Scipio Africanus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?

Yes.

Could you explain that answer with a rule? Frankly, i was hoping for that answer, but i still need to show my opponents why an Enginseer can do that.

Page 78, embarked units. You need to measure a range so havce permission to use the hull to do so. You do not need LOS for AtMS, so have no restrictions based on LOS (as you cannot use LOS out of a fire point for anything other than shooting / shootig attack, and while AtMS is in place of a shooting attack it isnt itself shooting)

 Maxurugi wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?

Yes.

Could you explain that answer with a rule? Frankly, i was hoping for that answer, but i still need to show my opponents why an Enginseer can do that.

Sorry mate, I was just giving you a quick answer.

The rule simply says a tank within 12". you do not need line of sight, although I would measure it out of the actual fire point of the chimera, since that seems most correct.

Worth mentioning is AtMS does NOT work for sentinels, nor does it work for flyers it ALSO does not work for tauroxes - it only works for tanks.

Scipio Africanus wrote:

Sorry mate, I was just giving you a quick answer.

The rule simply states he needs to be able to target a tank within 12", right?
The chimera has firepoints, which means the enginseer can see out of the tank and thus, use the power.
If it were in a vehicle that had no firepoints and was not open topped - a razorback, for example, - he could not PotMS any tank BUT the razorback he was being carried in.

Erm, those arent actually the rules - an embarked model is not on the table, and only has permission to use firepoints / open topped for drawing LOS when shooting.

However from memory nothing about AtMS requires the enginseer to have LOS, so right result, wrong reasoning...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:

Sorry mate, I was just giving you a quick answer.

The rule simply states he needs to be able to target a tank within 12", right?
The chimera has firepoints, which means the enginseer can see out of the tank and thus, use the power.
If it were in a vehicle that had no firepoints and was not open topped - a razorback, for example, - he could not PotMS any tank BUT the razorback he was being carried in.

Erm, those arent actually the rules - an embarked model is not on the table, and only has permission to use firepoints / open topped for drawing LOS when shooting.

However from memory nothing about AtMS requires the enginseer to have LOS, so right result, wrong reasoning...

If you have a look now, I Checked the rules and changed my comments to suit the right reasoning. AtMS does not seem to suggest it needs LoS to be used.

To Answer your question in short, OP (asker? I don't know), Yes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page 78, embarked units. You need to measure a range so havce permission to use the hull to do so. You do not need LOS for AtMS, so have no restrictions based on LOS (as you cannot use LOS out of a fire point for anything other than shooting / shootig attack, and while AtMS is in place of a shooting attack it isnt itself shooting)

That sounds familiar, but i can't find that on page 78. Are you talking about the update 1.5? If so, it's only referring to "area of effect" wargear, which the Enginseer's special rule is not.

Do you need to measure a range to or from the unit? In which case you measure to the hull of the vehicle.

Where exactly does it say that?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't have time tonight to read that, Kel if you're happy that you've reached a concensus and you can garner a bit of support, give me a short answer and I'll include it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?

Yes.

Short version: because of when Orders happen and when the Engineseer uses his special rules you can't Awaken the Machine Spirit on a unit of Leman Russes that is also using the split fire order to shoot at three different targets.

My apologies for diggin so deep, but i just want to know the following:

Assuming an Enginseer is in a Chimera, can he buff any vehicle other than the Chimera?

And the most important question: Where exactly does it say he can (or can't)? Because he certainly can't as long as i can't show my opponents the rule that permits doing so.

So far, it has been said that according to p. 78, when embarked units need to measure a range, they can do so from the hull of the transport. Well, i can't find that on p 78; the only similar thing i found is in the update, but it's referring to area off effect wargear, so it doesn't affect the Enginseer's special rule.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't have time tonight to read that, Kel if you're happy that you've reached a concensus and you can garner a bit of support, give me a short answer and I'll include it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?

Yes.

Short version: because of when Orders happen and when the Engineseer uses his special rules you can't Awaken the Machine Spirit on a unit of Leman Russes that is also using the split fire order to shoot at three different targets.

Is this another issue? I thought you twow ere talking about the chimera.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't have time tonight to read that, Kel if you're happy that you've reached a concensus and you can garner a bit of support, give me a short answer and I'll include it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?

Yes.

Short version: because of when Orders happen and when the Engineseer uses his special rules you can't Awaken the Machine Spirit on a unit of Leman Russes that is also using the split fire order to shoot at three different targets.

Is this another issue? I thought you twow ere talking about the chimera.

It's something I've run into elsewhere that I felt needed addressing because it came up and I had more than one person try and tell me that I was wrong about how the rules of the game worked so they could have their combo.

Just like how I seem to keep having to address the fact (obviously not here but in general) that Orders are given and resolved at the start of the Shooting Phase. Seems some people skipped that first paragraph on the page concerning orders.

 Maxurugi wrote:
So far, it has been said that according to p. 78, when embarked units need to measure a range, they can do so from the hull of the transport. Well, i can't find that on p 78; the only similar thing i found is in the update, but it's referring to area off effect wargear, so it doesn't affect the Enginseer's special rule.

brb78 wrote:f the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.

Last sentence, first paragraph under the "Embarking" sub heading.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't have time tonight to read that, Kel if you're happy that you've reached a concensus and you can garner a bit of support, give me a short answer and I'll include it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?

Yes.

Short version: because of when Orders happen and when the Engineseer uses his special rules you can't Awaken the Machine Spirit on a unit of Leman Russes that is also using the split fire order to shoot at three different targets.

Is this another issue? I thought you twow ere talking about the chimera.

It's something I've run into elsewhere that I felt needed addressing because it came up and I had more than one person try and tell me that I was wrong about how the rules of the game worked so they could have their combo.

Just like how I seem to keep having to address the fact (obviously not here but in general) that Orders are given and resolved at the start of the Shooting Phase. Seems some people skipped that first paragraph on the page concerning orders.

Do... do I need to include this in the thread? I mean, it seems like it's just an issue with lack of comprehension, not any rules ambiguity.

If you want. I just felt stating it for future reference in case it came up was a good idea.

My bad, it seems i've just been blind. There's nothing questionable about the rule text, i just couldn't find it.

I've got one a rules query. Lets say for what ever reason you've got Yarrick (or a lord commissar) in a squad that has already been assigned a commissar. You fail a moral check and chose to summarily execute one of your models. Which model does the execution? Yarrick (or the lord commissar) or the assigned commissar? The rule states that the commissar will never execute himself however it says nothing about him executing other commissars.

You could potentially run into an issue where a commissar is executing Yarrick or vise versa (depending on if you roll a 1 or 2).

You do not evoke the rule on a per commisar basis, so you can never select a commisar to execute - no matter which one you pick it will always be "the" commisar.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you want. I just felt stating it for future reference in case it came up was a good idea.

And now I'm trying to explain to B&C how Orders are supposed to work while they quote the relevant section that says when you resolve orders. Good times.

So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

Yeah, but what if he doesn't choose anyone? He can do that, since the rule describes this case (when nobody was executed) at the end.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

Yeah, but what if he doesn't choose anyone? He can do that, since the rule describes this case (when nobody was executed) at the end.

The rule has already been activated and someone has to die. The Commissar isn't putting the gun away until he's shot someone.

Seriously, when targetting a model in the unit you need to target a model in the unit not "nobody" because "nobody" is not part of the unit.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

Yeah, but what if he doesn't choose anyone? He can do that, since the rule describes this case (when nobody was executed) at the end.

The rule has already been activated and someone has to die. The Commissar isn't putting the gun away until he's shot someone.

Seriously, when targetting a model in the unit you need to target a model in the unit not "nobody" because "nobody" is not part of the unit.

OK, now I see the Commissar screaming at the Nids that they have to wait to run at them because he cannot decide which of his men to shoot.

 Happyjew wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

Yeah, but what if he doesn't choose anyone? He can do that, since the rule describes this case (when nobody was executed) at the end.

The rule has already been activated and someone has to die. The Commissar isn't putting the gun away until he's shot someone.

Seriously, when targetting a model in the unit you need to target a model in the unit not "nobody" because "nobody" is not part of the unit.

OK, now I see the Commissar screaming at the Nids that they have to wait to run at them because he cannot decide which of his men to shoot.

At two Guardsmen in a scuffle: "STOP FIGHTING SO I CAN SHOOT ONE OF YOU!"

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't have time tonight to read that, Kel if you're happy that you've reached a concensus and you can garner a bit of support, give me a short answer and I'll include it.

Sorry, Shor answer on what?

If it is the Orders + Enginseer thing, then the short answer is:
An enginseer cannot awaken a vehicle that receives the Tank Commander order "gunners, Kill on sight" to target 3 separate units, The vehicle will have finished it's shooting via the order before the techpreist is able to awaken the vehicle(And a techpriest awakening a vehicle first denies any orders that turn).

If it is the Chimera and Lasgun arrays:
Lasgun arrays are part of the chimera's shooting, it is the only way for the rules to work as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

Yeah, but what if he doesn't choose anyone? He can do that, since the rule describes this case (when nobody was executed) at the end.

"provided a Model was executed" means that you have used the rule. Execution itself is optional, once invoked a model will be executed.

I haven't seen this one asked :

Do the Officer of the Fleet and Master of Ordinance work while embarked on a transport?

Yes. Why wouldn't they?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, if I fumble the 3+ with Summary Execution, can my opponent choose 'nobody' and make the squad fail the test since nobody was removed?

No, it says they choose the model you shoot instead. You can't target a non-existent model so he's going to have to kill -someone-. Likely one of your special/heavy weapon models.

Yeah, but what if he doesn't choose anyone? He can do that, since the rule describes this case (when nobody was executed) at the end.

"provided a Model was executed" means that you have used the rule. Execution itself is optional, once invoked a model will be executed.

Pretty much what I was trying to get at, though said better. Once the player invokes the rule someone gonna die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
I haven't seen this one asked :

Do the Officer of the Fleet and Master of Ordinance work while embarked on a transport?

Officer of the Fleet's ability doesn't have anything to keep him from using his ability from inside a vehicle (or a building), and as long as the Master of Ordnance has access to a Fire Point he can use his ability as it's a shooting attack.

Thanks a bunch! So next question I am assuming MoO would get Preferred enemy on his Shooting attack if he is in the same squad as an Aquila?

Yes, that is one way to get rerolls.

So he would reroll just wounds correct not to hit?

Reroll scatter and 1s to wound.

I thought preferred only worked if you rolled a one? The scatter dice doesn't have a one on it? So I'd just be rerolling wounds of 1 correct?

Hollismason wrote:
I thought preferred only worked if you rolled a one? The scatter dice doesn't have a one on it? So I'd just be rerolling wounds of 1 correct?

Read the rules for Blast Weapons and Re-Rolls to Hit.

Yeah but i only get to reroll ones. So why would I want to reroll 1s on my scatter dice for distance?

Also read this on BOLS, what the hell where is this stated?

Wyrdvane Psykers


The new Combat Psyker Squad with a name to match their shiny new rules. They're fairly much the same as before except oh-so-much-better. Thanks to the writer(s) of this codex, you can now take a different psykic power from Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, and Telekinesis one for each individual psyker in the unit.

That plethora alone makes them powerful. If you have players that love to use as much psykic power as possible, then expect to see these on the battlefield much more often.

Um I do not see how that possibly can be true and have not seen it mentioned anywhere?

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah but i only get to reroll ones. So why would I want to reroll 1s on my scatter dice for distance?

Also read this on BOLS, what the hell where is this stated?

Under Blasts in the special rules section of the brb, sub heading Blasts and rerolls.

You have the ability(Albeit an ability with a condition) to re-roll. A SM Tactical squad that fires a Plasma Cannon during a turn in which Tactical Doctrines is used is the exact same situation(model in question only re-rolls failed to hits)

An Ability with a condition is fine.

Conditional Abilities(You are only granted the ability to reroll under certain conditions) the rely on a to-hit effect are not. Please not that conditional abilities based on other factors are just fine so long as the condition is met(Preferred enemy while firing at them, Activating an ability that allows for re-rolls, etc)

Wyrdvane Psykers


The new Combat Psyker Squad with a name to match their shiny new rules. They're fairly much the same as before except oh-so-much-better. Thanks to the writer(s) of this codex, you can now take a different psykic power from Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, and Telekinesis one for each individual psyker in the unit.

That plethora alone makes them powerful. If you have players that love to use as much psykic power as possible, then expect to see these on the battlefield much more often.

Um I do not see how that possibly can be true and have not seen it mentioned anywhere?

Brotherhood of psykers rule has this one covered; 1 Power for the unit.(Each individual psyker is not ML1, so cannot have any powers that cost a warp charge of 1+ since they are all higher than the ML)

I didn't see this post and made another question elsewhere, but the Preferred Enemy gives no right to reroll blasts. I don't have my codex handy, so you're going to have to quote a rule... because you cannot reroll scatter dice because you cannot roll a one.

The path of darkness this leads to

Hollismason wrote:
The path of darkness this leads to

Yep, after a brief net search, there is no singular voice on "What's Correct" in this situation meaning house rule. Add this to the topic of items that needs FAQ'd.

@TheKbob - I did a thread on this... I believe on the second page of YMDC... reasonably definite answer.

 TheKbob wrote:
I didn't see this post and made another question elsewhere, but the Preferred Enemy gives no right to reroll blasts. I don't have my codex handy, so you're going to have to quote a rule... because you cannot reroll scatter dice because you cannot roll a one.

Preferred enemy is a Conditional ability to re-roll with Conditions.

The Conditional portion: you must be shooting at a unit from you Preffered enemy Codex.

The With Conditions: You have tro roll a 1.

Now on to the With conditions portion: guess what similar or the same exists for Every single ability to re-roll; You must eith miss your to-hit roll(a roll you do not make), or Roll a 1 on your to-hit roll(again a roll you do not make). Twin Linked is the only rule that has specific provisions for re-rolling Blasts, So we must accept that the ability to re-roll at all(No matter the required conditions on re-rolling) allows you re-roll scatter, or the entire rules under Blasts means nothing at all.

No need to have the discussion. Until FAQd, I'm in the no, you can't camp.

And I'm not alone:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/282988-blast-markers-and-rerolls-to-hit-of-a-set-dice-score/

It makes logical sense without stopping rerolls from Prescience, Twin-linked, etc.

It's something I'd discuss with my opponent as it seems quite the hard split of crowds on yes or no. Or follow the "most fun rule" or w/e and dice off.

 TheKbob wrote:
No need to have the discussion. Until FAQd, I'm in the no, you can't camp.

And I'm not alone:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/282988-blast-markers-and-rerolls-to-hit-of-a-set-dice-score/

It makes logical sense without stopping rerolls from Prescience, Twin-linked, etc.

It's something I'd discuss with my opponent as it seems quite the hard split of crowds on yes or no. Or follow the "most fun rule" or w/e and dice off.

Master Crafted always allows Rerolls, it is one of the only rules that cannot be argued with Re4-rolls and blasts.

Twin-linked has specific rules for Blasts.

just About every other re-roll requires a failed to hit.

Would you allow such an ability to re-roll Scatter?

And Dam13n's entire post has absolutely no basis in rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Master Crafted always allows Rerolls, it is one of the only rules that cannot be argued with Re4-rolls and blasts.

Twin-linked has specific rules for Blasts.

just About every other re-roll requires a failed to hit.

Would you allow such an ability to re-roll Scatter?

And Dam13n's entire post has absolutely no basis in rules.

Trust me, I understand where you are coming from. Twin-linked, Prescience, and a few special rules allow for flat our rerolls. Situational rerolls are "more advanced rules" per the BRB, they take precedent. Therefore a model that has "rerolls on to hit rolls of 1", if say BS3, doesn't have the ability to reroll on a hit roll of 2 or 3. For BS6, if you *pew* *pew* you always have a reroll built in because of how BS works. Don't be so reductive and think through the logic of the scenario.

Again, no reason to argue. It requires a FAQ based on two equally valid lexical interpretations; it's purely game mechanic based disagreement with no "fluffy" circumstance or "case law" (previous FAQ) that clears it up. Thus it's basically a house rule item with no conclusion at this point. You can feel you're right either way. I don't feel an intent here, unlike something from earlier disputes like bouncing FMCs or Necron Nightscythes w/ passengers during explosions.

So until then, hug it out with your opponent or dice off.

BS 6+ does NOT always have the ability to re-roll; It only gains the ability to re-roll when a 1 is rolled To-hit.

This is why there is a distinction between Conditional re-rolls(the ability to re-roll only when certain conditions are met, Like shooting at a preferred enemy unit as opposed to shooting at a unit from any other Codex), and re-rolls with a condition(Like a Tactical squad with an activated UM Tactical Doctrines, or any other "Re-roll Failed To-Hit" abilities).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So this came up over in Natfka's comment section in a recent article and I want to explain why it's wrong and doesn't work just to get it out there.

The idea was using Power of the Machine Spirit on a Leman Russ in a unit with a Tank Commander then using the "Gunners, Kill on Sight" order the TC has to fire at three targets.

Firstly it doesn't work because of a sequence of events issue comes up: namely (as per the first paragraph on page 28) Orders are issued and completely resolved "at the start of the Shooting Phase", the Engineseer meanwhile has to forgo a Shooting Attack to use his ability to Awaken the Machine Spirit, which means he goes at a later point during the same phase.

Secondly there is the issue of of how shooting attacks are resolved, namely (as per page 12 of the core rulebook) you must complete the sequence of nominating a unit to shoot, choosing a target, rolling to hit, wound and then allocating wounds and removing casualties before any other unit can do anything. So you can't shoot the commander's tank then use Awaken the Machine Spirit then shoot the other two tanks.

So basically, if your Tank Commander is issuing Orders the Engineseer can't Awaken Machine Spirit on the unit (well he CAN but it does nothing, they've already completed their shooting attack, so just have him restore a hull point instead) and the fact that I had to point out both of these facts to more than one person made me feel it was worth addressing in full here just in case.

I had come to the same conclusion, but this does raise a further point: suppose the Engineseer is hidden in a blob that received the order to shoot before the tank commander gave his order. Can he then forego his shooting and awaken the machine spirit in time to achieve the three way firing split?

All the shooting orders are "must make a shooting attack" If the Enginseer is not shooting he is breaking the rules(Must trumps may or can).

So putting him in a unit that will receive shooting orders as even worse then. Then you can't even use him as a fallback if the TC's order failed.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
BS 6+ does NOT always have the ability to re-roll; It only gains the ability to re-roll when a 1 is rolled To-hit.

This is why there is a distinction between Conditional re-rolls(the ability to re-roll only when certain conditions are met, Like shooting at a preferred enemy unit as opposed to shooting at a unit from any other Codex), and re-rolls with a condition(Like a Tactical squad with an activated UM Tactical Doctrines, or any other "Re-roll Failed To-Hit" abilities).

I get what you're saying, but you're not also getting what I'm saying either. No, BS6, as captured specifically in the re-roll part of the rules, is an "always on" distinction and activates when you miss. It just so happens that you only miss with a dice roll of one.

Preferred Enemy, however, only happens specifically on a dice role of 1. Meaning BS3 guy has no reroll ability if he rolled a 2 or 3 to hit. An Ork with Preferred Enemy doesn't gain a reroll on a 2, 3, 4. A snipfiring model doesn't get to reroll on a 2, 3, 4, or 5. So, by design, it's a very specific type of reroll, making it unique. Unique trumps general within the lovely GW ruleset. Thus, to gain a reroll from it, you must roll a one. Since scatter weapons can never roll a one (nor would you want to reroll it), you do not have a reroll at all.

We're agreeing there are conditional rerolls. I just see the rules plainly not allowing them to reroll blast weapons unless the conditions are met. If the conditions may never be met, then you never get the reroll. Maybe they do intend for you to reroll blast weapons with PE, but until they FAQ it, it's clear as mud. And I'm leaning towards "No" becing the answer, should they ever actually FAQ the game again. Until now, it's how are you going to play it locally. Just another to add to the pile.

There's literally another thread for that argument.

I'm still curious as to where in the world this Wyrdvane thing came from?

Hollismason wrote:
There's literally another thread for that argument.

I'm still curious as to where in the world this Wyrdvane thing came from?

BoLS started it. The person's interpretation of the rule has been withdrawn and smacked down in the forums there (part of the reason they were arguing -for- the Wyrdvanes to all each have their own powers because it was "more interesting").


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And even Natfka disagreed with the BoLS interpretation: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/04/wyrdvane-psykers-and-late-night.html?m=1

I think he meant mine on the PE + Blast thing?

It's fine, I will agree to disagree on it. I'll have to look into this psyker thing. If only we had a place to go where we could get answers for these issues day one...

We can't answer the rerolls of 1 and blast question and this is not the thread for it.

That argument has already been had and has not been resolved. Let's leave it at that.

If you want an easy house rule answer, paint a One on ONE of the four scatter symbols on the scatter dice. If you roll that facing, you may reroll with preferred enemy and other rolls that let you reroll ones.

 TheKbob wrote:
I think he meant mine on the PE + Blast thing?

It's fine, I will agree to disagree on it. I'll have to look into this psyker thing. If only we had a place to go where we could get answers for these issues day one...

The Psyker thing is a mess to read but it starts here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?44130-Astra-Militarum-Imperial-Guard-A-Comprehensive-Review-amp-Comparison just scroll down to where it says "Wyrdvane Psykers" then watch the several page arguement unfold as a single person tries to tell the rest of the internet that they're the ones who aren't doing it right.

Sorry if I missed this already. If Pask is my warlord and he has another tank with him and pask is killed does my opponent get slain warlord then or does he have to kill the whole squad like the CCS? Also can you do look out sir with tanks since pask is a chacter?.....

Zengu wrote:
Sorry if I missed this already. If Pask is my warlord and he has another tank with him and pask is killed does my opponent get slain warlord then or does he have to kill the whole squad like the CCS? Also can you do look out sir with tanks since pask is a chacter?.....

Slay the Warlord only applies to the model who is your Warlord being dead at the end of the game AFAIK, but I'm willing to be wrong on that.

First Blood, on the other hand, I know needs to see a whole unit die.

Zengu wrote:
Sorry if I missed this already. If Pask is my warlord and he has another tank with him and pask is killed does my opponent get slain warlord then or does he have to kill the whole squad like the CCS? Also can you do look out sir with tanks since pask is a chacter?.....

Pask, the Character, is the warord. Killing him gains slay the warlord but NOT first blood

The CCS has a character in it - the officer - who is the warlord. You do not need to kill the CCS to gain the StW point, JUST the officer

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I think he meant mine on the PE + Blast thing?

It's fine, I will agree to disagree on it. I'll have to look into this psyker thing. If only we had a place to go where we could get answers for these issues day one...

The Psyker thing is a mess to read but it starts here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?44130-Astra-Militarum-Imperial-Guard-A-Comprehensive-Review-amp-Comparison just scroll down to where it says "Wyrdvane Psykers" then watch the several page arguement unfold as a single person tries to tell the rest of the internet that they're the ones who aren't doing it right.

He's right you know. And ADLs give 3+ cover, and spehs marheens can't shoot if they're wearing helmets.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I think he meant mine on the PE + Blast thing?

It's fine, I will agree to disagree on it. I'll have to look into this psyker thing. If only we had a place to go where we could get answers for these issues day one...

The Psyker thing is a mess to read but it starts here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?44130-Astra-Militarum-Imperial-Guard-A-Comprehensive-Review-amp-Comparison just scroll down to where it says "Wyrdvane Psykers" then watch the several page arguement unfold as a single person tries to tell the rest of the internet that they're the ones who aren't doing it right.

He's right you know. And ADLs give 3+ cover, and spehs marheens can't shoot if they're wearing helmets.

His initial argument was based on the fact that they're called Psykers by name (as if the name, and not the Special rule is what makes a model a Psyker) and then changed to how arguing the use of "their" in the rule after that got shot down. And then when he gives up he said he was arguing it because it was "more interesting". That's not "right" as much as that is abusing language to try and make things mean things that they shouldn't.

It was interesting to read that piece of insanity, it would of have even less of a reception here.

This has apparently been settled other places, but I like Dakka. Why do I need a 6 to hit for PS to take affect with the "Take Aim" order? With such an interpretation that makes The Emperor's Benediction useless doesn't it? The character has precise shot on a 6 already. Or would the two work differently?

They work the same. You don't need a 6 for Precision Shots on Take Aim.

It is well and truly mind boggling, but the Rule as Written does appear that way.

That's what I thought but it caused a very nasty argument in my local group that likely caused a permanent rift between players. I'd also like to point out, that's not what the spoilers say in the OP.

It has to be a typo, it makes no sense from either a Balance or Narrative point of view.

Perhaps. I'm sure the inevitable FAQ will clarify. In the meantime: Pew pew.

Sarge wrote:
This has apparently been settled other places, but I like Dakka. Why do I need a 6 to hit for PS to take affect with the "Take Aim" order? With such an interpretation that makes The Emperor's Benediction useless doesn't it? The character has precise shot on a 6 already. Or would the two work differently?

Emperors Benediction technically does nothing, it has the special rule precision shots which the character it is bought for already has. This is often house ruled to not require a 6 so the gun does something.

Take Aim specifically grants the precision shot rule, which requires a 6 to hit.

Scout Sgt. Telion's shooting attacks are precision shots, which is the term used to express a 6 rolled to hit under the precision shots special rule.

Scipio Africanus wrote:I

7. Shooting then issuing an order to shoot

Spoiler:

Illegal because orders take place at the start of the turn, before any models may voluntarily shoot.

Unless the unit is shooting as a result of receiving an Order. This did get mentioned but thought it was worth pointing out in direct relation to #7.

Spellbound wrote:A commissar's execution rule says when a test is failed, he shoots someone and it's treated as having been passed.

So shooting or charging a squad of guard that are falling back with a commissar = you make them rally?

Shooting yes, charging no. Reason being that a unit that you shoot at and cause 25% casualties will automatically fail a Morale test and allow the Commissars rule to kick in. However, when you charge a fleeing unit, they take a Regroup test, which is NOT a Morale test.

JinxDragon wrote:They are part of the unit for all Rule purposes.
I just have to ask though, I have not seen the new book, if the Medic still gives Feel No Pain to the entire unit?

Yes, it does.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sarge wrote:
This has apparently been settled other places, but I like Dakka. Why do I need a 6 to hit for PS to take affect with the "Take Aim" order? With such an interpretation that makes The Emperor's Benediction useless doesn't it? The character has precise shot on a 6 already. Or would the two work differently?

Emperors Benediction technically does nothing, it has the special rule precision shots which the character it is bought for already has. This is often house ruled to not require a 6 so the gun does something.

Take Aim specifically grants the precision shot rule, which requires a 6 to hit.

Scout Sgt. Telion's shooting attacks are precision shots, which is the term used to express a 6 rolled to hit under the precision shots special rule.

Your interpretation of the rule isn't supported anywhere in the BRB or the AM codex.

farrenj wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sarge wrote:
This has apparently been settled other places, but I like Dakka. Why do I need a 6 to hit for PS to take affect with the "Take Aim" order? With such an interpretation that makes The Emperor's Benediction useless doesn't it? The character has precise shot on a 6 already. Or would the two work differently?

Emperors Benediction technically does nothing, it has the special rule precision shots which the character it is bought for already has. This is often house ruled to not require a 6 so the gun does something.

Take Aim specifically grants the precision shot rule, which requires a 6 to hit.

Scout Sgt. Telion's shooting attacks are precision shots, which is the term used to express a 6 rolled to hit under the precision shots special rule.

Your interpretation of the rule isn't supported anywhere in the BRB or the AM codex.

And, more relevantly, is explicitly refuted by the ebook and ibook versions, both of which supersede the BRB and both of which completely remove any mention of 6's from the precision shot special rule.

Even the BRB does not -require- precision shots to be on 6's, no matter what some people try insist. Only that characters get them on 6's.


But again. It's irrelevant. The codex has defined the Universal Special Rule Precison Shot and it's got no rolling 6's anywhere in it.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

The codex has defined the Universal Special Rule Precison Shot and it's got no rolling 6's anywhere in it.

Couldn't find it, page reference please?

 don_mondo wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

The codex has defined the Universal Special Rule Precison Shot and it's got no rolling 6's anywhere in it.

Couldn't find it, page reference please?

It's not in the printed version. epub and ibook have it in the rules reference section.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

The codex has defined the Universal Special Rule Precison Shot and it's got no rolling 6's anywhere in it.

Couldn't find it, page reference please?

It's not in the printed version. epub and ibook have it in the rules reference section.

I'm looking at my iBook codex right now. It says I need 6's

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

farrenj wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sarge wrote:
This has apparently been settled other places, but I like Dakka. Why do I need a 6 to hit for PS to take affect with the "Take Aim" order? With such an interpretation that makes The Emperor's Benediction useless doesn't it? The character has precise shot on a 6 already. Or would the two work differently?

Emperors Benediction technically does nothing, it has the special rule precision shots which the character it is bought for already has. This is often house ruled to not require a 6 so the gun does something.

Take Aim specifically grants the precision shot rule, which requires a 6 to hit.

Scout Sgt. Telion's shooting attacks are precision shots, which is the term used to express a 6 rolled to hit under the precision shots special rule.

Your interpretation of the rule isn't supported anywhere in the BRB or the AM codex.

And, more relevantly, is explicitly refuted by the ebook and ibook versions, both of which supersede the BRB and both of which completely remove any mention of 6's from the precision shot special rule.

Even the BRB does not -require- precision shots to be on 6's, no matter what some people try insist. Only that characters get them on 6's.


But again. It's irrelevant. The codex has defined the Universal Special Rule Precison Shot and it's got no rolling 6's anywhere in it.

AM Codex, Take aim order: "All Models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule."
BRB page 63, first sentence of the Precision Shots Special rule: "If any of your characters shots roll a 6 to-hit, these are precision shots."

There was another thread on this question several weeks back which showed 2 diferent interactive electronic versions(which I do not own, so the 1 version refutes nothing, I go by what is written in my book and that is that the Take Aim order gives the special rule and the Special rule states a 6 to-hit is required) 1 version left off the first sentence, the other keeps it.

The Glossary at the back of the AM codex does not replace the Precision shots Special rule in the BRB, it defines what a Presicion shot is. If it did, then every shot from every character in the AM codex is a "Precision Shot" and the Emperors Benediction still does nothing since the same result is achieved with a Plasma pistol with a roll of 4 to hit


Also this exact portion of these questions was handled in the first few pages of this very thread.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

AM Codex, Take aim order: "All Models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule."
BRB page 63, first sentence of the Precision Shots Special rule: "If any of your characters shots roll a 6 to-hit, these are precision shots."

There was another thread on this question several weeks back which showed 2 diferent interactive electronic versions(which I do not own, so the 1 version refutes nothing, I go by what is written in my book and that is that the Take Aim order gives the special rule and the Special rule states a 6 to-hit is required) 1 version left off the first sentence, the other keeps it.

The Glossary at the back of the AM codex does not replace the Precision shots Special rule in the BRB, it defines what a Presicion shot is. If it did, then every shot from every character in the AM codex is a "Precision Shot" and the Emperors Benediction still does nothing since the same result is achieved with a Plasma pistol with a roll of 4 to hit


Also this exact portion of these questions was handled in the first few pages of this very thread.

One important preface to this.

Characters do not have a 'precision shot' special rule. Never did, never will, never have, don't. There is a subheading about precision shots in the character's subheading that details that character's get a precision shot on a 6. And then describes the mechanics of a precision shot.

This is because precision shot was never treated as an applicable rule up until that point. It was just part of the mechanics. That's why sniper rifles do not have the precision shot special rule even though they get precision shots on 6's. Assuming that there is a BRB weapon-applicable special rule for precision shots is a misconception.

AM codex arrives. Suddenly, precision shot can be listed as a rule for infantry and for weapons! Wonderful. It's now officially a special rule.

The epub comes with this:

“PRECISION SHOTS
Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firing model, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!

A character that has a Precision Shot Wound allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll.

Note that Snap Shots and shots from weapons that scatter, or do not roll To Hit, can never be Precision Shots.”

That is 100% of the quote, nothing missing.

This is why the pistol has it as a special rule even though it can only ever go on characters. The rule makes all shots auto-allocate.

The sniper dosen't have it because it needs to roll 6's.
The Advanced Targetting System in the Tau codex required 6's, does not have the special rule.
The BRB Precision Shots rule itself only states, "If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots." Then goes on to define what a Precision Shot does. It does not say that Precision Shots can only happen on a 6.



It's crazy, but both order and pistol do not need 6's.

How would a plasma pistol get precision shot on a 4+? The Emperor's Benediction is certainly no plasma pistol.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
It's crazy, but both order and pistol do not need 6's.

iBook version has it different.
6's are required.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
It's crazy, but both order and pistol do not need 6's.

iBook version has it different.
6's are required.

Ah, so it is just the epub without it.


But no. 6's are not required. 6's generate them for characters with no further stipulation or demands. 6's generate free precision shots for characters. And then it tells you what a precision shot is.

It does not say that 'if you have precision shots any roll of a 6 may be allocated.'
It says if you roll a 6 as a character you have a precison shot. Precision shots are allocated.

You'll note the ibook is copy-pasted from the BRB, presumably because of laziness, whilst the epub writes a new and tidy rule to avoid any potential confusion.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
It's crazy, but both order and pistol do not need 6's.

iBook version has it different.
6's are required.

Ah, so it is just the epub without it.


But no. 6's are not required. 6's generate them for characters with no further stipulation or demands. 6's generate free precision shots for characters. And then it tells you what a precision shot is.

It does not say that 'if you have precision shots any roll of a 6 may be allocated.'
It says if you roll a 6 as a character you have a precison shot. Precision shots are allocated.

The order states they have a Special Rule, called "Precision Shot"
It then lists the rules for this Special Rule, starting with a requirement for 6's on the hit roll.

Yes it mentions characters. It's original use was a character rule. You could follow strict RaW and claim it can't apply to non-characters, in the same way you can claim Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes (line of sight rule states it's draw from the models eyes).
Going by strict RaW leads to a very broken game. It's safe to assume the word "character" can be replaced by "model".

You'll note the ibook is copy-pasted from the BRB, presumably because of laziness, whilst the epub writes a new and tidy rule to avoid any potential confusion.

I'd be more inclined to say they did a bit of sloppy editing on the ePub, missed out part of a rule and caused more confusion.

 grendel083 wrote:
The order states they have a Special Rule, called "Precision Shot"
It then lists the rules for this Special Rule, starting with a requirement for 6's on the hit roll.

Yes it mentions characters. It's original use was a character rule. You could follow strict RaW and claim it can't apply to non-characters, in the same way you can claim Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes (line of sight rule states it's draw from the models eyes).
Going by strict RaW leads to a very broken game. It's safe to assume the word "character" can be replaced by "model".

That would only apply if rolling a 6 were included in the process of the precision shot, which it is not. There's a clear punctuation break between the two.

The rule could be rewritten, without any change to the meaning or function, with the first line at the end.

Allow me to re-state; It does not say that if you have precision shots you can allocate hits on a roll of a 6.

It says that characters that roll a 6 to hit have a precision shot. It THEN defines precision shots. The actual definition of precision shots never demands a 6 or says only to-hit rolls of a 6 are precision shots ever. You may try and gloss over the fact that the two sentences are grammatically distinct but the English language does not.



"Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firing model, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters. (If any of your character's shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots.) ”

Is identical in meaning, in the english language, to;

" If any of your character's shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firing model, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. This means that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters."




Which brings us back to the BRB subheading under the characters section of the rules.

First, it gives you a condition by which a precision shot happens.

Second, it defines a precision shot.

Third, in Astra Militarum, we get new conditions under which a precision shot happens, including as a special rule.

The definition of a precision shot in mechanics and function begins, in the BRB and ibook, in the second sentence of the subheading.

Sarge wrote:
How would a plasma pistol get precision shot on a 4+? The Emperor's Benediction is certainly no plasma pistol.

Under the claim that the Precision shots in the Epub glossary supersedes the BRB version; the Epub version drops the first sentence and characters have the special rule.

Brachiaridos: if Precision shots is not a special rule(that characters have) then "Take Aim" does absolutely nothing, it give the ordered unit a Special rule that does not exist. Also the Emperors Benediction does nothing since it also has a special rule that does not exist.

My Good Kommissar,
It doesn't exist....

That has to be the core of the problem surrounding this 'Special Rule,' the fact that it was originally designed to be nothing more then a property of (character). Another group would of re-written the entire Rule before using it in a way that applies to many more situations then it's original intention, but this is Game Workshop we are writing about. So while the rule functioned well enough as a property of being a character, the fact it does not work well enough to be applied outside of that narrow focus should be expected. Rule as Written: Take Aim and Specialized Weapons with this Rule do absolutely nothing, because they can only be evoked in situations involving characters and characters already have this 'Special Rule' without orders or equipment.

It will need House Rules to simply function, so why not different Rules for what happens when it is on a Weapon and when it is on a Model?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sarge wrote:
How would a plasma pistol get precision shot on a 4+? The Emperor's Benediction is certainly no plasma pistol.

Under the claim that the Precision shots in the Epub glossary supersedes the BRB version; the Epub version drops the first sentence and characters have the special rule.

Brachiaridos: if Precision shots is not a special rule(that characters have) then "Take Aim" does absolutely nothing, it give the ordered unit a Special rule that does not exist. Also the Emperors Benediction does nothing since it also has a special rule that does not exist.

No, the epub drops the first sentence and the Emperor's Benediction and Take Aim! have the special rule. Characters still just get it on 6's in the same way that sniper rifles just get it on 6's.

Characters do not, never have, and never are said to have the precision shot special rule, stop pretending they do. Show me one sentence, anywhere in any book, that reads 'characters have the precision shot special rule'


>It was initially an advanced rule in shooting mechanics
>AM made it a universal special rule
>ebub and ibook contain a listing of it as a special rule- one copy-pasted text from the characters subheading (and with a needless additional sentence), and one written up properly.

It's a special rule that exists in the digital but not printed versions and not in the BRB. But codex still overrules BRB, and we must refer to the most recent version we have.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
That would only apply if rolling a 6 were included in the process of the precision shot, which it is not. There's a clear punctuation break between the two.

As you can see from the image I posted, we seem to have two things going on.

First we have the Special Rule "Precicion Shot".
The take aim order states they gain this rule. "...have the Precicion Shot Special Rule."

Just bellow is a description of a Special Rule, called "Precicion Shot"
It then describes a process in which a shot becomes a Precision Shot.

So we have a Special Rule, and a process for shots. Two things going on.
One requires 6's to trigger the other.
And note it's the Special Rule that the order grants, and that line about needing 6's is under the heading of the Special Rule "Precicion Shot". It's part of that rule.

This is going stricktly off the codex, not the BRB. Since there seems to be a conflict in rules, the codex takes priority.

Edit: Just to stress the point. The "Take Aim" order does NOT say the units shots are Precision Shots. If it did you'd be correct.
Instead it says the gain the Precision Shot Special Rule.
That rule requires 6's to alter the shots.

 grendel083 wrote:
So we have a Special Rule, and a process for shots. Two things going on.
One requires 6's to trigger the other.
And note it's the Special Rule that the order grants, and that line about needing 6's is under the heading of the Special Rule "Precicion Shot". It's part of that rule.

This is going stricktly off the codex, not the BRB. Since there seems to be a conflict in rules, the codex takes priority.

Nope.

We have a special rule. And it seems you need a lesson in what the English language means. Allow me to break this down for you.

"If any of your characters' shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots."

We begin with the subject of the sentence. The character. More specifically, any of your characters. This sentence establishes the subject of itself, and it is any of your characters. Subjects in English grammar are words, phrases, and clauses that perform the action of or act upon verbs. Simple, yes?

Step 1 down, whew!

So what do we have next? We have our subject. We also have out condition! Roll a 6 to hit. Simple enough, I shouldn't need to describe that one, right? The subject has acted and has rolled a 6 to hit, our if clause is satiafied. So we move on to the bit after the comma, what does rolling a 6 to hit with precision shots mean?

".., these are precision shots"

So if your characters, the subject, roll a 6, the condition, these rolls are precision shots. Makes sense! What this means is that any roll of a 6, is a precision shot.

Allow me to emphasize that. Any roll of a 6, is a precision shot.

So any roll of a 6 on your characters is a precision shot, right? Simple. If subject A preforms action B it becomes special rule C.

But this does not mean that B is equal to C. Precision shot is not demanded to require a roll of a 6 by this sentence. Precision shot is never even hinted to require a roll of a 6. Rolling a 6 on a character is simply an optional entry condition for precision shot. I can't stress this enough. It's an inclusive condition that does not equate to the only condition. Even as it's listed in the ibook, or in the BRB.

That sentence makes no demands on precision shots, as a subject, only activating on 6's.
It only demands that characters with 6's get precision shots.



On the other hand we have the Emperor's Benediction. It has the precision shot special rule. So it makes precision shots. That is it's alternative to rolling a 6 satisfied.
Ditto for Take Aim!

EDIT: And for the sake of completeness, let's list all the reasons that the 6's 'interpretation' breaks other things in its attempt to shoehorn rolls where they don't belong.

>The relic and order have the same special rule. Demanding 6's on either makes 50% of the listing of this special rule completely redundant
>Sniper rifles do not have precision shot, they also list it as popping on a 6. Why bother with this distinction if the 6 is part of the requirement?
>Advanced Targetting in the Tau Codex specifically requires a 6 to hit, and does not have the precision shot special rule
>Sharpshoot in the Eldar codex under Illic Nightspear mentions that all shots fired are precision shots. Why bother every saying that if even with precision shots, you need to roll a 6?
>Sniper rifles actually lose the ability to make precision shots unless they're in the hands of a character. We've been playing 6'th ed long enough to not be considering that as RAW, I feel.

You're really sticking to the word "Charater" then? Strict RaW only? So Wraithguard can't shoot or assault?

You wouldn't consider ever replacing the word "character" with the word "model" when applied to a non-character?

 grendel083 wrote:
You're really sticking to the word "Charater" then? Strict RaW only? So Wraithguard can't shoot or assault?

You wouldn't consider ever replacing the word "character" with the word "model" when applied to a non-character?

That wouls be re-writing the rule. And will still break Eldar sharpshhoot, Sniper rifles, Advanced Targeting, and The Emperor's Benediction.

Why would I re-write a rule for RAW if it then conflicts with other things, when I can read it as it is already written and it functions fine?

Edit: Nevermind, I mis-read the sniper rule.

Do we have any new questions I need to post up?

I have a question after getting my hands on the codex

For the flakk missles,,,

is it 15pts for a regular missle launcher and then another 10 to add the flakk
or is it
15 for regular missles
or
10 for flakk?
I hate the way they are righting these codexs now,with all the rules and points costs split up in different sections.

It is 15 points for a middle launcher with frag/krak missiles.

It is another 10 points for the flakk missiles.

Ok heres another one

Whats the point of the wydrence psykers vs a regular primus?

Gomericus wrote:
Ok heres another one

Whats the point of the wydrence psykers vs a regular primus?

Larger bubble, more wounds, can have both.
Primaris is overall better though.

Gomericus wrote:
Ok heres another one

Whats the point of the wydrence psykers vs a regular primus?

Wyrdvane.

You usually take wyrdvanes if you already have 3 primaris. Wyrdvanes also work really well in fortifications - they're easy to hide and don't die to glancing hits.

Apologies if this has been asked already - search doesn't seem to be working currently!

So Heavy Weapon Teams are treated "for all game purposes" as a single, bulky, 2 wound model. This leads me to three assumptions / questions:

1. I assume for any upgrades with a point cost per model, you would only pay once. For example, Carapace Armor in a CCS is 2 points per model. I assume, then, buying Carapace for the HWT would be 2 points, not 4.

Likewise this would reduce the cost of, say, krak grenades because the squad has 1 fewer models. Unless it's a vet squad, because the cost for vets is per unit not per model. Probably not intended, but means Guardsmen with HWT can take krak grenades for 9pts, vs 10pts for vets.

2. In regards to "the loader having a lasgun." The rules say 2 Guardsmen/Veterans "may form a Heavy Weapons Team" and must take an item from the Heavy Weapon list. It does not say the Lasgun is replaced by the Heavy Weapon (as is the case with special weapons). However, the HWT is a single model. I read this as meaning the HWT model can either shoot the Heavy Weapon or shoot it's Lasgun, but not both. You probably wouldn't want to do this often, maybe if you moved. Thoughts?

3. Hypothetical - Since the HWT is a single model, and since the Heavy Weapon is in addition to (rather than replacing) the model's lasgun, it stands to reason a HWT in a Command Squad (PCS or CCS) can replace its Lasgun with a Laspistol and CC Weapon. This would presumably be represented on the miniature via the loader. The result would be an extra attack (3 total) for HWT model in assault.

Thoughts on all this?

Thanks!

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
You're really sticking to the word "Charater" then? Strict RaW only? So Wraithguard can't shoot or assault?

You wouldn't consider ever replacing the word "character" with the word "model" when applied to a non-character?

That wouls be re-writing the rule. And will still break Eldar sharpshhoot, Sniper rifles, Advanced Targeting, and The Emperor's Benediction.

Why would I re-write a rule for RAW if it then conflicts with other things, when I can read it as it is already written and it functions fine?

Pecision shots has 2 meanings:
1) The special rule, which includes the first sentence and causes the effect called "Precision shots"
2) the effect which is everything in the special rule after the first sentence.

Sniper: rolling a 6 to hit are precision shots. Not gains the special rule, has the effect.
Eldar Sharpshot: always the effect, not the special rule.
Telion's Eye of Vengeance: always the effect, not the special rule.
Tau Advanced Targeting: Rolls of 6 gain the effect, Characters who roll a 5 or 6 gain the effect(only serves to extend the special rule for characters to rolls of 5 as well).
Take Aim: models in the unit gain the special rule(Hey look, different wording!, why it must be different).
Emperors benediction: has the Special rule Precision Shots; The whole rule, not just the effect. This is told to us by the BRB Page 51 under the subheading Type(found on page 50 and continuing to page 51). Type Consists of the, well type of weapon, the number of Shots, and any special rules the weapon has. Precision Shots is listed as a special rule for the Emporers benediction without any further information supplied, therefore it has the Special rule "Precision Shots" which requires a character to roll a 6 to hit in order to gain the effect "Precision Shots"

Maybe you should try and actually read the rules you are talking about a few times and grasp their meaning; everything except Take Aim specifies the shooting attacks are precision shots(even if it requires a 6 or other roll to gain the effect); The Precision Shots special rule's first sentence tells you a character's shooting attacks that roll a 6 to-hit are Precision Shots

Now you are taking a minority of Publications(AM Epub version) and stating that its definition of Precision Shots somehow takes precedence over the other 2 publications(iBook and physical) which both either reprint the special rule in whole, or say nothing about it so you have to go to the Special rule in the BRB(and read it in whole).

Even If the E-pub and iBook versions of all 3 Eldar, Tau Empire, and Space Marines listed the definition of Precision Shots without the first sentence, that would be Fine, because those books do not grant the special rule, only the effect.

Precision shots do not have two meanings. Precision shots are one special rule. They mean that wounds are allocated. The first sentence in the subheading is there because it's in the character's subheading, and even as a part of the special rule it does not demand that any source of precision shots requires a rule to 6.

There's no ambiguity here. The epub has a tidy version, but it does not conflict with the BRB or the ibook.

I point you back to the post ion the previous page where I describe how grammar works and illustrate this in detail. Here, read it again.

"If any of your characters' shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots."

We begin with the subject of the sentence. The character. More specifically, any of your characters. This sentence establishes the subject of itself, and it is any of your characters. Subjects in English grammar are words, phrases, and clauses that perform the action of or act upon verbs. Simple, yes?

Step 1 down, whew!

So what do we have next? We have our subject. We also have out condition! Roll a 6 to hit. Simple enough, I shouldn't need to describe that one, right? The subject has acted and has rolled a 6 to hit, our if clause is satiafied. So we move on to the bit after the comma, what does rolling a 6 to hit with precision shots mean?

".., these are precision shots"

So if your characters, the subject, roll a 6, the condition, these rolls are precision shots. Makes sense! What this means is that any roll of a 6, is a precision shot.

Allow me to emphasize that. Any roll of a 6, is a precision shot.

So any roll of a 6 on your characters is a precision shot, right? Simple. If subject A preforms action B it becomes special rule C.

But this does not mean that B is equal to C. Precision shot is not demanded to require a roll of a 6 by this sentence. Precision shot is never even hinted to require a roll of a 6. Rolling a 6 on a character is simply an optional entry condition for precision shot. I can't stress this enough. It's an inclusive condition that does not equate to the only condition. Even as it's listed in the ibook, or in the BRB.

That sentence makes no demands on precision shots, as a subject, only activating on 6's.
It only demands that characters with 6's get precision shots.

Trust me, I grasp their meaning. I know it perfectly well.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Trust me, I grasp their meaning. I know it perfectly well.

Obviously not, with your flawed interpretation.

Fragile wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Trust me, I grasp their meaning. I know it perfectly well.

Obviously not, with your flawed interpretation.

Bold statement. Feel free to refute me with an explanation on how the first sentence makes any demand of any source of precision shots requiring 6's. Here's a hint, it doesn't.

But go on. Explain to me. Elucidate your amazing understanding of the English language.

Boy let me see;
BRB page 63 Precision Shots Special rule:
If any of your character's shots roll a 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots

The first sentence of the special rule gives you the name of the effect, which happens to be the same name. The rest of the rule use the term in regards to the first sentence, the effect.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Boy let me see;
BRB page 63 Precision Shots Special rule:
If any of your character's shots roll a 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots

The first sentence of the special rule gives you the name of the effect, which happens to be the same name. The rest of the rule use the term in regards to the first sentence, the effect.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning.

Well, no. You're implying that a part of a sentence has a meaning that it needs additional qualification in order to require.

These are precision shots. You know what these refers to? These refers to characters that have rolled a 6 to hit. That roll is a precision shot.

There are, however, is not an exclusive condition. I can have a bunch of squares. There are quadrilaterals. They are not the only type of quadrilateral. Saying that these are means they they are, but does not mean that they are the only.

As I keep stating. It's an inclusive condition. Rolling a 6 with a character nets you precision shots. Having the Emperor's Benediction also nets you precision shots. Issuing the order Take Aim! also nets you precision shots.

So Models with a weapon that does not roll to hit and has the gets hot Special rule can ignore the condition of first rolling a 1 on a d6, they will always "Get Hot" since they have the rule, always take the wound, and never fire?

Right?

That is your assertion, that you can ignore a part of the rule that dictates an effect when that effect has the same name as the Special rule.

Or you are just wrong, do not know the English language and grammar quite as well as you keep claiming(as is so often the case when someone mentions them at least every other post, while failing to prove their point), and have to fall back on convoluted claims that the words do not state exactly as they state.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So Models with a weapon that does not roll to hit and has the gets hot Special rule can ignore the condition of first rolling a 1 on a d6, they will always "Get Hot" since they have the rule, always take the wound, and never fire?

Right?

That is your assertion, that you can ignore a part of the rule that dictates an effect when that effect has the same name as the Special rule.

Or you are just wrong, do not know the English language and grammar quite as well as you keep claiming(as is so often the case when someone mentions them at least every other post, while failing to prove their point), and have to fall back on convoluted claims that the words do not state exactly as they state.

No, because gets hot weapons that do not need to roll to hit (blast and similar) have a rule that quantifies how they work with relevant wording.

The first sentence is there because it was originally in the characters subheading. It quantifies how characters get a precision shot. Notably, it also only applies your characters- if the first part of the rule does somehow apply to everyone all the time, it's worth noting that Take Aim! will do nothing to anything that's not a character and the Emperor's Benediction does absolutely nothing ever.

But that's irrelevant, because it's not a demand for precision shots. Characters do not have a precision shots special rule, they get them on 6's. Precision shots are described mechanically after that line. And the roll of 6's is not a demanded to be required.

It applies in this case because of language, and not to gets hot because of the exact same reason.

If that were to be the case the qualifier would be under the sub heading "Characters and shooting", but it is not, it is a part of the special rule, just like Gets Hot and weapons that do not roll to hit.

If the Emperors benediction always has Precision shots without the qualifying conditions being met because it has the special rule "Precision Shots, Then Plasma Cannons always Get Hot without the qualifying conditions being met because they have the Special rule "Gets Hot" and do not roll to hit.

The sentence about gets hot is there because that is how you get the effect of the special rule; it quantifies how your weapons get hot.

I will admit to Take Aim being poorly written in that it references a rule that only applies to characters, we can extend logic to determine it must apply to all the models in the unit because it gives all the models in the unit the special rule.

Extending the sentence through logic is less breaking the rule than ignoring the sentence altogether.

We must look at the interaction of the 2 rules and say that they must mean to treat all the models in the ordered unit like characters fort the duration of the shooting attack; not that since they have no way to meet the qualifications of the special we can ignore those qualifications.

Language tells us that the Precision Shots special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is written in plain black and white. Language also tells us that the Gets Hot special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is exactly the same situation

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If that were to be the case the qualifier would be under the sub heading "Characters and shooting", but it is not, it is a part of the special rule, just like Gets Hot and weapons that do not roll to hit.

Here's the thing. It wasn't a special rule until the AM codex. It was just an advanced rule and art of the shooting mechanics. The precison shots subheading is there because that's where they decided to list in in the BRB. And it's a part of the text of the rule in the ibook, certainly, but even as a part of the text it makes no demands of all shots meeting the perquisite.

If the Emperors benediction always has Precision shots without the qualifying conditions being met because it has the special rule "Precision Shots, Then Plasma Cannons always Get Hot without the qualifying conditions being met because they have the Special rule "Gets Hot" and do not roll to hit.

But it doesn't. We have a very clear subheading instructing us about gets hot and not rolling to hit. It tells us that Weapons that do not roll to hit must roll a d6 for each shot immediately before firing. That's why it applies universally. It's a universal qualifying statement.

If the first line said 'models with the precision shot special rule may allocate their wounds on a roll of a 6' then Precison shot would function the same way. It does not. It tells us that If any of our characters roll a 6 those are precision shots, and leaves it at that. There is a massive difference in meaning because of the huge difference in form.

The sentence about gets hot is there because that is how you get the effect of the special rule; it quantifies how your weapons get hot.

And it does it with a clause that applies to everything.

I will admit to Take Aim being poorly written in that it references a rule that only applies to characters, we can extend logic to determine it must apply to all the models in the unit because it gives all the models in the unit the special rule.

Extending the sentence through logic is less breaking the rule than ignoring the sentence altogether.

We don't ignore it. We use it exactly as it is written.

How it is written is that characters that roll a 6 to hit get precison shots.

How it is not written is that any model with precision shots must then roll a 6 to hit to allocate the wound.

We don't ignore the sentence. We use it as it written.

What you are doing in giving a sentence more meaning than it has. You're extending the coverage of a sentence to scenarios and cases it does not apply to. The sentence never once mentions models with precison shot before they roll a 6, only that models that are characters have precision shot after they have roll a 6 regardless of other modifiers.

We must look at the interaction of the 2 rules and say that they must mean to treat all the models in the ordered unit like characters fort the duration of the shooting attack; not that since they have no way to meet the qualifications of the special we can ignore those qualifications.

No, we mustn't. Because A) They're not, and B) It's not required.

Language tells us that the Precision Shots special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is written in plain black and white. Language also tells us that the Gets Hot special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is exactly the same situation

It really dosen't. Language tells us that a certain subset of unit (characters) have a condition by which they gain the special rule. It's not in any way exactly the same situation because they are written differently.

Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

Fragile wrote:
Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

If we replace the characters with (infantry), than all infantry get precision shots on a 6 even if they don't have Take Aim! applied to them (or similar) in the same way characters do.

'If any of your infantry's shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots'. Is that how you want the rule to read? Because I'd be all for having ever model able to be a sniper at any time ever.

Hell. Why don't we replace 6's with 3's? That could be interesting too. Why bother using the rule at all? let's just swap out anything for anything else and say that's how we want to play.

It has always been a Special rule, One with an effect that has the same name.

In the special rule characters gain the effect under certain conditions, as do other models with special rules that grant the effect(sometimes under certain conditions).

We also have very clear instructions for how the effects of Precision shots are applied; there is no diference in form, Characters must meet the qualifications for the effect just like the plasma cannon must meet the qualifications for the effect(Note: Lord Commissars, the only model that can take the Emperors Benediction, is a Character).

That clause(Gets hot and weapons that do not roll to hit) does not apply to everything. It only applies to gets hot weapons that do not ro9ll to hit. It does not apply to boltguns. It Does not apply to Assault cannons.

Characters that roll a 6 to hit get the effect Precision Shots, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

Just like Plasma Cannons that roll a 1 on the d6 get the effect Gets Hot, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

If you ignore the condition for one effect because the model or weapon has the special rule, you must ignore the condition for the other.

Yes, I am extending the coverage of the sentence, do you know why I am extending the coverage of the sentence? Because another rule is in Place that grants the rule(containing that sentence) to models that are not within the coverage of that sentence. And the rule that grants the Precision Shots rule to the models that are not within the coverage [i[very specifically[/i] grants the precision shots special rule to those models.

Ignoring the qualifications for the effect outright because the models granted the rule by an outside agency is a far more drastic change to the rule than simply altering 1 word within the qualification to encompass those models granted the rule by an outside agency but not the correct type to ever meet the qualifications.

Yes we must look to the interaction of the 2 rules, otherwise there is no discussion because all we are looking at is the 1 rule that simply does as it says. There is an interaction between the 2 rules: Rule 1 grants rule 2 to models that cannot use rule 2, that is an interaction we need to decipher.

You should go back and read both rules, they are not written differently. A subset of weapons with the gets hot rule(ones that do not roll to hit) have a condition by which they gain the same named effect(exactly like characters and the Precision Shots special rule). But if we go by your interpretation a plasma Cannon does not have the Gets Hot Special Rule until it rolls a 1 on the d6(meets the condition to "Gets Hot"), but it does not have to roll that d6 unless it is a weapon with the gets hot Special Rule. So which is it? Does it never have to roll the d6 toi see if it has the special rule? Or does it have the special rule and therefore whether it rolls the 1 or not it has the special rule and the special rule goes on to say that weapons that do not roll to hit and have the special rule that then have the special rule do not fire and cause a wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

If we replace the characters with (infantry), than all infantry get precision shots on a 6 even if they don't have Take Aim! applied to them (or similar) in the same way characters do.

This is the single most worthless sentence you have yet written and shows exactly why you are arguing nonsense.

You do not understand how 2 rules interact.

No one is saying to completely, in all cases, replace the word characters. We are saying when an outside rule(Take Aim) grants the rule to models that are not characters, we should replace the word characters for something akin to simply "model" for the express purposes of resolving the outside rule


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yes and back to your earlier assertions that Characters do not have the Precision shots Special Rule:

Yes they do, Exactly the Same as how Jet pack/Jump subtypes have the skyborne special rule. And Jet Pack subtypes have the thrust move special rule
Or how Bikes and Jetbikes have the Turbo-boost Special Rule.
Or how Flying Monstrous Creatures have the Swooping hunters, Leaving Combat Airspace and Hard to Hit special rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It has always been a Special rule, One with an effect that has the same name.

In the special rule characters gain the effect under certain conditions, as do other models with special rules that grant the effect(sometimes under certain conditions).

Not true. Not only is it not listed in the special rule section, but no other instance of it cropping up is ever listed as a special rule either.

If 'Precision Shot' is a special rule since the BRB, and requires the roll of a 6, why is is not listed alongside rending and pining on sniper rifles? Why is it not in the special rules listing? Why is it that it's suddenly the only example in the BRB of a special rule never described as such?

The vehicles section has a subheading about jink, where it describes 'saves from the Jink special rule'. Monstrous creatures have the 'special rules' subheading where it lists Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Smash.

Anything that is a special rule is always refereed to as such. Until Codex: Astra Militarum, it was not a special rule. And by continuation, characters cannot have it, as their most recent rules are in the BRB and FAQ and prior to the release of AM.

Precision shots as a thing were only a part of the mechanics of the game, no more a 'Special Rule' than cover saves or ballistic skill.

There are only two sources of the 'Precision shot special rule' in WH40k. And that's the two in Codex: Astra Militarum.

Before, it was an effect you could gain under certain conditions. Now, it's a special rule. And we have two sources that give us a definition legally; the epub and ibook. One of which includes the mention of characters rolling 6's, as it is a copy paste of the subheading in the BRB under characters. And one which has no mention of characters and no mention of 6's, which is unique wording only found in the epub.

But prove me wrong, if you please. Find me any other reference that describes the 'Precision Shot special rule' or a Special rules subheading that includes 'Precision Shot'

We also have very clear instructions for how the effects of Precision shots are applied; there is no diference in form, Characters must meet the qualifications for the effect just like the plasma cannon must meet the qualifications for the effect (Note: Lord Commissars, the only model that can take the Emperors Benediction, is a Character).

We have very clear instructions about Precision Shot in general.

We have sentence 1- Criteria and result. If (rolled a 6 with a character) is met, result is Precision Shot. It's an entry condition for precision shots.

The very next sentence is "Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...."

So we Issue Take Aim!. Out entire unit now has the Special Rule 'Precision Shot'. What does precision shot do? "Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...."

We don't need to roll the 6 to be granted precision shots. Because we already have precision shots, universally.

That clause(Gets hot and weapons that do not roll to hit) does not apply to everything. It only applies to gets hot weapons that do not ro9ll to hit. It does not apply to boltguns. It Does not apply to Assault cannons.

And? If you really can't grasp the specifics of what I said, I'll repeat it with the implicit part too.

The Gets Hot! rules state that Everything (>>With gets hot<< functions in X manner.
By contrast, the Precision Shot first sentence states that Characters which roll a 6 function in X manner.

But I don't need to be a character which rolls a 6 to function in X manner, because that's not everything.

Characters that roll a 6 to hit get the effect Precision Shots, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

They get what used to be a part of shooting mechanics, and is now a special rule, to be exact about it. Just because it has a name, does not mean it is a special rule. Ram is not a special rule just because it has a name and a condition.

But the confusion is easy to understand; they've changed something subtly, after all. See how yet?

Just like Plasma Cannons that roll a 1 on the d6 get the effect Gets Hot, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

Plasma cannons have the special rule gets hot, which forces them onto a roll which has a subsequent effect.
Characters roll dice which produce an effect, after which it begins to take effect.

Gets hot applies all the time, before the rolls for it are made. Precision shot for characters only applies after the roll is made to see if it does. Important difference.


If this were not the case, precision shot would have had to be written as rending is written. Beginning with the condition that precision shot is present on your model. It does not.

If you ignore the condition for one effect because the model or weapon has the special rule, you must ignore the condition for the other.

See above for why the comparison does not work.

Yes, I am extending the coverage of the sentence, do you know why I am extending the coverage of the sentence? Because another rule is in Place that grants the rule(containing that sentence) to models that are not within the coverage of that sentence. And the rule that grants the Precision Shots rule to the models that are not within the coverage very specifically grants the precision shots special rule to those models.

But here's the thing. The sentence doesn't even apply to them. You're trying to force a sentence to apply to a model it did not before and therefore altering the way the rule functions. That's not interpretation, that's editing to better suit your wants.

Take Aim! Grants Precision Shots. As a special rule, what does that do? "Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...."

That's it, plain and simple. ibook has it (subject to objection on faulty grounds) and epub has it explicitly.

Ignoring the qualifications for the effect outright because the models granted the rule by an outside agency is a far more drastic change to the rule than simply altering 1 word within the qualification to encompass those models granted the rule by an outside agency but not the correct type to ever meet the qualifications.

It's not a qualication for an effect, though. It's a qualification by which you can get the rule. There's no 'Gets hot!' effect. There's no precision shot effect. There are two special rules.

The mechanics of gets hot involve taking a wound/glancing hit based on certain rolls.
The mechanics of precision shot involve allocating your wounds. Also, characters make them on 6's, good for characters.

Yes we must look to the interaction of the 2 rules, otherwise there is no discussion because all we are looking at is the 1 rule that simply does as it says. There is an interaction between the 2 rules: Rule 1 grants rule 2 to models that cannot use rule 2, that is an interaction we need to decipher.

Or more accurately, Order 1 gives Special rule 2 to models. Special rule 2 can be gained by Character's rolling a 6 to hit. Special rule 2 means you allocate wounds.

You should go back and read both rules, they are not written differently. A subset of weapons with the gets hot rule(ones that do not roll to hit) have a condition by which they gain the same named effect(exactly like characters and the Precision Shots special rule). But if we go by your interpretation a plasma Cannon does not have the Gets Hot Special Rule until it rolls a 1 on the d6(meets the condition to "Gets Hot", but it does not have to roll that d6 unless it is a weapon with the gets hot Special Rule. So which is it? Does it never have to roll the d6 toi see if it has the special rule? Or does it have the special rule and therefore whether it rolls the 1 or not it has the special rule and the special rule goes on to say that weapons that do not roll to hit and have the special rule that then have the special rule do not fire and cause a wound?

Gets Hot! is not a named 'effect'. It does not say that if you roll a 1 your weapon has 'Gets Hot!'. It says that if your weapon gets hot, and X happens, Y happens.

Very, very unlike precision shot, where characters that roll a 6 get 'Precision shot'. It does not say characters have 'Precision Shot', and that if you do, and you roll a 6, you allocate the wound.

I don't know where you got this distinction between named rule, and the identically named purpose of said rule being somehow distinct, but please cite anywhere in the BRB something which supports being able to separate the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes they do, Exactly the Same as how Jet pack/Jump subtypes have the skyborne special rule. And Jet Pack subtypes have the thrust move special rule
Or how Bikes and Jetbikes have the Turbo-boost Special Rule.
Or how Flying Monstrous Creatures have the Swooping hunters, Leaving Combat Airspace and Hard to Hit special rules.

None of those are special rules


Let's quote from the 'Jet Pack Units' section. Page 47, BRB.

"Special rules

Jet Pack units have the bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules."

I don't see any Thrust Move listed there, do you?

Special Rules are a very specific subset of rules. They have to be defined as such to be as such. Thrust Move is not a special rule, Flat out is not a special rule, Gliding is not a special rule. They're just part of the mechanics.

Stop calling any advanced rule a special rule, this may be part of your confusion.

Rule #1 is neither optional nor contextual. Edited - mt11

Oh, really?

BRB page 7:

Basic Versus Advanced

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise...

..Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon... ...or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm, or even a tank)...

BRB page 32:

What Special rules do I have?

It may seem obvious, but unless otherwise stated, a model does not have a special rule.



Tell me again how movement rules are special rules? You go find me a quote from the BRB showing how Thrust Move is a special rule, and then come back to me and tell me about learning how the rules work.

For all your talk of language and grammar you seem to have trouble reading what is put in front of you.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
For all your talk of language and grammar you seem to have trouble reading what is put in front of you.

No, seriously. Quote me anything that defines Thrust Move as a special rule and not just an advanced one.

Anything.

No seriously, read my words.

read them

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No seriously, read my words.

read them

I did, and found them lacking.

You continuing to ask me to discuss the rules with you disproves your reading.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You continuing to ask me to discuss the rules with you disproves your reading.

Or more accurately, my lack of care for your attempts to gloss over your gross lack of understanding by calling me a troll.

There are few arguments so lacking as that.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You continuing to ask me to discuss the rules with you disproves your reading.

Or more accurately, my lack of care for your attempts to gloss over your gross lack of understanding by calling me a troll.

There are few arguments so lacking as that.

Except for this tu quo que response.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Except for this tu quo que response.

I've already alluded my position on his actual argument that his listed mechanics are special rules, any why they're not- Precision Shot included (up until the release of C:AM, anyway).

I'd quite like to get a justification, or lack thereof. Forgive the ad homenim while I wait.

You wont get it, you are simply wrong and have shown you do not understand the interaction of rules or the arguments presented.

There is no point in engaging you on the rules discussion any further.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Except for this tu quo que response.

I've already alluded my position on his actual argument that his listed mechanics are special rules, any why they're not- Precision Shot included (up until the release of C:AM, anyway).

I'd quite like to get a justification, or lack thereof. Forgive the ad homenim while I wait.

Actually I called you out on responding criticism with criticism. Where's the personal attack? This is getting juicy!

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Except for this tu quo que response.

I've already alluded my position on his actual argument that his listed mechanics are special rules, any why they're not- Precision Shot included (up until the release of C:AM, anyway).

I'd quite like to get a justification, or lack thereof. Forgive the ad homenim while I wait.

Actually I called you out on responding criticism with criticism. Where's the personal attack? This is getting juicy!

Tu quoque is a specific kind of ad homenim, as far as I'm aware? Not so much a personal attack as a fallacy in argument to suggest that Kel is wrong by virtue of his flimsy excuse to back out of the scenario before ever actually providing evidence or support for any of his endless string of interesting claims.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Tu quoque is a specific kind of ad homenim, as far as I'm aware? Not so much a personal attack as a fallacy in argument to suggest that Kel is wrong by virtue of his flimsy excuse to back out of the scenario before ever actually providing evidence or support for any of his endless string of interesting claims.

Tu Quo Que is a fallacy of its own since it's so prevalent, I can see how you would see it as an ad hominem. I can give you a more correct definition in a PM if you'd like.

At any rate, this issue should be resolved in the new rulebook, so I feel it's best we put it to bed for now.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Tu quoque is a specific kind of ad homenim, as far as I'm aware? Not so much a personal attack as a fallacy in argument to suggest that Kel is wrong by virtue of his flimsy excuse to back out of the scenario before ever actually providing evidence or support for any of his endless string of interesting claims.

Tu Quo Que is a fallacy of its own since it's so prevalent, I can see how you would see it as an ad hominem. I can give you a more correct definition in a PM if you'd like.

At any rate, this issue should be resolved in the new rulebook, so I feel it's best we put it to bed for now.

Probably. I can only expect that come the 24th (if Naftka is to be believed) the new section of special rules will include precision shot and an exact definition.

My assumption is it will be the same as the epub. But we don't know, so may as well twiddle our thumbs and wait. For those that haven't seen it:


Codex: Astra Militartum, epub, glossary

And duly noted on the fallacy side. I'll have a look into it, you've gone and got me curious.

Does the ePub list that rule anywhere other than the Glossary?
If so does it differ?

Glossaries have been wrong on WAY more than one occasion as they tend to be shortened versions of the rule.
This is already conflicting with the iBook version.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

If we replace the characters with (infantry), than all infantry get precision shots on a 6 even if they don't have Take Aim! applied to them (or similar) in the same way characters do..

That response and your holding on to your different version of the rule shows you either do not understand at all or are simply trolling.

Either way, you still need 6's with Take Aim.

Fragile wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

If we replace the characters with (infantry), than all infantry get precision shots on a 6 even if they don't have Take Aim! applied to them (or similar) in the same way characters do..

That response and your holding on to your different version of the rule shows you either do not understand at all or are simply trolling.

Either way, you still need 6's with Take Aim.

Just a note, I already tried the argument eluded to in this post. It doesn't work.

Fragile wrote:
Either way, you still need 6's with Take Aim.

I have a rule book, published by GW, with a rule written specifically in it, and used within its pages, which tells me how do to a precision shot. It has zero mention of 6's anywhere. No, no I do not need a 6. And never did.

And it all again comes down to the fact that it only became a Precision Shot special rule in Codex: Astra Militarum.

Here's a thought experiment. Go through every single book and codex prior to C:AM, and replace the words 'precision shots' with 'the precision shots special rule'. Because that's the change that C:AM introduced. Changed a mechanics rule into a universal special one.

"If any of your characters shots roll a 6 to hit, these have the precision shot special rule" would be an up to date version of the first line in the ibook precision shot special rule. Sadly, the BRB version it copied is a listing that was intended for describing both characters and precision shot and is woefully out of date. But it still means the same thing, importantly.

Sadly, the ibook copy-pasted the same paragraph.

But even so, the 6's to hit is not a requirement for precision shot. The 6's to hit is a condition for characters that gives precision shot to a model that did not already have it. The two rules overlap, not contradict.




The very next line instructs us on how precision shots works.

"Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...." The take Aim! order gives us precision shots already, we don't need to roll the 6 to get them when we already have them.

If your characters roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots. If your character is wielding the emperor's benediction, these are precision shots. If your model has the take aim! order applied, these are precision shots.

 grendel083 wrote:
Does the ePub list that rule anywhere other than the Glossary?
If so does it differ?

Glossaries have been wrong on WAY more than one occasion as they tend to be shortened versions of the rule.
This is already conflicting with the iBook version.

Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Does the ePub list that rule anywhere other than the Glossary?
If so does it differ?

Glossaries have been wrong on WAY more than one occasion as they tend to be shortened versions of the rule.
This is already conflicting with the iBook version.

Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

The Glossary and pop-ups sometimes vary.

And how do you know the iBook has superfluous rules, and the ePub isn't missing out vital rules?
The ePub being a glorified PDF is much more copy/paste than the interactive versions.

 grendel083 wrote:

brachiaraidos wrote:Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

The Glossary and pop-ups sometimes vary.

And how do you know the iBook has superfluous rules, and the ePub isn't missing out vital rules?
The ePub being a glorified PDF is much more copy/paste than the interactive versions.

It doesn't matter either way, is the thing.

You can use either definition and it still ends up with the same result for Take Aim! and the Emperor's benediction, the ibook just has some character specific rules included on top.

Yes, if your characters roll a 6 to hit, they are(/have the) precision shots (special rule). Yes, if you issue take aim, your units have the precision shots special rule. Yes, if your LC has the Benediction, he has the precision shots special rule.

The first line just also lets us know what characters get them on 6's, just outside of the characters section of the BRB. Where that information is rather un-needed.

Anyone worked up over this particular toy soldiers topic should now be stepping away for a long, long breather. This thread is incredibly close to being shut down and several warnings handed out. Rule #1 and rule #2 are non-optional. Be polite, don't derail the thread into 2 pages going 'no you!' About reading ability.

Thanks MT11

Azmordean wrote:

So Heavy Weapon Teams are treated "for all game purposes" as a single, bulky, 2 wound model. This leads me to three assumptions / questions:

1. I assume for any upgrades with a point cost per model, you would only pay once. For example, Carapace Armor in a CCS is 2 points per model. I assume, then, buying Carapace for the HWT would be 2 points, not 4.

Likewise this would reduce the cost of, say, krak grenades because the squad has 1 fewer models. Unless it's a vet squad, because the cost for vets is per unit not per model. Probably not intended, but means Guardsmen with HWT can take krak grenades for 9pts, vs 10pts for vets.

Yep, sounds perfectlty legit.

2. In regards to "the loader having a lasgun." The rules say 2 Guardsmen/Veterans "may form a Heavy Weapons Team" and must take an item from the Heavy Weapon list. It does not say the Lasgun is replaced by the Heavy Weapon (as is the case with special weapons). However, the HWT is a single model. I read this as meaning the HWT model can either shoot the Heavy Weapon or shoot it's Lasgun, but not both. You probably wouldn't want to do this often, maybe if you moved. Thoughts?

Yes, the team has a lasgun and a heavy weapon, and can fire either. Might be useful for moving mortar teams, for example.

3. Hypothetical - Since the HWT is a single model, and since the Heavy Weapon is in addition to (rather than replacing) the model's lasgun, it stands to reason a HWT in a Command Squad (PCS or CCS) can replace its Lasgun with a Laspistol and CC Weapon. This would presumably be represented on the miniature via the loader. The result would be an extra attack (3 total) for HWT model in assault.

Nope. It says "Any guardsman/veteran may replace..." It does not apply to HWTs.

Just to re-ask what someone posited earlier, with the order "Smite at Will" do you indeed have to make a second leadership test to activate the split-fire USR or since it technically activates as the squad ordered passes its leadership test to even make use of the order that leadership result is used in its place?

 SwampRats45MK wrote:
Just to re-ask what someone posited earlier, with the order "Smite at Will" do you indeed have to make a second leadership test to activate the split-fire USR or since it technically activates as the squad ordered passes its leadership test to even make use of the order that leadership result is used in its place?

The unit gains the rule, they have to follow the whole rule(which includes the requirement for a ld test)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 SwampRats45MK wrote:
Just to re-ask what someone posited earlier, with the order "Smite at Will" do you indeed have to make a second leadership test to activate the split-fire USR or since it technically activates as the squad ordered passes its leadership test to even make use of the order that leadership result is used in its place?

The unit gains the rule, they have to follow the whole rule(which includes the requirement for a ld test)

And they have a 50% chance of wasting your order as a result.

Ld8 isn't that bad....

Sorry if I'm jumping into the middle of a discussion, but can someone explain how to handle shooting with one or several wyrwens?

Do you roll scatter dice+2d6 for each of the guns, or do you just roll once and then the scatter die for the other 3 shots?
Can you only reroll the initial hit (scatter die+2d6) or can you also reroll the scatter die for the 3 shots following the first one, since the gun is twin linked?

How do you handle shooting with a squadron of 3? That's potentially 12 gawd damn templates. Do you resolve each wyrwen one by one or do you just place one blast template, roll 2d6+scatter for that initial template and then just scatter die with the remaining 11?

You follow the rules for multiple barrage. You Reroll the scatter dice for all up to eleven other shots

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You follow the rules for multiple barrage. You Reroll the scatter dice for all up to eleven other shots

The rules for twin-linked blast weapons says that you MUST reroll both the 2d6 and the scatter. How litereally should that be taken? One could argue that since you do not roll 2d6 on the rolls following the intial scatter, you cannot do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ld8 isn't that bad....

26/36*26/36=~52%.

You've gotta pass two LD8 tests.

FunJohn wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You follow the rules for multiple barrage. You Reroll the scatter dice for all up to eleven other shots

The rules for twin-linked blast weapons says that you MUST reroll both the 2d6 and the scatter. How litereally should that be taken? One could argue that since you do not roll 2d6 on the rolls following the intial scatter, you cannot do this.

But you don't roll 2D6 when you re-roll for a multiple barrage. It's only therefor if you re-roll the first scatter.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
But you don't roll 2D6 when you re-roll for a multiple barrage. It's only therefor if you re-roll the first scatter.

This is a debatable point, there are several pages on it already.

Yep, here's the other thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/590821.page

Fragile wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:But you don't roll 2D6 when you re-roll for a multiple barrage. It's only therefor if you re-roll the first scatter.

This is a debatable point, there are several pages on it already.