colonelellios wrote:

Moz wrote:I'm so glad this rule is so perfectly clear to everyone. To put a clarification in a FAQ would be stupid, and incompetent.

Did I get that right?

Yes, it would be stupid to include in a FAQ. In an environment as competitive as the one at Adepticon, you would hope that everyone involved would have at least read the first paragraph of p. 23 in the BGB... And realized that the NS's "strength characteristic," as defined there, is in fact "X," and therefore can not possibly interact with the instant death rule, which presumably operates on the "strength characteristic" defined on p. 23. Weapons of "S X," one would hope that it obviously follows, work in exception to the rules laid out by the BGB...

Thereby, being only found at this point in Codex books, and not referencing the main rule set in any way, weapons of "S X" do in fact operate in their own little never-never land, independent of the main rule set, because specific codex rules override the main rules however specifically stated.

EDIT: Really, I think it's completely pathetic that I had to resort to pointing out in detail one of the most basic concepts described in the BGB...

And...the only rebuttal...

insaniak wrote:It would be less pathetic if it actually had any bearing on the argument.

Wow. Just, wow. I don't think I can respond to this. It's impossible to have a debate about RAW with someone who has no idea what the term means...

You're really just trolling. All sides of the rules debate have been presented, 3 people thinking they are right have declared victory with different positions.

Some people are more willing to see the differences than others, and some just pump their fists and yell 'Idiots!'. Your spot in the latter category makes you a troll.

If you want to have a serious discussion about it: try forming your argument in a way that only uses the rules and doesn't automatically deride anyone who disagrees with your interpretation.

I won't hold my breath.

The other thread was locked by the time I looked at it. Since I can see how both sides can argue their point I only want to submit a rebuttal against the S X can't cause instant death since there's no strength listed. Using your arguement as worded, I would then presume that you would say Tyranid weapons cannot cause instant death since their strength values are listed as S+1 or S or S-2 and not an actual numerical value. I don't know anyone that doesn't allow ID from 'nid weapons...

I think I may have mis-stated what I meant in the INAT_FAQ thread. When I said, "Continue this discussion", I meant "lay out all the arguments in a logical manner" and not "selectively quote and declare victory".

So, let's try this again from the top. And the Ad Hominem attacks are not helping you convince anyone, ColonelEllios.

Where's Flavius when you need him?

Capt K

Who have I attacked? I am not being blatantly offensive, nor do I need to be offensive at all.

Is it not pathetic that a very basic concept from the BGB had to be rolled out and presented to those who don't wish to follow the rules?

And as for Iorek's input...unless you wanted me to quote the whole thread and every post therein (which, BTW, is why I made it clear that this is from the old thread in News&Rumors, which anyone can search for), this is precisely where the discussion was cut off.

I haven't called anyone "idiotic." I haven't even implied it. I've derided those arguments that fail to make use of the relevant rules. That's a part of debate.

So perhaps all you super-sensitive reactionary types simply shouldn't bother responding to posts? It's evident that you seem to think any rational discourse is an "attack" of some sort. I'm sorry for you.

As far as Lormax's responce: The Tyranid weapons still work off of the "strength characteristic" rules in the BGB, it's just that the weapon's strength is dependent upon the creature's. This doesn't exempt Tyranid weapons from the normal shooting rules, because the weapons still end up with an actual "strength" value. "Strength X" is outside of this consideration, and furthermore, the NS rules are far more specific and have their own mechanism of operation, and aren't dependent upon the normal "determine wounds" and "remove casualties [read: instant death]" rules that Tyranid weapons remain dependent upon.

Dear troll: Please post your suggested conclusion and the premises that support it.

Now who's trolling? Stop trying to get this thread locked because it actually includes a relevant rule that your argument didn't...

If my asking you to explain your position in a manner that can be debated is trolling, well then I guess I'm trolling.

ColonelEllios wrote:As far as Lormax's responce: The Tyranid weapons still work off of the "strength characteristic" rules in the BGB, it's just that the weapon's strength is dependent upon the creature's. This doesn't exempt Tyranid weapons from the normal shooting rules, because the weapons still end up with an actual "strength" value. "Strength X" is outside of this consideration, and furthermore, the NS rules are far more specific and have their own mechanism of operation, and aren't dependent upon the normal "determine wounds" and "remove casualties" rules that Tyranid weapons remain dependent upon.

This is the response that I pretty much expected. So I'd like to quote you.

ColonelEllios wrote:1) The fact that the actual weapon profile for the NS has "S X" listed is in fact important. This weapon doesn't have a strength value listed in its profile, and should therefore immediately be disassociated with Instant Death, but I'm sure this won't be enough for you so I'll continue...

Using your quote above, it's safe to say the 'nid weapons don't have a str value in their profile either. You're contradicting yourself here. The description of 'nid weapons tell you how to determine the strength of the weapon. The description of the shredder tells you how to determine its strength as well. Where's the difference?

Elaborating on Lormax's position here, this is where I would take it.

Since the books don't tell us what X is, we can define it by elimination from other terms:
P1 X in the STR Characteristic can represent 'Null (works in exception to the strength rules)' or 'Variable'
P2 '-' is used for 'Null' (Case: Sniper rifles, stinger pistol)
P3 (Assumption) each meaning will be represented by one character. Null will not be represented both by '-' and X.

C1 'X' is used as a variable

P4 When fired on a non-vehicle, the Neural shredder is Strength 8.
P5 When fired on a vehicle, the Neural shredder is Strength Null.

C2 Str X for the Neural shredder is 8 or Null dependent on target.

P6 The neural shredder uses Leadership instead of toughness to wound.
P7 The instant death rule takes place after a wound has been allocated by a weapon with strength double the targets toughness.

C3 The Neural shredder causes instant death on non-vehicle models wounded with Toughness 4 or less.


A few things that can support or refute this:
Can anyone check the weapon characteristic of Toxin mines for tyranids? I don't have that one handy. That weapon uses Str = Toughness of the target. If it is X on the summary sheet, we've pretty much nailed P3.

You can refute P3 if you can find a weapon without a strength value that uses X. Or you can add more possible terms to P1 in order to invalidate the definition by elimination.

P4 is possible to attack since the shredder is Strength 8 strictly for the purposes of wounding. If a weapon wounds with Str 8, is it then considered Str 8?

P7 is possible to attack and argue that Instant death is part of the wounding process, and would therefore continue with the leadership in place of the toughness for modifying the instant death procedure as well (continue using leadership instead of toughness). This is the route the INAT_FAQ went and it is certainly more conservative than my C3.

There are probably other routes you could take this. Or hey you could just insult me too, that proves a point!

EXALT!

What's great about Moz is that he'll post the possible rebuttals to his own arguments. I propose that for all possible rules questions we just post and then let Moz argue with himself and come to a conclusion. By doing this we remove all excess posts from people who have no idea what they are talking about and just feel like being condescending.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Who ends up correct then?

I don't know but we'd all win.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Curses! Double post.

moz wrote:P4 When fired on a non-vehicle, the Neural shredder is Strength 8.

You've made exactly the same error as insaniak here:

colonelellios wrote:
insaniak wrote:The fact that the rules entry lists the weapon as having Strength 8 when rolling to wound means that the Strength 'X' listed in the profile is completely irrelevant for ID purposes.



Really? That's very interesting, considering that the NS rules don't mention "strength 8 when rolling to wound," but rather state, "rather than using the target's toughness value." That's your answer right there. The rule tells you that the weapon doesn't affect toughness. You're not rolling to wound against toughness. There's no other reasonable way to interpret that.

You're confusing the fact that the weapon says "the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." with "the NS is strength 8" [out of context]. You are making the mistake, again, of taking a clause of a rule completely out of context. The weapon is not "strength 8." The weapon is "strength X, and the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose the bits of a rule you like while ignoring the rest.

Secondly, P3 is a terrible assumption to make because there are several weapons (such as wraithcannon) that use "S X" and do not have a strength of any sort described by their rules.

Additionally, there's no period after "The neural shredder is strength 8..." It's not a rule. It's only a rule when taken as a whole sentence. Furthermore, it comes after the specific exception: "Roll to wounds as follows:" That phrase, in conjunction with the "S X" in the weapon profile, is the proof that you are working in exception to the main rules.

______________________________________

To respond to Lormax:

With tyranid weapons, you still end up with a strength. What's the strength of a venomcannon? "Well...uh...S+2, so S 8 on my Hive Tyrant." What's the strength of a Neural Shredder? "Strength 8, but rather than using the targets toughness values their leadership is used." S + or - is not the same as "S X". It's still referencing a strength value, and you still end up with a number for a "strength characteristic."

ColonelEllios wrote:To respond to Lormax: With tyranid weapons, you still end up with a strength. What's the strength of a venomcannon? "Well...uh...S+2, so S 8 on my Hive Tyrant." What's the strength of a Neural Shredder? "Strength 8, but rather than using the targets toughness values their leadership is used."

There's no period after "The neural shredder is strength 8..." It's not a rule. It's only a rule when taken as a whole sentence. Furthermore, it comes after the specific exception: "Roll to wounds as follows:" That phrase, in conjunction with the "S X" in the weapon profile, is the proof that you are working in exception to the main rules.

What color is my g/f's hair? It's brown, but it used to be blonde. Her hair is still brown. The ID rule doesn't say to use the characteristic that it wounded against. It only stipulates that the model is wounded. If the model is wounded, compare the strength to the toughness. Equal to or greater? Instant Death.

The thing is, as long as the shredder is strength 8, you have 'use leadership for toughness'.

So if the shredder is strength 8 for insta-kill purposes, the target is Toughness=leadership for the same purposes.

ColonelEllios wrote:That phrase, in conjunction with the "S X" in the weapon profile, is the proof that you are working in exception to the main rules.

So you keep saying. But you still haven't shown how that actually makes any difference whatsoever for ID.

The model was wounded. For the purposes of that wound, the weapon was Strength 8. ID says that if the model was wounded by something with a Strength at least double the model's Toughness, ID occurs.

The fact that the weapon uses it's own special rules that aren't the same as the normal rules is completely irrelevant. When it comes time to determine whether or not ID occurs, you simply look at the Strength of the wounding hit, and the Toughness of the model.

Do you like going around in circles? You certainly seem to.

The Neural Shredder isn't strength 8 unless it's being compared to enemy leadership. That's what the rule says.

You apparently missed this whole post, twice now:

colonelellios wrote:insaniak wrote:The fact that the rules entry lists the weapon as having Strength 8 when rolling to wound means that the Strength 'X' listed in the profile is completely irrelevant for ID purposes.



Really? That's very interesting, considering that the NS rules don't mention "strength 8 when rolling to wound," but rather state, "rather than using the target's toughness value." That's your answer right there. The rule tells you that the weapon doesn't affect toughness. You're not rolling to wound against toughness. There's no other reasonable way to interpret that.

You're confusing the fact that the weapon says "the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." with "the NS is strength 8" [out of context]. You are making the mistake, again, of taking a clause of a rule completely out of context. The weapon is not "strength 8." The weapon is "strength X, and the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose the bits of a rule you like while ignoring the rest.

Respond to that, or get lost.

Nope, haven't missed it. Just disregarded it as claiming that the NS entry stating that it is S8 doesn't actually mean that it inflicts a S8 hit is hardly a sound rules argument.


Here's a very simple question for you: If a T4 model is wounded by a Neural Shredder, what was the Strength of the wounding hit?

skyth wrote:The thing is, as long as the shredder is strength 8, you have 'use leadership for toughness'.

So if the shredder is strength 8 for insta-kill purposes, the target is Toughness=leadership for the same purposes.

Thank you.

Now, all we need to see are a bunch of multi-wound models with Ld4 (or worse).

Good find on the 4th ed eldar codex str X's. So Str X can mean that it is either special, or it could be a variable (in the eldar codex the variable is null). Back to the tyranid codex we have a lot of weapons that are Assault X. X being the number of attacks the creature has.

So saying that X cannot be a variable is wrong, the tyranid codex disproves that. Now, do we have any insight that defines X for the Witch-hunter codex / DH? Did anyone buy that silly wargear book, what does it say?

The line: "When rolling to wound..." does not seem like an exception to the idea that a weapon has a strength. It seems far more likely that it's telling you: "When not rolling against armor values". A lascannon is Str 9 when rolling to wound, it just is also Str 9 when rolling to penetrate armor.

And I'd have to agree with insaniak that even working in exception to the main rules. If it's a Str 8 hit against the Ld value of the model, it's still a Str 8 hit. If Ld replaces toughness for the entirety of the process, then sure just read ID and replace the word toughness with LD. That's how you have to handle wounding anyways.

For Ozzy: The good thing about this argument is that I'm only interested in an outcome, don't care which one it is. For the purposes of arguing in favor of the INAT_FAQ, all I have to do is show that it's not obvious (I'm gonna call that one mission accomplished). If we drill down to a gray area, all the better imo.

I play inquisition, I like the Callidus, and I've never argued that her weapon instakills, but this is YMDC. We want the truth!

For JohnHwangDD: the only thing I could come up with is the basic ork weirdboy after being hit by Purgatus.

ColonelEllios -Do you like going around in circles? You certainly seem to.

Where is Mauleed when you need him?

Do you like being a special kind of rude? You certainly seem to.

Wow. Just, wow. I don't think I can respond to this. It's impossible to have a debate about RAW with someone who has no idea what the term means...

Or expect reasonable responses from somebody who is unaware/uncaring of posting rules on Dakka.

Has something bad happened to you over the last couple of weeks ColonelEllios? You seemed to have gotten a lot angrier.

As for this Gold...

Who have I attacked? I am not being blatantly offensive, nor do I need to be offensive at all.

Absolutely correct Sir. Your offensiveness knows no limitations or boundaries.....

Chill dude. May the Light of the Empie of Space shine on you.

Can someone make an argument that can convince me not to replace the model's toughness with it's LD value when checking for ID? I can't get over that one bit, and it makes me frustrated, because I am then inclined to agree with our local troll. Sigh...

*hugs ColonelEllios* cheer up, sunshine! ^^

**Takes a deep breath**

You know, I'm really not an a$$hat. I simply cannot abide people who refuse to use the entirety of the relevant rules, and like to take phrases of them and hold them up as RAW and somehow indicating some loophole in the rules.

The most important part of the NS rules entry is the phrase:
"Roll to wound as follows:"

To make my argument perfectly clear, despite the fact that very few others seem concerned about following this format:

P1: The Neural Shredder is listed as "S X."
C0: In all cases, this always means that the weapon uses its own special rules (there is no "S X" weapon that doesn't have its own special rules)
P2: as defined on P. 23 a weapon's "strength characteristic" stipulates that weapons have a listed strength based on their weapon profile.
C1: The NS has no strength characteristic.
C2: The NS has no "strength characteristic" because it is listed in its profile as "S X"
P3: The entry in the codex says "Roll to wound as follows..."
C3: You are rolling in a manner that is in exception to the normal "to wound" process
P4: Specific codex rules override the BGB
P5: The NS rules make no reference to I.D., and furthermore don't use the target's toughness.
C4: The NS excludes the use of the Instant Death and "Rolling to Wound" rules found in the BGB, because it is a codex-specific rule that works in exclusion to the BGB rules
P6: The NS states "the NS is strength 8, but rather than rolling to wound [normally]..."
C5: The NS cannot interact with I.D., because it has no "Strength characteristic (being X)," but instead it follows these rules, which must be taken completely: "the NS is strength 8, but rather than rolling to wound [normally]..."

C1 and C2 are false *if* X is considered a variable, as it is clearly used in several cases. X could either mean null, as it does clearly in codex eldar, or variable as in codex tyranids.

C4 isn't sound in that there is no specific rule overriding the ID rules. Lets say, for arguments sake, it's a one wound model. You roll to wound as Neural shredder tells you to do and inflict a wound. Neural shredder doesn't tell you to remove models reduced to zero wounds as a casualty, so can we not use the BGB casualty rules? ID takes place, as casualty removal does, outside of the normal wounding process. Neural shredder would need to explicitly state that something does not occur in order to exclude it.

C5 is burdened with the logical problems of C2.

Edit: And I appreciate that you are presenting your argument in a debatable manner now. Thanks.

"X" is not variable. "X" is an indicator of special rules. It's neither "null" or "variable"

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that Tyranid weapons are listed as "S + or -". For simplicity's sake, "S X" is not equivalent to "S-1." "S-1" is variable. "S X" is something else entirely.

As far as C4, I think you might be missing my point. The Neural Shredder rules exclude instant death implicitly. Not only does the weapon not have a "strength characteristic," it clearly works in a fashion that is in exception to the main rules for "rolling to wound". You're still relying on the false assumption that the "neural shredder is strength 8..." by taking that phrase out of context.

Really, the argument is sealed by the fact that I.D. requires that a model is wounded by a weapon with double the model's toughness. "S X" doesn't indicate any strength value, and therefore excludes the use of Instant Death.

To turn P5 around a little bit, the NS rules would *have* to reference Instant Death in order for it to take any effect with this weapon. Since the special rules indicated by "S X" do not reference I.D., you don't have any basis for insinuating that it should be used. To say that another way, the only portions of the main rules reference by the weapon and therefore applicable to it are "flame template," "assault 1" and "ap 1." That's it. Other than that it's a specific codex rule that allows only what it specifically states.

EDIT: To further clarify; for Insaniak's interpretation to work, the weapon description would have to read: "The neural shredder is Strength 8. Roll to wound as follows:..." They actually state, however, "roll to wound as follows: The neural shredder is strength 8, but rather..."

Do you see the distinction?

X is used throughout the tyranid codex for the number of shots a weapon gets. Where X is the number of attacks the firer has. In that case, it's clearly a variable (albeit one controlled by special rules).

Your interpretation is that Str X is essentially null, and the weapon is never actually assigned a Str value.

Mine is that Str X is 8 when rolling to wound, and null when rolling to penetrate armor.

ColonelEllios wrote:**Takes a deep breath**

You know, I'm really not an a$$hat.

Do you play one on TV?

Moz wrote:X is used throughout the tyranid codex for the number of shots a weapon gets. Where X is the number of attacks the firer has. In that case, it's clearly a variable (albeit one controlled by special rules).

You just shot your argument in the foot with the phrase I highlighted in your quote above.

For "S X" to be variable, it would have to actually mean "variable."

Furthermore, we're discussing "X" in terms of the weapon's strength, not it's rate of fire. Apples to oranges, in any case.

P1: The Neural Shredder's strength value is "X"
C1: Snails in France are called Escargo

P2: French food is weird
C2: But they use garlic seasoning
C3: French food is tasty ^^
sub-C3: Except for frog legs, that's just weird x.x

It is controlled by special rules, but that doesn't mean that it cannot then be assigned a number. You look at the special rules and they tell you what the number is for the given situation. It still applies to STR since all characteristics (Str and A) are simply a number from 0 to 10. X just sits somewhere on that range.

colonelellios wrote:As far as C4, I think you might be missing my point. The Neural Shredder rules exclude instant death implicitly. Not only does the weapon not have a "strength characteristic," it clearly works in a fashion that is in exception to the main rules for "rolling to wound". You're still relying on the false assumption that the "neural shredder is strength 8..." by taking that phrase out of context.

And you're *still* doing this.

So it's on the table and doesn't get ignored at all. The shiney rule in it's all unignored entirety:

Roll to wound as follows: The neural shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than using the target's Toughness values, their Leadership is used. ... Against vehicles, roll a D3 on the glancing hits table.


So when rolling to wound: Str X becomes Str 8.
Against vehicles: Str X becomes N/A as it is part of a step that is skipped.

I am rolling to wound, I am Strength 8, I wound you. You were wounded by something, what was the strength value?

ColonelEllios wrote:P2: as defined on P. 23 a weapon's "strength characteristic" stipulates that weapons have a listed strength based on their weapon profile.

I REALLY like this rules finding that helps state your case, and really, it kinda sells me on it. My BGB is a 20 minute round trip walk from my desk, so I'll skip going to look up what p.23 says word-for-word right now. ID tells use to use the strength of the weapon. How do we determine that? Answered on P.23, use the weapons profile to find the strength. It doesn't say in there that if the weapon has special rules to determine the strength. So for instant death, strength is X. X isn't double the toughness, no ID.

Moz wrote:Roll to wound as follows: The neural shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than using the target's Toughness values, their Leadership is used.

If this is the rule word for word, it lends more backing to Ellios' argument. Plural form, so from that I gather that in more than one instance the leadership is used. Rolling to wound is one instance. Checking for ID is another instance.

Tyranid weapons have a bone to pick with you. (or, should I say, want to melt you to your bones...)

Ack I transcribed that apostrophe wrong. it should read:
Roll to wound as follows: The neural shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than using the targets' Toughness values, their Leadership is used. ... Against vehicles, roll a D3 on the glancing hits table.

Important placement of that apostrophe: targets' Toughness values vs. target's Toughness values.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Where's Flavius when you need him?

Capt K

Was out of circulation for a bit, but stopped back by in time for this thread.

Moz and Insaniak are delivering a correct literal reading of the RAW.

In general, the NS strength is X. That doesn't change the more-specific rule that, when shooting at a non-vehicle target, it is strength 8 rather than X. So it interacts with the ID rule with that strength characteristic.

Any sound argument that can be made is necessarily correct, like this one:

P1: The NS is strength 8
P2: Any target wounded by a weapon with twice it's toughness suffers instant death
C: A unit with T4 or less wounded by the NS suffers instant death

In this case, the later parts of the NS rule don't contradict the statement that it is strength 8, so there's no grounds for invoking context as something that invalidates the statement that the NS is strength 8.

The premise that says "the NS is strength X and you can ignore the place where it says strength 8" is an assumption not founded in a literal reading of the rules.

Having said that, the rule raises some questions once you drift away from the RAW reading, and could use some clarification.

Moz wrote:I am rolling to wound, I am Strength 8, I wound you. You were wounded by something, what was the strength value?

That's the Strength part of the ID. Now you need to go back to the Toughness part.

Instant Death triggers when the target is Wounded by Strength at least twice the Toughness. What I fail to understand is how certain people are picking and choosing for the rules scope to use Special Wounding (per Neural Shredder), Special Strength 8 (not "X", which would prevent ID), but NOT Special Toughness (Leadership, per special rule for Wounding and Strength).

It is a clearly failed argument to take 2 parts (to-Wound & Strength) and ignore the 3rd (Toughness). Why not argue the inverse: modified (to-Wound & Leasership-based Toughness) and printed Strength ("X")?

Indeed, it would be more "correct", to insist that Neural Shredder ID *must* use printed statline SX vs printed statline T4, if looking to evaluate ID separate from the actual to-wound context. In this case, ID is impossible, as SX cannot cause ID.

So: Either use the printed values, only, or the modified values, only. But let's stop mixing the two (S8 vs T4) or (SX vs .

The shredder doesn't change the toughness value of the target, JohnHwangDD.

It uses its str characteristic against the ld characteristic of the target for the roll to wound, but the toughness value of the target remains the same.

So, stripping away the Stupidity, we have the following cases:
1. printed values (SX v. T4) = ID impossible
2. modified values (S8 v. Ld) = ID normally impossible
3. modified T (SX v. Ld) = ID impossible
4. modified S (S8 v. T4) = ID nearly automatic

Instant Death specifically refers to Wounding, and Neural Shredder changes the Wounding mechanic (strength vs toughness) to use S8 vs Leadership.

From a consistency standpoint, neither 3. or 4. should even be up for discussion.

Flavius Infernus wrote:The shredder doesn't change the toughness value of the target, JohnHwangDD.

It uses its str characteristic against the ld characteristic of the target for the roll to wound, but the toughness value of the target remains the same.

For the purposes of Wounding (which is what the to-wound and ID care about), the Toughness is the Leadership. The printed Toughness is no longer relevant.

What is the wounding mechanic? It's Strength vs Toughness. See the charts, they're clearly labeled as "Strength" and "Toughness".

If you're wounding, *how* can you use the Leadership value if you're not using it as Toughness?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
For the purposes of Wounding (which is what the to-wound and ID care about), the Toughness is the Leadership.

I don't think this is a correct reading, JohnHwangDD. My rulebook doesn't say anywhere that "the model's leadership becomes its toughness." It's not a true RAW reading to assume that because a different value is used for a particular die roll, that it changes the statline of the model unless the rules specifically say that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're wounding, *how* can you use the Leadership value if you're not using it as Toughness?

You compare the str8 of the weapon against the leadership of the target as if it were toughness for this specific roll. That's not the same as saying that toughness becomes leadership for other purposes (like ID) not mentioned in this rule.

OK, Flavius, show me in the rulebook where it says you can roll to wound with Leadership.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, Flavius, show me in the rulebook where it says you can roll to wound with Leadership.

That would be in the neural shredder rule that says:

"Roll to wound as follows: The neural shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than using the target's Toughness values, their Leadership is used."

It's the only place I know of offhand where this happens.

Thank you.

I'm going to quote it again:

"Roll to wound as follows: The neural shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than using the target's Toughness values, their Leadership is used."

For the purposes of Wounding (which is what to-wound and ID) are referring to, the effective Toughness is the Leadership.

Remember, it specifies Toughness values (i.e. numeric value - e.g. "8"). That means that, for the particular wound, a Ld8 model has T8.

When you check again for ID, when you check for the strength that caused the would (8), you also need to check the Toughness that was tested for the Wound doesn't change - it's still 8. So ID doesn't apply unless the Ld is 4 or less.

Flavius has a point, it doesn't say that the leadership takes the place of Toughness, only that the value is used.

JohnHwang also seems to have a point. The Neural Shredder text only references how to roll for wounding. Once that part of the process is finished, we're done with that sentence.

Now the Instant Death check starts. ID asks for a strength. The Shredder text doesn't say we can use the strength value during the wounding process for anything else. Being that the GW rules are permissive, we have not been permitted to use Str 8 other than for wounding. Going by that, the only rule we have that can apply is how to figure out strength. Per Ellios, it's on p.23 which says it's in the statline. Str is X for this check.

ID actually just says: "If a creature is wounded by something with strength value of double their Toughness value or greater"

So while outside the wound loop per se, it is not necessarily completely removed from the circumstances of the wound. We don't completely resolve the wound and then come back to check on the stats of the weapon later. When you were wounded, the weapon had a strength.

Maybe think of it like flagging a model to be under the effect of ID during the wound.

For neural shredder, the order of operations would be:
Rolling to wound: Str = 8 against T4 Ld 9 model.
Rolled 5: wound applied on 5+ against Ld9, model flagged for wounded by something with Str 2x T.
ID check: if flagged and not immune to ID, remove model.

This is just a way to conceptualize what we are suggesting the rules say. An order of operations involving wounding and ID is never detailed by RAW (simultaneous vs. sequential).

Lormax wrote: The Shredder text doesn't say we can use the strength value during the wounding process for anything else.

I would agree with this if the rule said something like "For the roll to wound, the neural shredder has strength 8..."

But it makes the blanket statement "The neural shredder has strength 8," with the rest of the sentence being an independent clause. So in a permissive reading, that means the weapon has str 8 unless otherwise specified.

One place where it is otherwise specified is in the statline, where it is X, since it has a different strength versus vehicles so just putting "8" wouldn't be correct. The other place where it is otherwise specified is in its strength versus vehicles. I can't find any other situation that countermands the statement that the weapon has a strength of 8.

Lormax, thanks for summarizing.

Note that using the printed statline (as Ellios suggests) is probably NOT the correct approach (as usual).

If we revert to printed statline only, then that breaks all precedent set by DNCCWs (Dread is base S6), Power Fists (base S4) and so forth. Furthermore, it makes the Bike Toughness limit rule unnecessary.

Therefore, based on precedent, it is more appropriate to use the modified S *and* T values, where the modified S is fixed at 8, and the modified T is whatever the Ld was.

Moz wrote:ID actually just says: "If a creature is wounded by something with strength value of double their Toughness value or greater"

So while outside the wound loop per se, it is not necessarily completely removed from the circumstances of the wound. We don't completely resolve the wound and then come back to check on the stats of the weapon later. When you were wounded, the weapon had a strength.

Maybe think of it like flagging a model to be under the effect of ID during the wound.

For neural shredder, the order of operations would be:
Rolling to wound: Str = 8 against T4 Ld 9 model.
Rolled 5: wound applied on 5+ against Ld9, model flagged for wounded by something with Str 2x T.
ID check: if flagged and not immune to ID, remove model.

This is just a way to conceptualize what we are suggesting the rules say. An order of operations involving wounding and ID is never detailed by RAW (simultaneous vs. sequential).

Moz, this doesn't work.

Rolling to-wound is Strength vs Toughness. NS says to use the Ld *value* (i.e. "9", in your example). Therefore Flag will NOT be set. Therefore ID check fails because not flagged.

NS uses the Ld value for wounding. My post was pointing to the idea that ID is something separate from wounding, but related to the circumstances of the wound.

For the record, I think this comes down to a gray enough area to fall under the 'take the less advantageous position' which would be either no ID or ID vs. Ld, which are practically equal (unless you're a Weirdboy staring down a mean Purgatus...)

JohnHwangDD wrote:Rolling to-wound is Strength vs Toughness. NS says to use the Ld *value* (i.e. "9", in your example). Therefore Flag will NOT be set. Therefore ID check fails because not flagged.

Instant Death calls for a comparison of the model's Toughness and the Strength of whatever wounded them. Using a different value for the wound roll doesn't mean that the model suddenly doesn't have a Toughness stat. It simply means that when referencing the To Wound chart, the word 'Toughness' is replaced by 'Leadership'

A T4 model wounded by a S8 weapon has been wounded by a weapon double their Toughness. This fact doesn't change if the wounding process uses a different stat instead of Toughness.

Yah, I agree that I'm representing the strictest possible literal position because it's the only one that I can make a deductively sound argument for.

But I freely admit that it's clearly ambiguous how far the "use leadership instead" is supposed to carry through to subsequent rule applications like ID.

@insaniak - If you're using printed T4, then you need to use printed SX. A T4 model cannot ever suffer ID to a SX weapon. Indeed, SX cannot cause ID.

Also, by RAW (NS), the word "Toughness" stays the same - the NS rule specifies to use the Leadership *value* (i.e. number).

Therefore, for the purposes of the particular wound, the toughness value will be too high for ID.


And as you're mixing, why not use SX vs T(Ld)? Please explain.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@insaniak - If you're using printed T4, then you need to use printed SX.

...with 'x' in this case being '8'... because that's what the rules say to use.

And as you're mixing, why not use SX vs T(Ld)? Please explain.

You're confusing two different processes.

To wound, you use SX vs the model's Ld, with the NS rules telling us that in that situation the 'X' is '8'


Once the model has been wounded, you check for Instant Death: Was the model wounded by something with a Strength at least double their Toughness?

A T4 model wounded by a NS was wounded by something with a Strength of 8. We know this because the NS rules tell us that this is the case against a non-vehicle model.
8 is double the model's Toughness.
Instant Death occurs.

You don't use the Ld value for ID because the ID rules don't tell you to. ID doesn't care if you use something else instead of Toughness to actually cause the wound. All that the ID rules care about is whether or not the Strength of whatever wounded the model is at least double the model's Toughness.


Having said that, while I think that using the model's Toughness is the direction that the RAW goes, I'm inclined to think that using the Ld for determining ID against the NS is actually the better way to play it.

Nope, if you're working on printed values, then "X" is "X" and cannot cause ID, because X can just as easily be nothing from the vehicle context.

If you're working on as-used values, and insisting that X is 8, then you have to use the as-used Toughness value which is the Leadership value. The NS rule *does* change the Toughness value for the purposes of Wounding by NS.

You can't only apply the part of the rule that says use S8 and then ignore the part of the rule that says to use Ld.

And if you're arguing that you can't use the Ld value for ID, what is your basis for using the S8 value for ID? Does the NS rule actually *say* that you can use S8 for the purposes of ID tests?

Oh, wait...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nope, if you're working on printed values, then "X" is "X" and cannot cause ID, because X can just as easily be nothing from the vehicle context.

If you're hitting a non-vehicle, how is the vehicle 'context' even remotely relevant?

The 'printed' Strength of the NS is 8 against a non-vehicle. I'm not sure where you're getting this arbitrary distinction for which printed rules are valid and which aren't.

If you're working on as-used values, and insisting that X is 8, then you have to use the as-used Toughness value which is the Leadership value.

No you don't, because, once again, checking for ID is not the same process as checking to Wound.

Rolling to wound uses the Strength vs the target's Leadership.
Checking for Instant Death uses the Strength of whatever wounded the model vs the model's Toughness.

Two seperate processes.

The NS rule *does* change the Toughness value for the purposes of Wounding by NS.

No it doesn't. It simply uses the Leadership value instead of the Toughness. And again, that applies to rolling to wound, not to anything else.

You can't only apply the part of the rule that says use S8 and then ignore the part of the rule that says to use Ld.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply applying it where it's relevant, and not applying it where it's not.

And if you're arguing that you can't use the Ld value for ID, what is your basis for using the S8 value for ID?

Er... the fact that the ID rules tell us to use the Strength of whatever wounded the model?

Does the NS rule actually *say* that you can use S8 for the purposes of ID tests?

Do the rules for the boltgun actually *say* that you can use S4 for the purposes of ID tests?

Oh, wait...

flavius infernus wrote:Was out of circulation for a bit, but stopped back by in time for this thread.

Moz and Insaniak are delivering a correct literal reading of the RAW.

Not even close.

In general, the NS strength is X. That doesn't change the more-specific rule that, when shooting at a non-vehicle target, it is strength 8 rather than X. So it interacts with the ID rule with that strength characteristic.

"In general?" What is that? Are we taking your word for it? p. 23 BGB: The Strength Characteristic of a weapon is that listed under "strength" (abbreviated "S") in the weapon profile.

Any sound argument that can be made is necessarily correct, like this one:

P1: The NS is strength 8
P2: Any target wounded by a weapon with twice it's toughness suffers instant death
C: A unit with T4 or less wounded by the NS suffers instant death

In this case, the later parts of the NS rule don't contradict the statement that it is strength 8, so there's no grounds for invoking context as something that invalidates the statement that the NS is strength 8.

We'll see how wrong that statement is in a second (nothing technically wrong with the argument, though)...

The premise that says "the NS is strength X and you can ignore the place where it says strength 8" is an assumption not founded in a literal reading of the rules.

Except that this "premise" doesn't exist anywhere in this thread so far. Again, I'll submit my argument, specifically tailored to what you fail to be grasping:

P1: The NS has the following weapon profile: S X AP 1 Assault 1 Template
P2: "S X" is, in all cases, indicative of special weapon-specific rules
P3: The NS states: "Roll to wound as follows..."
C1: We are now following weapon special rules for determining if a target is wounded... So, for the sake of the discussion, "S X" can be replaced with "Follow special rules to see if target is wounded" (leaving vehicles out of this; they don't matter for this discussion)
P4: Target was wounded
C2: Target was wounded via a weapon's special rules as described in the codex. Therefore, the target was wounded by a weapon with the following profile: S X AP 1 Assault 1 Template
C3: The target takes a single wound, because he was only hit once by a weapon with "Strength X"

Having said that, the rule raises some questions once you drift away from the RAW reading, and could use some clarification.

While you were busy quoting the RAW, you may have forgotten this little tidbit that was staring up at you from your book: "Roll to wound as follows..."

It's too bad Nurglitch isn't on this thread, he'd have a field day pointing out the hidden assumptions in a lot of posts.

To aruge ID works against T with strength 8, the hidden assumption is that the neural shredder "has a strength value at least double toughness." The problem here, of course, is that the NS only has a strength while wounding, not after the save is failed. So, assumption is more clearly that either 1) the check to determine ID is simultaneous with the check for ID, or 2) that the NS has an inherent strength 8, even when not invovled in the split second of wounding.

To argue that the NS cannot cause ID you must assume that the ID rule calls back to some profile, not simply a stated value of S. The problem here is that there are times when a wound is not caused by a profile weapon (Perils of the Warp, for example) that can cause ID.

The key word in the ID rules is "has," meaning that the test is independent of the actual wounding process. When looking, the weapon does not have Strength 8 in the profile. However, according the to Witchhunters codex, the weapon "has a strength of 8, only instead of using toughnes...".

Here's where it get's really interesting. The rule about causing a d3 on the glance table does not say instead of rolling to penetrate normally. An argument could be made you get a S8 hit on the vehicle (alhtough it's pretty clear that RAI is to circumvent that).

Essentially, my argument boils down to this: do you use the value of X in the profile, or the value of 8 in the rules?

As per Tryanid weapons, I think you should use the value in the rules.

In addition, if you look on P 23 of the BGB, under rolling to hit it says to use the Strength value found in the weapons description, not in the weapons profile. This is evidence that the key is to use all of the data included on a weapon, not simply the bare profile.

Tyranid weapons don't apply, because they simply have a modifier for weapon strength. They don't follow a specific set of codex rules beyond determining weapon strength, which is at least indicated as "S + or - [something]"

The NS is "S X," indicating a reference to special rules that give a specific process for determining if the weapon wounds. The rules that dictate this process have nothing to do with Instant Death, by wrote. They simply determine if the target has been wounded in a way that is in exception to the normal process.

Instant Death requires that a weapon have a listed strength, which the NS does not have. It has rules that tell you to "Roll to wound as follows:".

ACtually, if you look at the witchhunter codex the rule states that the NS "has a strength of 8" before it explains any deviation from the normal wound cycle. Right now, it's the only reason I'm disagreeing with you, because it seems to me that ID checks for Strength at a time distinct from wounding. However, it seems incorrect to only allow for a strength value in the profile, when the BGB says to use the description, including any explanation and rules text.

My DH codex is in the car, so I can't compare, but this could be a stealth edit.

It is possible that the two codexes conflict, I guess. I hope not.

The DH codex that I'm holding says "Roll to wound as follows:" and then the rest, which you all know by now.


EDIT: That's from the second printing, copyright 2002.

EDIT (2): Insaniak, what's the strength of a Neural Shredder?

EDIT (3): **gives a big bear hug to JohnHWangDD and Lormax**

No, the printed value is "X" - that's what the statline says. It's 8 when you roll to wound, but once that die is rolled, it reverts back to "X" (which can't ID).

If you argue that the "printed" S is 8, then you have to concede that the "printed" T is Ld.

If you're checking ID with the actual Strength value that was used to wound, then you have to also use the actual Toughness value (9, from Ld)that was wounded.

ColonelEllios wrote:Instant Death requires that a weapon have a listed strength,

...which the NS has.

Nowhere does ID refer solely to the weapon's profile. Nor should it, since as Polonius pointed out, ID is sometimes caused by things without a profile.

You're creating a distinction between the profile Strength and the Strength at which the weapon wounds which simply doesn;t exist in the rules.

So once again, since you ignored the question: If a model is wounded by a NS, what was the Strength of the wounding hit?

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, the printed value is "X"

That's one printed value. It also has a printed value of '8' which applies in certain situations.

It's 8 when you roll to wound,

...and therefore if a model is wounded, it was wounded by something with a Strength of 8.

If you argue that the "printed" S is 8, then you have to concede that the "printed" T is Ld.

No, I don't. For the reasons I've already given.

If you're checking ID with the actual Strength value that was used to wound, then you have to also use the actual Toughness value (9, from Ld)that was wounded.

And again, no, you don't, because the model's Leadership value is not the model's Toughness value.

Seperate processes. Wounding is not Instant Death.

When hit by NS, the models Toughness *is* it's Ld.

...and around we go again...

The NS rule specifies a situation where it has S8... wich is only when you roll to wound vs ld.

Nothing about any other situation, as ID or anything else.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Lormax wrote: The Shredder text doesn't say we can use the strength value during the wounding process for anything else.

I would agree with this if the rule said something like "For the roll to wound, the neural shredder has strength 8..."

Actually, it does say that.

I will point out that the rule for NS never changes the targets (T).

Instant Death only requires that a model be WOUNDED by a weapon with a (S) of 2 times or more of the targets (T).

"Roll to wound as follows:" tells you how to wound and in this line we are told that the (S) of the NS is 8. Further we are told that we do not compare the (S) to the (T) but rather the (Ld) when makeing this roll.

The Strength: X in the profile IS NOT nil or a variable because the rule tells us that it is 8 when wounding. 8 when wounding !

To wrap your head around it you could read the profile as Strength: (see rules above).

There is no rule in 40K that states that X equals (any one thing). In fact X has no meaning without other rules to define it.

You can ID with a NS.
Sincity

Instant Death only requires that a model be WOUNDED by a weapon with a (S) of 2 times or more of the targets (T).

I think both camps here have made valid points to justify their respective positions. I am tending to lend towards the argument that the NS does not cause ID. To me using other weapons with a strength of X such as Tyranids is invalid because they are not the same thing - apples and oranges. I think a good idea is to step away from RAW for just a moment and first ask your collective selves was this the intent of the developers (i.e., NS causes ID)... no one I know has ever played it that way... that does mean they are correct but it does form a basis for an overall view how this should be played. The RAW aspect is important and don't get me wrong there - I understand what you guys are saying and it makes sense from that perspective but I do not think the RAW interpretation is 100% air tight.

If you do play such that the NS inflicts ID then you have a means of easily sniping an enemy independent character (possibly more than one) worth a lot of points... that is going to make a lot of people very unhappy if you ask or tell them to remove their model from the table. So to me it all comes down to the spirit of the rules and common courtesy. I know that RAW advocates dislike terms such as SotR and CC but the world of 40k gaming is not an island. I would not do it simply because I find it to be an underhanded tactic that is very unbalanced. That is my opinion and I am not saying I am right. I am looking at this dispute from a good distance and taking into account more factors than simply can you do this because RAW seems to support it.

- G

Sincity wrote:You can ID with a NS.
Sincity

In truth , I don't play it that way eather , it's just not worth the argument. That changes nothing , RAW is the way GW has said to solve these issues. Or roll a d6.

Sincity

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you do play such that the NS inflicts ID then you have a means of easily sniping an enemy independent character (possibly more than one) worth a lot of points...

Heaven forbid that an assassin should be able to do such a thing...

Thank you for helping to support what I said.

: )

- G

JohnHH: I think you are mistakenly lumping the wounding process with the ID process. It is two seperate checks, and each will use the values that is required. The NS wounds as it wounds according to it's rules, its only after it does an unsaved wound that ID checks S to T. The ID rules do not allow for any deviation from the S to T test, so it's not appropriate.

I re-rechecked the codex, and it appears that I was wrong, it does say the following:

"Roll to wound as follows: the neural shredder has a Strength of 8 but, rather then using the targets' Toughness, their Leadership is used... The NS has the following profile..." And the infamous Strength: X appears.

There are two ways to read this rule:

1) While rolling to wound, the NS is S 8. This has been the primary argument of Col ellios, I believe. If this is the correct reading, then for reasons I've argued above, the RAW is that there can be no ID, because the NS does not have a S outside of the to-wound roll.

2) The NS has Strength 8, and the clause describing it is merely in an odd place. REading the quoted passage, I do not see how the phrase "the NS has S 8" is limited or modified in any way. As I've argued above, if the rules text of the rules state that it has S8, then when ID performs it's check of finding it's S, it can still find S8.

I can see both readings, but IMO the simplest reading seems to be that the NS has a Strength value.

Polonius: No, I'm treating them as separate processes. Pure RAW says that NS cannot ID because it is SX (undefined). If we grant that the ID test refers to the S(wounding) then you must also use T(wounding), because the two values are linked by the same action.

It would be the same as if we were to evaluate a Model's S and I under Furious Charge (+1S +1I). If the model is +1S, then the model is *also* +1I because both modifiers occur together. You can't be +1S without being +1I.

As for the ways to read the rule:

1) S(wounding) = 8; S(NOT wounding) = X (undefined).

2a) If this interpretation were correct then the NS rule would have been written: "The Neural Shredder has a Strength of 8. Roll to wound as follows: rather than using the target's Toughness, their Leadership is used... The NS has the following profile... S8".

2b) That would be the long form, above. For the short form, the first sentence can be excluded entirely, and the NS can simply be listed as a weapon in the Armoury. After all, we never need a rule or text to specify Bolters as having S4. The only special rule would refer to the oddity of using Ld for Toughness.

When ID performs its check of finding S, if it is finding S8 via referring to the previous action of Wounding, then it must necessarily find T(Ld) at the same time.

The NS has Strength X. That is what the profile says. *Only* when rolling to wound, is the NS S8.

So many eloquent, reasoned and well thought out sides of the dispute.
JHDD-(IMHO)-so well reasoned, I was really impressed.
insaniak-(")-excellent RAW and interp.
Moz(")-awesome.

Nobody resorted to trolling.

Experts in your field.(Of rules and interp!)

I will just D6 the situation as it arises because I agree with all sides.

Weird.....

Big Fri night in Brisbane, smashed(wih friends lol) and lurking Dakka.....

Fri night games rule....

Sincity wrote:

Sincity wrote:You can ID with a NS.
Sincity

In truth , I don't play it that way eather , it's just not worth the argument. That changes nothing , RAW is the way GW has said to solve these issues. Or roll a d6.

Sincity

I must say I have never seen GW state that RAW should be applied in any situation however they do very frequently suggest that if you can not agree then D6 it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Pure RAW says that NS cannot ID because it is SX (undefined).

Pure RAW does nothing of the kind.

Pure RAW says that you suffer Instant Death if you are wounded by something with a Strength at least double your Toughness.

It doesn't matter whether that Strength comes from a weapon profile or a special rule, because no such distinction exists in the ID rules.

If a model is wounded by a Strength 8 hit, then that model was wounded by something with a Strength of 8.

If we grant that the ID test refers to the S(wounding) then you must also use T(wounding), because the two values are linked by the same action.

To wound, yes.

Checking for ID is not the same action.

Insaniak always wants the last word.

; )

Absolutely. I don't come to YMDC to discuss the rules of 40K... I'm just trying to get my name on the last post in every thread.

Hmm... doesn't seem to be working too well so far...

Obviously not.

I agree with the RAW interpretation that Flavius and Insaniak have listed. I have even used my assassin this way many times and nobody has ever questioned it. Because when you point out to them the same premise based argument that Insaniak and Flavius have stated, they agree and play resumes. Quite frankly a callidus assassin is expensive enough as it is just to get her on the table. Having a weapon that has the ability to I.D. T4 characters isn't that big of a deal...she is an assassin after all. Lastly, I really don't know what the big deal is anyways...most characters LD is a 10 so she need's 6's to I.D. anyways...it's not like it happens all the time. About 80% of the time a callidus will just bounce off a unit or character since their attacks and strength are average. Neural Shredding units also runs you the risk of shooting yourself out of charge range...or worse...making the unit run at the end of the shooting phase.

Capt K

Captain K while RAW indeed seems to justify NS = ID but as far as playing within the SotR what you have said fails the litmus test.

- G

Insaniak, I've already answered your question, and will do so again despite your not giving me the same courtesy.

Instant Death says: "When wounded by a weapon with strength double toughness..."

The Neural Shredder says: "Roll to wound as follows: Strength 8 but, rather than..." and also lists "S X" in its profile. "Roll to wound as follows" specifies that the rules that follow are determined to see if a model is wounded. They don't give the weapon S8, they tell you how to wound against leadership values. They tell you how to wound, and ONLY how to wound. If the weapon had S8, the rules would specify so directly (and not out of context as you posit). If it was S8, it would say "S 8" instead of "S X" in the profile.

The BGB says, on p.23: (to paraphrase) "Weapon Strength characteristic is found in the weapon profile..."

As defined on p.23, the strength of a Neural Shredder is "X." Are you refuting the BGB without grounds to do so Insaniak?

So, to summarize, the Neural Shredder determines if a target is wounded (indicated by "roll to wound as follows:") via it's special rules. It's special rules stipulate that the "NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness, its leadership is used." Does that say "NS is strength 8 for instant death?" does it say "...Strength 8 on the third tuesday of every month" does it say "...strength 8 in france" does it say "strength 8 against models with a toughness"? NO. It doesn't say any of these things. It says that you determine if the weapon wounds via the process described.

Whereas Instand Death refers to "weapon strength," which is defined in previous pages as the "strength listed in the weapon profile" (abbreviated by "S", as I'm sure we all agree). So, Instant Death only works with weapons that actually have a designated strength. The NS does NOT have a designated strength. It has special rules that determine if the weapon wounds. They say what they say. That's what the RAW is about. You can't assume the rules interact with ID if they don't say so, and I've even proven that they don't.

Respond to that, or know that your argument is entirely invalid, because it's not based on the RAW.

Lock this BS down please.

: ((

- G

Kallbrand wrote:The NS rule specifies a situation where it has S8... wich is only when you roll to wound vs ld.

Nothing about any other situation, as ID or anything else.

Quoted for truth. This is the RAW. If you think otherwise, you don't know how to read RAW. It's that simple.

ColonelEllios wrote:
Instant Death says: "When wounded by a weapon with strength double toughness..."

Just to pop in here, instant death says: "If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness"
Not necessarily weapon. Small point.

I've checked out because both sides have been enunciated rather thoroughly and it is just a difference in opinion if a wound by Str 8 is the same as wounded by a weapon with Strength 8. You can stop now Ellios, we see your side of the argument and a significant amount of people do not agree. No amount of repetition (or inevitable insults of 'people who don't agree with me just can't read!') is going to change that.

Now if you still think this issue doesn't belong in an FAQ, well then I might call you crazy.

Col. Elios: You're argument is resting on two premises, as far as I can tell:
1) The ID rules refer to the weapon profile, which for the NS says S=x, and there is no other way to refer to a weapons strength.
2) The phrase Roll to wound as follows: the neural shredder has a Strength of 8 but, rather then using the targets' Toughness, their Leadership is used... The NS has the following profile..." means, and can only mean, that the NS has a S of 8 only during the wounding process.

If I'm incorrect in your premeses, please let me know.

The first premise is demonstratively incorrect. P 23 of the BGB says "Every weapon has it's own Strength value, given in the description of the weapon." Note that it says description, not simply profile. This is the rule that allows PotW, Tryanid weapons, and yes, even the NS to cause wounds. To catagorically point to the profile, which is itself only a subset of the weapons description, and claim that the NS lacks a defined S is a selective and incorrect reading of the RAW. You still have an argument that the weapon description does not have a general value for S, but to continually claim that the BGB looks to profile is a mistake.

2) The second premise is arguable. I think reasonable minds can difer on what that phrase means. Clearly, some people are conviced that it means the NS only has a S of 8 during the roll to wound. You seem to state that since the rules don't say it has S of 8 for purposes of ID, it's not legal to cause ID. The problem is, the rules don't state clearly "for the purposes of wounding, the NS has S of 8." What it says is ambigous, whcih I'm willing to grant, and I like you to do the same.

Moz wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:
Instant Death says: "When wounded by a weapon with strength double toughness..."

Just to pop in here, instant death says: "If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness"
Not necessarily weapon. Small point.

I've checked out because both sides have been enunciated rather thoroughly and it is just a difference in opinion if a wound by Str 8 is the same as wounded by a weapon with Strength 8.

That's actually only one of the issues, and it's the issue with which I agree with the good Colonel. I believe that the ID rules check to see the Strength of the "Something" that caused ID in a discrete step after the roll to wound. If the wound was caused by a "something" that only has a strength during the wounding process (for example, as merely a mechanism for causing a wound by bizarre cirucumstances) then by the time ID checks, the strength has disapated. I think it's possible that the NS simply uses a pretend strength and pretend toughness to determine if the model takes wounds. In that case, the "something" that caused a wound has no discernable strength. Keep in mind two key points: ID says "has" not "had", meaning it wants to know what Strength the thing has, and that ID is only checked after the model fails a save, meaning it's beyond the point where the wounding mechanic is involved.

The issue now is merely semantic, as I've noted in my previous post. I believe that the statement in the description of how to roll for wound "the NS has a strength of 8" defines the strength of the weapon, while others believe that the statement is conditioned by the phrase "roll to wound as follows:" to mean that the following verbiage only applies while rolling to wound. I think it is highly ambigious, and I'm of the mind that anybody that is deadly certain which way it reads is being a bit hasty in their judgement.

I play RAW whenever the RAW is pretty clear. In this case IMHO. It's clear enough. This isn't that ambiguous of a rule and in game terms certainly doesn't break the game. If you have ever used one extensively like I have in the past, you'll know what I mean. Assassins are expensive enough. Her having this ability isn't that big a deal.

Capt K

Green Blow Fly wrote:Captain K while RAW indeed seems to justify NS = ID but as far as playing within the SotR what you have said fails the litmus test.

- G

Polonius wrote:Col. Elios: You're argument is resting on two premises, as far as I can tell:
1) The ID rules refer to the weapon profile, which for the NS says S=x, and there is no other way to refer to a weapons strength.
2) The phrase Roll to wound as follows: the neural shredder has a Strength of 8 but, rather then using the targets' Toughness, their Leadership is used... The NS has the following profile..." means, and can only mean, that the NS has a S of 8 only during the wounding process.

If I'm incorrect in your premeses, please let me know.

The first premise is demonstratively incorrect. P 23 of the BGB says "Every weapon has it's own Strength value, given in the description of the weapon." Note that it says description, not simply profile. This is the rule that allows PotW, Tryanid weapons, and yes, even the NS to cause wounds. To catagorically point to the profile, which is itself only a subset of the weapons description, and claim that the NS lacks a defined S is a selective and incorrect reading of the RAW. You still have an argument that the weapon description does not have a general value for S, but to continually claim that the BGB looks to profile is a mistake.

You'd be correct, if that same page didn't go on to list weapons and their strengths by "strength" value (abbreviated by S in all weapon descriptions), as indicated by the word "Strength" at the top of the applicable column. Taking this as wrote, the NS's strength is "X." The page gives us no other criteria for determining weapon strength, other than that listed under "strength" of the weapon. "X" is not a strength value as required by I.D.. [EDIT: to clarify, the words you refer to "weapon description" are modified by the examples given, in which the weapon strength is that specifically identified by the "strength" line in the weapon description. Note that it doesn't say "weapon strength is determined by a weapon's special rules." The "weapon description" is defined by the table that follows, which clearly points out that weapons have a strength indicated by the "weapon description" which includes the listed "strength" value, a numerical value I might add, for each weapon.]

2) The second premise is arguable. I think reasonable minds can difer on what that phrase means. Clearly, some people are conviced that it means the NS only has a S of 8 during the roll to wound. You seem to state that since the rules don't say it has S of 8 for purposes of ID, it's not legal to cause ID. The problem is, the rules don't state clearly "for the purposes of wounding, the NS has S of 8." What it says is ambigous, whcih I'm willing to grant, and I like you to do the same.

Except that anyone who knows RAW policy knows that RAW only allows what it says. Period. The rule doesn't state "The NS is strength 8." and then continue to add rules. Rather, it specifies (to paraphrase) that it has S 8 when rolling against targets' Ld. That's the one, single, and only application of S8 in relation to the Neural Shredder allowed by the RAW. That's what RAW is. [exclusionary or permissive, make your pick, they both mean the same in this context)

The second point is really the strongest, as you say. But many other facts combined with RAW policy, as described by myself and others who agree that NS/=/I.D. extensively herein, point to that conclusion.

moz wrote:I've checked out because both sides have been enunciated rather thoroughly and it is just a difference in opinion if a wound by Str 8 is the same as wounded by a weapon with Strength 8. You can stop now Ellios, we see your side of the argument and a significant amount of people do not agree. No amount of repetition (or inevitable insults of 'people who don't agree with me just can't read!') is going to change that.

People in agreement about something doesn't make it right. As I've stated above, if my quotation of policy on RAW is correct, people who believe NS=ID fundamentally don't understand how to interpret the RAW.

Secondly, the model hasn't been "wounded" by S8. The model has been wounded by the weapon's special rules. The route taken to get there doesn't matter and certainly doesn't apply to the main rule set (including I.D.) because it's a specific rule found in a codex which specifically states it's only useful for wounding. As far as I.D. is concerned, the model in question was wounded by a weapon with S X. Prove me otherwise. One way or another, to arrive at Insaniak's and others' interpretation, you have to either invalidate the weapon description or the special rules, neither or which is allowed or "legal" by the RAW.

To put that last sentence another way, if you're to claim that the "S X" in the weapon description doesn't apply, you'd also have to prove that "AP 1, Assault 1, and 'Template'" are also excluded.

ColonelEllios wrote: The rule doesn't state "The NS is strength 8." and then continue to add rules. Rather, it specifies (to paraphrase) that it has S 8 when rolling against targets' Ld.

Your paraphrase again is twisted to assist your argument.
"Roll to wound as follows: the Neural Shredder has Strength 8 but, rather than rolling using the targets' Toughness values, their Leadership is used."

Moz you might as well stop. He isn't going to bend his argument and neither are the people who disagree with him. If he wants to hamstring his assassin further...let him...lol.

Capt K

ColonelEllios wrote: As I've stated above, if my quotation of policy on RAW is correct, people who believe NS=ID fundamentally don't understand how to interpret the RAW.

The argument from "Anybody who disagrees with me doesn't understand RAW" is pointless, Ellios. Give it up.

If you follow the rules of deductive logic--which are the same for everyone everywhere--then this is a sound argument:
P1 "The Neural Shredder has Strength 8"
P2: A model wounded by anything with a strength twice its toughness suffers Instant Death.
C: A model of t4 or less wounded by a neural shredder suffers instant death.

Any deductively sound argument that can be made is necessarily true within the rules. No deductively sound argument can be made that contradicts the argument above, so it is "true" as the strictest possible literal interpretation of the rules.

Your convoluted argument full of random premises, assumptions and non-sequitur conclusions is not even making a visible attempt to be logically sound. The only thing it demonstrates is that you don't understand the most basic rudiments of deductive logic. So it hardly supports your claims to be the ultimate arbiter of who is a good RAW reader and who isn't.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Moz you might as well stop. He isn't going to bend his argument and neither are the people who disagree with him. If he wants to hamstring his assassin further...let him...lol.

Capt K

Agreed that I am done with the debate until anything new happens. But tricky re-wording deserves a quick post.

There's been enough repetition to warrant locking this thread. Thank you all for not getting nasty about this.