.


Lemme just


FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit

And show me in that statement where it mentions “points spent”.

Wait... is someone actually claiming you can't bring a 0-1 per 1500 pts unit in a 1500 pts limit game if your list is a point short? Absolute pants on head insanity.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And show me in that statement where it mentions “points spent”.

The full part.


full
/fo͝ol/
adjective
1.
containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space.
2.
not lacking or omitting anything; complete.


A full 1500 point list comprises of a full 1500 points, just a like a full pizza isn't half a pizza...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Wait... is someone actually claiming you can't bring a 0-1 per 1500 pts unit in a 1500 pts limit game if your list is a point short? Absolute pants on head insanity.

No, it's that your force needs to be 1500 points, not 1499. You'll notice a 2000 points force can still only have 1, because it's not a 3000 point force, the rule doesn't just explicitly state full, it literally gives that exact example.

And you can read it for yourself below:

g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)"

By your argument, if my total points spent is 1,499 or less….i don’t actually need to include any formations at all in Matched or Narrative play. I say that because on pp127, we get the following compulsory instruction.

pp127 wrote:3. Assemble Compulsory Formations…

Formations represent the main building blocks of an Army; each Army must include a minimum of 1 Formation from its Primary Army List for each full 1,500 points of the agreed points limit for each Army (i.e. an Army assembled to 3,000 points must include at least 2 Formations. A 4,500 point Army must include at least 3 Formations etc..

Do you concede the wording is the same, yes? And that even if my force totals only 1,499 points of an agreed 1,500 point limit, I must still field at least 1 Formation?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Wait... is someone actually claiming you can't bring a 0-1 per 1500 pts unit in a 1500 pts limit game if your list is a point short? Absolute pants on head insanity.

Yes. Crableworth.

Arqument revolves around word "full" which he takes to mean you have to spend 1500. Not that it's there to sort out what happens if point limit is 1250, 1750, 2000 etc..'

A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the pointslimit
(e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.)

Rule is for point limit. Not points spent.

If point limit is same as points spent you can never go above point limit. Hello to full collections. He who buys most wins. And what you are agreeing to with point limit before army building as per page 126? Limit is then obviously 0 as you haven't even picked allegiance let alone spent.

It was funny when he 1st said. Seeing him deny regardless of multiple people pointing out rule as written...less funny.

1 legate per full 1500 point LIMIT.

In same way maximum you can spend 30% of your point LIMIT to allies. Not of spent points. No warlord in 2k game isn't illegal because you ran 1 pts short.

You can even play about 200 pts army with legate if you agreed to 1500 pts game and play "bit" short.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Go back and read my explanation.

The examples given support my interpretation.

At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.

Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.

And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.

This is my take on it also.

The rule could have been better worded I think; something like "maximum of one per 1500pts"

You’re placing your emphasis on the wrong part of the rule.

The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.

But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re placing your emphasis on the wrong part of the rule.

The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.

But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.

Bingo.

Without that if you agreed 1501 pts game 2 legate...

I can't believe this needs talking about. This stuff has worked the same way for at least 30 years.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re placing your emphasis on the wrong part of the rule.

The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.

But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.

That's not true, the rule literally gives the example of 2 at 3k, not 2 under 3k, for your made up bs to work you're not only ignoring the word full, you're also ignoring half the example.


g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Go back and read my explanation.

The examples given support my interpretation.

At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.

Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.

And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.

This is my take on it also.

The rule could have been better worded I think; something like "maximum of one per 1500pts"

It's not a take, it's literally rules as written. How you wish to ignore that with opponent's consent or one's opinion on the rules doesn't change what it, explicitly, says. A full gas tank is a full gas tank, a FULL 1500point list is exactly that, 1500 points, it's not subjective.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
By your argument, if my total points spent is 1,499 or less….i don’t actually need to include any formations at all in Matched or Narrative play. I say that because on pp127, we get the following compulsory instruction.

pp127 wrote:3. Assemble Compulsory Formations…

Formations represent the main building blocks of an Army; each Army must include a minimum of 1 Formation from its Primary Army List for each full 1,500 points of the agreed points limit for each Army (i.e. an Army assembled to 3,000 points must include at least 2 Formations. A 4,500 point Army must include at least 3 Formations etc..

Do you concede the wording is the same, yes? And that even if my force totals only 1,499 points of an agreed 1,500 point limit, I must still field at least 1 Formation?

This is check mate right here, you don't get to skip over it and continue arguing

Are you feeling alright? Because you’re coming on a bit strong here.

My example isn’t “bs”, on account…I’ve correctly and directly quote the rule as it’s printed.

Full is not the defining term. Points Limit is.

Show us where it says the Points Limit of a game is based on what the player has actually spent. Because that is the core of your argument. And so far, it’s not supported by the rules.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
By your argument, if my total points spent is 1,499 or less….i don’t actually need to include any formations at all in Matched or Narrative play. I say that because on pp127, we get the following compulsory instruction.

pp127 wrote:3. Assemble Compulsory Formations…

Formations represent the main building blocks of an Army; each Army must include a minimum of 1 Formation from its Primary Army List for each full 1,500 points of the agreed points limit for each Army (i.e. an Army assembled to 3,000 points must include at least 2 Formations. A 4,500 point Army must include at least 3 Formations etc..

Do you concede the wording is the same, yes? And that even if my force totals only 1,499 points of an agreed 1,500 point limit, I must still field at least 1 Formation?

This is check mate right here, you don't get to skip over it and continue arguing

And how does an army add a legate if it's less than 1500 points? Oh right, it can't.

Correct. If the points limit is 1,499 or under.

Not the points spent. That’s the bit your argument relies on, and so far has no supporting rule or evidence.