Can someone explain how it works? Does it wound a single model? Or the whole unit?

Thanks.

It causes perils on the unit, we're then stuck with how to resolve it.

Units don't suffer perils usually do they? It's always models themselves.

Most of the multi-model units with the Psyker or Soceror special rules have a mechanic listed for dealing with Perils, such as Brotherhood of Psykers causing only one model to Peril, or a Psychic Chior where all of the models in the unit Peril. In the end, read the unit rules, then apply the effect.

SJ

Well, except for the two main reasons to take this since they don't have a way to specifically address it. Those two choices being Tzeentch Heralds in Screamer (tzeentch heralds in a horror unit are covered by their rules) units and Warlocks in Seer Councils.

My read is since the unit, not model, takes the perils all psykers in the unit peril. But I also hate the current 2+ re-rollable love fest going on with Daemons and Eldar so I'm hardly objective on it.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Well, except for the two main reasons to take this since they don't have a way to specifically address it. Those two choices being Tzeentch Heralds in Screamer (tzeentch heralds in a horror unit are covered by their rules) units and Warlocks in Seer Councils.

My read is since the unit, not model, takes the perils all psykers in the unit peril. But I also hate the current 2+ re-rollable love fest going on with Daemons and Eldar so I'm hardly objective on it.

I agree. Until we are given a way to allocate a perils of the warp within a unit or to delegate a particular psyker affecting effect withing a unit, every psyker would suffer the perils. There are very very few units of multiple psykers that are not brotherhood of psykers/sorcerers etc and they generally are used to break the game. There are rules on how to treat such an occurrence for a unit with brotherhood of psykers/sorcerers, but none such rule exists for individual psykers leaving the default state to be affecting each psyker in the unit.

May be FAQed differently, but it'd be a nice to see the end of the 2+/++ rerollable nightmare. I share that sentiment as well.

What's the actual wording of the effect? Because Codex: Grey Knights has one, too:

"Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the perils of the warp in addition to any other effects"
Which was FAQ'd to
“Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a stake crossbow shot[...]”

Which I take to mean a single psyker. Needless to say, it's probably going to get FAQ'd (or maybe the GK one will get better).

Here is the exact quote from the rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

So I guess the hair-splitting comes when you have to distinguish if the unit has the psyker rule or the individual models. I could honestly see it going both ways...GW could very well have meant it to destroy units of individual psykers. Or it could be meant to only wound one.

I would personally play it as the latter due to the precedent of the GK codex. Also, from the BRB: "The Psyker immediately suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed" (Perils of the Warp).
The unit suffers perils, and perils is specified as causing 1 wound. So I would treat it as causing a single Perils wound to the unit. However, I'm open to other interpretations/precedents...

Never thought about it that way. If that was the case, how would you allocate the Perils?

Lucarikx

Units with Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers (and their attached ICs) has a specific way in which to deal with Perils. It is definitely less clear as to how a unit of IC Psykers (or a unit w/o BoP with multiple ICs attached) would deal with a Perils against the unit. The two potential ways I can see it going is 1) every Psyker takes a Perils or 2) a random Psyker in the unit takes the single Perils.
One Perils that either player gets to allocate seems way under/over-powered, depending on who does the allocating. Random is a good way to fix that, I feel.

The GK Mindstrike missile causes Perils against any Psyker hit by the blast.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Here is the exact quote from the rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

For the case of shooting a unit with an attached Psyker, a possible interpretation would be that the stake would have no effect. The unit itself doesn't have the Psyker rule. Of course, you could carry this to the extreme that even if you scored a precision shot and allocated on the IC it still wouldn't cause a Perils.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Here is the exact quote from the rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

Yeesh....how wonderfully vague is GW writing. They need a little more detail.

Appears that the screamerstar won't be affected. It is not a unit with the Psyker special rules even though the Herald is.

I predict this will probably be one of the most contentious items on the tournament scene for the next couple of months since GW don't seem to want to FAQ obvious mistakes/unclear things, and tournament organizers are going to have their hands full with this item and the ire its going to cause, On both sides.


Screamer Star, Seer council, and literally everyone who plays a psyker I.C. once they get to know this gun and the specific wording will instantly say it does nothing since the unit is not a "unit with the psyker special rules"

Everyone who plays sisters and has a fundamental bias towards all of those will argue till they are blue in the face that it kills every I.C. psyker in the squad if it hits. ( This also has dire implications for Tyranids, Grey Knights)

A lot of others will kneejerk and say YAY it negates the screamer and seer council and that's a good thing, but they forget it negates about half the armies psyker support and wreaks two armies that have significant psyker presence on the board.

Some people will try to stopgap that it effects a random psyker in a unit with multiple I.C. psykers.

What you have to come to realize is that Sisters of Battle can comfortably take upwards of 15 of these in a normal list.

Think of the problems that this is going to cause, sisters will literally alpha 3 tyranid MC off the table, by just hitting them, significant GK portions of an army as any attached character get periled off at the same time as the normal brotherhood models. The councils will get periled off with 1-2 hits, but with spam hitting an entire unit a sisters player can alpha both farseers, and the entire unit of warlocks claiming 3 KP, Warlord, and basically taking that list out of tournaments.

You have to actually think about this gun in a tournament setting. Every single Psyker will die to it if it hit a unit and causes perils to the psykers inside. If spammed no psyker including farseers will live though a round of sister shooting.

Even if you have local groups and tournaments compensate for poor wording by saying that it effects 1 random psyker in a unit ( may or may not be RAW or RAI, just used as a stopgap to try to appease both sides) this gun if spammed is going to have a significant effect, it only becomes a list difference and what shoots what when, and how many of them sisters take, i.e. you will have min maxed lists spam 15 and still completely kill screamerstar, Kill all the warlocks and most likely one farseer, Tyranids can just pick up their models, Grey knights lose dread knights, tanks, or entire squads plus any independent characters.


This gun in a sisters army alone will curb stomp 2 competitive army builds, and two entire codexs it will make all I.C. psykers free kill points for your opponents. You will see a ton of people say this is a good thing, until you realize what this actually in practice means for the game, sisters will literally have 1-2 soft counters and no hard counters. With a good general Min Maxing a sisters list necron wraith wing is the only competitive army that will have an even fight, everything else will be on the back foot, even wraithwing will have its hands full as the sisters armies at 1750 can have 29 str 8 ap1 shots while maintaining the comdemnor spam.

If you guys thought things like screamer star, seer council, and tau ignoring cover were bad, wait till sisters with good generals hit, Ignore cover scouting melta guns in numbers, 3+ re-rollable saves on all the unit in combat, some of the hardest alphas in the game with str 8 ap1 spam.

Your replacing a rerollable 2+ with a rerollable 3+ with better shooting and the ability to kill anything with the psyker special rule by hitting. The fact that the gun ignores all saves aside from FNP and Eldar ghost helms (which in a competitive environment wont save farseer's since the spam can hit 6 comdemnor in one turn) is probably the worst call we have seen yet.


A sisters list can comfortably run 17 bolt guns with little to no effectiveness drop in the army.

There is very little way to mitigate this guns impact on the game as written.

jy2's interpretation may be the only way as it will save everything but grey knights and Tyranids

Just don't forget that's a single-shot weapon and only massed in SCS, which can be blown off the table pretty easily. Knowing GW it'll be FAQ'd to be completely useless item once again.

I want to stress what a poster above me said, it is a one use only effect.

Also most psykers have multiple wounds as well. You'd also have to hit a farseer up to 6 times to kill it because of the ghosthelm.

At 1500 a msu sisters list with 5 priests and Jacobus is capable of taking 11 however you'd have to cut priests or special weapons to get more than 3. I'd doubt even at 1850 you'd see more than 10. Even then you'd have to sacrifice taking other combi-weapons that could be more useful for a TAC list. So at 1850 I'd expect only 5-6 bolts to actually hit, that isn't going to hurt nids or gk that much.

However as right now RAW multi-model units aren't even affected by psy-shock, as the unit doesn't have the psyker rule. HIWPI a random psyker (or maybe the closest psyker) in the unit takes a perils wound.

@Tiber

Almost everything you wrote is pure hyperbole. GK's won't be affected badly because Brotherhood of Psykers tells you how to handle it. You'll lose a single model per hit nor matter how the rule is written because the BoP tells you how to handle it.

As for Nids what Nid psyker isn't generally flying? The Doom? Who on landing likely grabbed enough wounds to survive all the Psi-Shock? The Tervigon who has 6 wounds? It won't affect nids much at all.

And I'd like to see an "effective" TAC list with 17 of those bolters. To get 17 the easiest way you're looking at 170pts without a transport twice (so 340) plus another 175pts for the priests. And randomly 20 more points for some combi's. That's not going to make an effective force sorry.

You're whole post comes off as one large whine of not understanding the current state of the game or how armies and rules interact.

As for the rule itself TO's are just going to have to FAQ it for every event. I know one of the upcoming GT's here in MN is going to rule the squad takes the perils. Which to be honest I prefer but I also don't see a problem with a random model getting a perils.

The way i'll suggest playing it to my opponents is this:

If a unit has an attached IC with the Psyker special rule, and is hit by the condemnor, that Psyker suffers a perils. If a unit has more than one Psyker then the controlling player must allocate the perils to one of the Psykers.

"I know one of the upcoming GT's here in MN is going to rule the squad takes the perils"

That is my take on it too. And yes Tiber please chill.

Once again, I go back to the quote on perils only causing one wound per perils result.. Another other relevant GK FAQ is on the blast weapons that cause psi-shock in the GK codex (mindstrike missiles and psyk-out bombs):
Q: How do you work out whether a psyker is affected by the Psi-shock special rule on a mindstrike missile or a psyk-out bom b? (57, 58)
A: Any psyker under the template will be effected by Psi-shock
(The rule in the GK codex being discussed reads: "Any psyker hit by a psyk-out bomb suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.")

Again, it seems by precedent the only way to get multiple perils of the warp on a unit is to be hit multiple times. You could take it a step further and say that the psyker itself must be hit by the weapon (i.e. in front of the unit or a precision shot), which is in line with a "unit with the psyker [special rule]". Units don't have the psyker special rule...but individual models do. Units have brotherhood of psykers. And if a model with the psyker rule is in a non-psyker or brotherhood of psykers unit, you have to target them the way you always have to target characters: whittle down the squad or precision shots.

As a final note, I'll point out that the GK condemner boltgun costs 15 points, and can only be given to an inquisitor.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Tiber

Almost everything you wrote is pure hyperbole. GK's won't be affected badly because Brotherhood of Psykers tells you how to handle it. You'll lose a single model per hit nor matter how the rule is written because the BoP tells you how to handle it.

As for Nids what Nid psyker isn't generally flying? The Doom? Who on landing likely grabbed enough wounds to survive all the Psi-Shock? The Tervigon who has 6 wounds? It won't affect nids much at all.

And I'd like to see an "effective" TAC list with 17 of those bolters. To get 17 the easiest way you're looking at 170pts without a transport twice (so 340) plus another 175pts for the priests. And randomly 20 more points for some combi's. That's not going to make an effective force sorry.

You're whole post comes off as one large whine of not understanding the current state of the game or how armies and rules interact.

As for the rule itself TO's are just going to have to FAQ it for every event. I know one of the upcoming GT's here in MN is going to rule the squad takes the perils. Which to be honest I prefer but I also don't see a problem with a random model getting a perils.

Are you talking about the renegade GT by chance? I may be going if I can work it into my schedule and always look forward to meeting new wargamers

 Hulksmash wrote:

As for the rule itself TO's are just going to have to FAQ it for every event. I know one of the upcoming GT's here in MN is going to rule the squad takes the perils. Which to be honest I prefer but I also don't see a problem with a random model getting a perils.

I think we have similar reads Hulk, but could you elaborate on their ruling (emphasis above mine)?

One perils wound is randomized among the squad; one wound randomized among psykers in the squad; every psyker in the squad suffers a perils wound; every model in the squad suffers a perils wound?

Thanks!



@greyknight - I think we understand what you are saying, but our interpretation as written is that being hit by the Sister's condemnor is the same as if every model in a unit was hit by the mindstrike template. The hit causes 1 perils on each psyker, psychic pilot, or brotherhood of psykers in the unit. Each psyker is not taking a perils for each other psyker, it is still 1 per model, so the precedent stands - and no different from effects that cause each model in the unit to suffer a hit (or a unit to suffer multiple hits) if a single test is passed (e.g., some results on the warp storm table and hallucination come quickly to mind)

I've been going with:
- If the condemnor hits, squad takes 1 perils to the nearest psyker.

It's the least advantageous to me as a AS player but still makes them pretty good. A squad of 4 or 5 can definitely put the hurt down.

@quiestdeus

Every psyker takes a perils. Similar to if the whole squad got hit by a mindstrike.

@Agumybear

Yeah, the Renegade at the end of November. I'll be there. Though I have no idea what I'll be running.

@Pretre

That's logical and least adventagious and if it's FAQ'd that way by TO's I'm cool with it. But I'm also cool with a deterant to some very unfun armies to play against

Yeah, I haven't played against the 2++ rerollables, but don't really want to. If a couple combis will keep them off the table, then I'm more than happy to take them.

Hulksmash wrote:@quiestdeus

Every psyker takes a perils. Similar to if the whole squad got hit by a mindstrike.

@Pretre

That's logical and least adventagious and if it's FAQ'd that way by TO's I'm cool with it. But I'm also cool with a deterant to some very unfun armies to play against

pretre wrote:Yeah, I haven't played against the 2++ rerollables, but don't really want to. If a couple combis will keep them off the table, then I'm more than happy to take them.

Sounds good, that's what I thought but wanted to be super clear. Thanks!.

With respect to the Pretre's comment, I can also see a case if people would prefer to random the perils rather than go by closest model but either way it works

 pretre wrote:
I've been going with:
- If the condemnor hits, squad takes 1 perils to the nearest psyker.

It's the least advantageous to me as a AS player but still makes them pretty good. A squad of 4 or 5 can definitely put the hurt down.

[emphasis mine]

This IMO is the best way to play it from what has been posted of the rule. It sound like a single shot weapon so it makes no sense hitting everyone but to each there own. Further in 6th you allocate to closest, so I don't see why it should be done randomly. Good job pretre

Why not use the Mindstrike missile as an example of how to play it only substitute "every psyker under the template" with "every psyker in the unit" suffers a perils.

Seems that if GW had meant for only one model to suffer a perils then they would have left the entry the way it was and still is in the GK DEX. Right now there are 2 different entries for the same weapon.

The way the TOs have ruled for the Renegade GT sets a very important precedent.

Only for them, really.

No for everyone because as I said it sets a precedence. Also it seems like the most correct interpretation as well.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
No for everyone because as I said it sets a precedence. Also it seems like the most correct interpretation as well.

Only in your opinion.

Adepticon and NOVA set a precedent that same psychic powers from different psykers stack, but you ignored that precedent and went the opposite way for Beakycon. Seems like you aren't the most objective source on precedents and "correct interpretations".

Tournament rulings mean literally nothing out side of their own tournament. They are the same as any other house-rule and not sufficiently weighty enough to be used on YMDC.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tournament rulings mean literally nothing out side of their own tournament. They are the same as any other house-rule and not sufficiently weighty enough to be used on YMDC.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 pretre wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tournament rulings mean literally nothing out side of their own tournament. They are the same as any other house-rule and not sufficiently weighty enough to be used on YMDC.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

You may want to check the Dictionary again, literally can now mean figuratively.

Figuratively speaking?

I didn't see this mentioned yet in the thread but am I interpreting the rule correctly?

If I have a command squad with 5 Condemnor Boltguns and all 5 hit Fateweaver (for example), Fateweaver would instantly get hit with 5 Perils? This is before rolling to wound as normal.

Since the rule for Psy-shock says weapon, I presume such but want to verify.

 Unholyllama wrote:
I didn't see this mentioned yet in the thread but am I interpreting the rule correctly?

If I have a command squad with 5 Condemnor Boltguns and all 5 hit Fateweaver (for example), Fateweaver would instantly get hit with 5 Perils? Since the rule for Psy-shock says weapon, I presume such but want to verify.

Yep, That's the simplest answer since Fateweaver is all by himself.

Five hits would also nuke seer council or a squad of psychic heralds attached to a unit of Screamers.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Five hits would also nuke seer council or a squad of psychic heralds attached to a unit of Screamers.

Depends on the size and whether or not every model suffers Perils from a single hit. Assuming it does not, you would need quite a few more than 5 to take out my Seer Councils. I run 'em big.

 pretre wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tournament rulings mean literally nothing out side of their own tournament. They are the same as any other house-rule and not sufficiently weighty enough to be used on YMDC.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Buh? Tournament rulings mean nothing outside of their specific tournament. All words are appropriate.

What do you think "literally" means?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tournament rulings mean literally nothing out side of their own tournament. They are the same as any other house-rule and not sufficiently weighty enough to be used on YMDC.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Buh? Tournament rulings mean nothing outside of their specific tournament. All words are appropriate.

What do you think "literally" means?

Obviously, they mean something since some people care bout them (including people in this thread). Just because they mean almost nothing to the gaming community as a whole doesn't mean they mean literally nothing (i.e. no one in the gaming community cares about them). Unless you were just trying to hyperbolic, in which case I retract my statement.

While the wording is quite clear it's obvious this will be heatedly contested and that is part of the reason why what we see coming down from the GT level the next couple of months is going to have a lot of impact.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Here is the exact quote from the rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

A unit of screamers with 4 heralds attached is not a psyker, BoP, or psychic pilot. ICs count as normal members of the unit for all rules purposes while attached. Screamers are not psykers so I'd say no effect RAW.

RAI, HIWPI: if the nearest model is a psyker or psyker is allocated a wound from said weapon, they and only they suffer a perils.

Edit: I highly doubt the intent is for one shot from a 10pt weapon to wipe out a 500pt warlock council with no saves allowed.

Obviously every psyker in the unit auto perils unless they have the Brotherhood override.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Obviously every psyker in the unit auto perils unless they have the Brotherhood override.

Your definition of obvious is tainted by personal interpretation.

The rule says psyker unit (etc). A screamer unit with 4 heralds attached meets 0 of those requirements.

Personally, I see it as a gift horse from GW on how to stabilize the 2++ rerollables. Whether it was intentional or not I'm ok with it. Granted it only hurts the two most unfun army builds to play against in 40k.

I'll just abide by whatever the event I'm attendings rule is. Honestly I see it more than likely, without a word from GW, playing out how Pretre is playing it. But I'll happily go to an event that makes you pick up a seer council or screamstar.

@hyv3mynd

It doesn't say Psyker unit. It say unit with the Psyker rule. Since the unit benefits from Psykers for things like Deny the Witch I'd say it qualifies as a unit with the psychic rule. But I'm admittedly biased

For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

For precedent? That's like comparing apples and asteroids. Psyko grenades still have 1-no effect as a possibility.

Which means the Condemnor has a higher failure rate of 33% to 16.5%

Not sure why you think this only hurts the stars..... I may have an overriding hate for this gun because its quite vague and completely overpowered, but still doesn't mean its only effective on the stars.

I also like the fact that most of the people are ignoring that sisters have a way to get a 2+ rerollable in combat and a 3++ rerollable that is 1/4 the price of the stars and can be put on multiple units. It situationally different seeing as its only in combat, but its still abusable.

On a side note I posted the 17 bolt gun spam list, you lose 17 combi melta/flamer shots to bring 17 I hit to wound you shots. I will give you that you will probably likely only hit with 10 of them but tell me how 10 auto psyker wounds in addition to sisters fire doesn't affect arimes with psykers other than the stars.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

For precedent? That's like comparing apples and asteroids. Psyko grenades still have 1-no effect as a possibility.

It is totally feasible the model with the special bolter could miss when rolling to hit.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

For precedent? That's like comparing apples and asteroids. Psyko grenades still have 1-no effect as a possibility.

It is totally feasible the model with the special bolter could miss when rolling to hit.

So exactly how many precedents are set for a 10pt wargear eliminating 500pts of models with a single 3+?

 hyv3mynd wrote:

So exactly how many precedents are set for a 10pt wargear eliminating 500pts of models with a single 3+?

It's going to have some trouble doing that. The only 1 wound psyker unit that isn't Brotherhood of Psykers is Eldar Warlocks.

Tzeentch Heralds only lose one wound a piece, and BoP take one wound on the unit (character first, then randomly anyone).

Two or more condemner boltguns are a problem though.

If C:AS gets to annihilate two units of psykers per detachment at 30" of range, it will change the meta, but it's not game breaking.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

For precedent? That's like comparing apples and asteroids. Psyko grenades still have 1-no effect as a possibility.

It is totally feasible the model with the special bolter could miss when rolling to hit.

So exactly how many precedents are set for a 10pt wargear eliminating 500pts of models with a single 3+?

Talisman of Arthas Moloch is pretty close. It does not make you pick up your horrors, but it certainly is an example of one piece of wargear utterly neutralizing an army (whereas the boltgun only affects one unit to the extreme).

quiestdeus wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

For precedent? That's like comparing apples and asteroids. Psyko grenades still have 1-no effect as a possibility.

It is totally feasible the model with the special bolter could miss when rolling to hit.

So exactly how many precedents are set for a 10pt wargear eliminating 500pts of models with a single 3+?

Talisman of Arthas Moloch is pretty close. It does not make you pick up your horrors, but it certainly is an example of one piece of wargear utterly neutralizing an army (whereas the boltgun only affects one unit to the extreme).

Pretty close on what planet? 4d6 DTW still leaves 33% failure. A lot different than one hit taking out 10 warlocks without rolling to wound and no saves allowed.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Here is the exact quote from the rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

I don't get it. Taking Eldar as an example, no units have those special rules. The closest example is the Hemlock, but even that is a unit of 1 model, and that model has the rule, not the unit.

You can fire those at seer councils all day - the unit is made up of 10 models which are psykers, but the unit is not a psyker. In addition, perils specifically states it inflicts one wound.

this means that asserting hitting a seer council inflicts an auto-wound with no saves allowed makes two distinct jumps - one, that a unit containing a model with a rule possess that rule itself (which it doesn't), and two, that a perils on a unit is equivalent to a perils on every model in that unit.

These are huge jumps, and I don't see any support. If someone shoots this at my eldar and claim every psyker takes a perils, I'll tell that person the weapon does nothing, and we'll sit there until someone picks up their models and leaves.

The only way to play this in any way remotely fair way to both people is to play it that one perils happens if the unit contains a psyker or is a psyker (ex: GK units, BOP), and one perils = one wound, allocated at random, as required by BOP, or closest to firer.

Gwyidion wrote:
we'll sit there until someone picks up their models and leaves.

That sounds like a great outcome. lol

 hyv3mynd wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For precedence look how powerful is the psykotropic grenade. So it is completely plausible this is the actual intent.

For precedent? That's like comparing apples and asteroids. Psyko grenades still have 1-no effect as a possibility.

It is totally feasible the model with the special bolter could miss when rolling to hit.

So exactly how many precedents are set for a 10pt wargear eliminating 500pts of models with a single 3+?

Talisman of Arthas Moloch is pretty close. It does not make you pick up your horrors, but it certainly is an example of one piece of wargear utterly neutralizing an army (whereas the boltgun only affects one unit to the extreme).

Pretty close on what planet? 4d6 DTW still leaves 33% failure. A lot different than one hit taking out 10 warlocks without rolling to wound and no saves allowed.

33% failure eh? Like a single shot from a BS4 weapon fails 33% of the time?

Innnnnnnnnteresting.

Why is a 33% failure rate on an item that is always on, reusable, affects multiple units simultaneously, and invalidates plenty of units a-ok, while a one-use item that affects only one unit at a time horrible and outrageous?

quiestdeus wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Pretty close on what planet? 4d6 DTW still leaves 33% failure. A lot different than one hit taking out 10 warlocks without rolling to wound and no saves allowed.

33% failure eh? Like a single shot from a BS4 weapon fails 33% of the time?

Innnnnnnnnteresting.

Why is a 33% failure rate on an item that is always on, reusable, affects multiple units simultaneously, and invalidates plenty of units a-ok, while a one-use item that affects only one unit at a time horrible and outrageous?

Zing!

FYI the Talisman of Arthal Moloc is only 52% effective.



HulkSmash nicely supplied the exact wording of the rule. "Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

The bolt most certainly does work upon the Seer Council as the Warlock Council does possess the Psyker Special Rule for the unit. Perils will effect every Psyker in it, there is no other way for Perils to work without inventing rules. It does not say "a perils", it says "the perils". It will also affect every Psyker IC joined to that Council as pg 39 makes them count as part of the unit for all purposes.

The real question is if it affects units with a Psyker Present or even Multiple Psyker IC, ie Thousand Sons, Thousand Sons, and Screamer Star for Example.

Thousand Sons. Contains on Psyker, the Aspiring Sorcerer? The unit contains a model with the Psyker rule, does it suffer a perils?

Thousand Sons with Attached Chaos Sorcerer. Unit contains two Psykers, does it suffer a perils? If so, do both?

Screamer Council. Unit contains up to four Psykers, does it suffer a perils?

The leading argument against is that the Unit itself does not possess the special rule, psyker, but mere contains models with said special rule. Pg 32 tells us models have special rules, not units. Where a special rule is listed in a unit entry it is merely telling us that every model in that unit has that special rule. It may be easier to think of it as units with special rules, but it is the models with that special rule.

The rules for ICs, pg 39 tells us that an attatched IC counts as part of the unit for all purposes. It also tells us that Special rules are not conferred to the rest of the models in that unit without permission.


So, we either interpret "Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules" as only units with that special rule which would be the Warlock Council and individual Psyker ICs, or as a unit that contains models with those special rules. Since, units do not possess special rules, but the models within do(and weapons), the second is the logical choice as ICs and Psyker Sergeants are part of that unit and that unit contains models with those special rules as Sergeants are by default part of the unit and ICs when joined count "as part of the unit for all rules purposes."


In summary, Units do not possess special rules, but the models within. Since units cannot possess special rules, but references to such mean the models in said unit the only applicable conclusion is that the effect works against any unit containing models with said special rules. To do otherwise is to invent rules.

As to perils, it specifies suffers "the perils the warp", not "a perils" singular, and the only way to resolve the perils on the warp is against every psyker in that unit, unless those models possess a specific special rule which tells us how to handle the effect ie brotherhood of psykers or sorcerers. To do otherwise is to invent new rules.

Given the rules we have, this is how I interpret the ability.

Great summary Zagman.

Since units cannot possess special rules

You sure?

BROTHERHOOD OF PSYKERS/SORCERERS
A unit with this special rule counts as a Mastery Level I Psyker. The unit follows all the normal rules for Psykers, with the following clarifications:

Units can posses special rules. Sorta throws a wrench in your premises and conclusions.

Not saying this means much of anything, just that you might be trying too hard to find RaW where there is nothing but ambiguous gack.

 winterman wrote:

Since units cannot possess special rules

You sure?

BROTHERHOOD OF PSYKERS/SORCERERS
A unit with this special rule counts as a Mastery Level I Psyker. The unit follows all the normal rules for Psykers, with the following clarifications:

Units can posses special rules. Sorta throws a wrench in your premises and conclusions.

Not saying this means much of anything, just that you might be trying too hard to find RaW where there is nothing but ambiguous gack.

The models possess the special rules, when all models in a unit possess the same special rule it is often referred to as the unit possessing the special rule. It effectivly "a unit with this special rule" is short for "a unit with models with this special rule" They often get used interchangeably. The special rules section tells us that models and weapons get special rules. That may not be totally inclusive, but its what we've got. For example, using Brotherhood of Psykers, we have a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule. An IC Psyker joins said unit, he does not possess this special rule. Does the Unit? Or just all but one of the models? Now, the Condemnor Boltgun hits this unit, obviously both the Brotherhood of Psykers and the IC Psyker take the perils.

We aren't told Units can have special rules, we are told models can. We have to keep operation under that premise until we are told otherwise and told how to handle units with special rules. A unit with special rules is just a unit of models with those special rules.

There is no perfect RAW answer here, but I've presented my best RAW argument for understanding it and feel it is the best interpretation without further clarification from GW. Either way, the GT I'm attending next month has FAQed it as such as well, so that's the way I'll play it until told otherwise by GW or a tournament FAQ.

Let me throw this out there. If you read a rule that said

"The unit suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed."

Would you apply a wound to every model? Or would you apply one wound to the unit? It seems to me without any indication of how many models are affected its simply a wound from somewhere in the unit. Not the entire unit.

So how are we making the jump here that every psyker in the unit is suffering perils? The psishock rule says the unit suffers from perils, but it doesn't give any indication of how many models. All we know is that the effect of perils is 'the psyker immediately suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed".

So what we have is a unit that is suffering from a rule intended for a single model. That's all we have to go by. It would help if it had the afore mentioned 'a perils' but even without it we cannot make the jump to every psyker suffering the wound. All we know is at least 1 psyker suffers the wound, maybe more. But like the hypothetical rule I made above, applying a single wound does make a certain amount of sense.

Just my two cents, not trying to sway anyone, just something to consider.

Apples to Oranges.

Your example doesn't work. An exact substitution would be "The unit suffers wounds." And clearly that's not helpful.

This is similar to asking if a unit has a melta gun - if one model has one, can you say the unit does? I would say "yes" is an obvious answer.

Here, one model with the psyker rule means the unit does "have" the psyker rule, as one model has it.

That could be how they mean the wording...however does not help with mixed psyker / non psyker units when you work out how many peril would be needed.

Really you can condense this question down to one sentence ignoring the things that we can already clearly resolve.

How do you resolve

Any unit with the Psyker special rules suffers the Perils of the Warp.

Which brings up two very important questions, how to you classify a unit as having the psyker special rule, and how to resolve a unit with multiple psyker models taking the Perils of the Warp.

This is going to have to be ruled on by every T.O. that has a sisters player from now on, and has heavy biases in both directions.

It seems that the first GT T.O. mentioned in this thread has decide to rule it very specifically


"Any unit with a psyker model in it counts as having the psyker special rule, and all psykers in the unit suffer perils"

I would venture to say that this is just as much a RAI decision as any other way to rule it, as I can see no clear RAW way to resolve this.


RAW is sufficiently unclear to allow for any number of interpretations.

I.Cs. joining units don't cause the units to have the psyker special rule therefore it doesn't effect psykers in units other than possibly the warlock council.

Units with multiple psyker models don't have the psyker special rule only the models in them do therefore units with multiple psykers aren't effected.

Any unit with a psyker model in it counts as having the psyker special rule, and all psykers in it suffer perils.

Units that suffer the Perils of the Warp every model that can suffer does.

A unit suffering the Perils of the Warp only one model suffers.

If only one model, how do you allocate, random (brotherhood precedent) closest (shooting attack)


Overall, since sisters are probably going to be a good tournament army this single rules call is going to have serious implications both for the performance of sisters armies and the performance of most every army with psykers and especially ones with psyker death stars.

Just say no to pyschic deathstars!

I'd like to see a page citation for this assertion that "units with models with a rule cause the unit itself to have that rule".

Many properties of models don't transfer to units. In fact, I can't think of a single rule or property that does transfer to the unit unless specifically noted to do so (i.e., all of the USRs which do).

Honestly. If you hit a seer council with this weapon, all of the warlocks die instantly. This is the "reasonable" interpretation?

"This is similar to asking if a unit has a melta gun - if one model has one, can you say the unit does? I would say "yes" is an obvious answer. "

It is actually more similar to saying the unit *is* a melta gun. A unit with a psyker in it has a psyker. The condemnor requires that the unit IS a psyker, which is very different.

For instance, Psykers can generate warp charges and manifest psychic powers. Warlock councils - as a unit - do neither of these things. They have no special rule in their entry which indicates that when held together as a council, that the unit has the Psyker, Psychic Choir, or BoP special rules, or in any other way are anything but a unit made up of psykers.

Can we please see some support for this assertion which has been called 'obvious' several times in this thread?

It definitely seems counter-intuitive that there are those arguing for the Condemnor, an Assault 1 weapon, to be more effective than a Mindstrike Missile, a Heavy 1, Blast weapon. I have little doubt that a FAQ will rule any hit to be resolved as a single wound per the Brotherhood of Psyker rules. Where it's a bit more iffy is whether a single Psyker in the unit constitutes a unit with the Psyker special rule.

Gwyidion wrote:
I'd like to see a page citation for this assertion that "units with models with a rule cause the unit itself to have that rule".

...

Can we please see some support for this assertion which has been called 'obvious' several times in this thread?

It's not a rule per se, it's basic semantics. It's what it means "to have". If you have an arm, and your arm has a hand, then we can say that you have a hand. If there's a bowl of jelly beans, and one of the jelly beans is green, we cannot say that the bowl of jelly beans IS green, but we can say that the bowl of jelly beans HAS green.

(And a unit IS a group of models. That IS a rule, BTW, right up front.)

But that's not what the rule says. The rule:

"Psi-Shock: Any unit with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage"

Requires that the unit has the rule. Units with rules and models with rules are very different things, and the distinction between them is actually well held throughout the ruleset. There are distinct differences, across many rules between units with a model that has a rule, units consisting entirely of models with rules, etc.

Can anyone point out other instances in which a unit is treated as having a rule when a single model has that rule?

For instance - the psyker rule is listed right below the independent character rule in the farseer entry.

No one would try to argue that if a unit has an IC in the unit, that the unit HAS that rule. This is for two reasons - first, that's absurd, and second, there are specific rules which govern how an IC and a unit interact. As far as I know, pg66 doesn't have any language which governs how a unit and a psyker interact for unit purposes.

Psykers and units interact via certain rules (BoP, psychic choir, etc), but absent those, i'm fairly certain all language in the BRB about psykers deals with individual models.

Again, someone, please, cite a rule that transfers the rule Psyker to a unit when a model in the unit has that rule. Until someone does, the two assumptions that:

Units with psykers in them have the Psyker rule

and

Units hit by an effect that causes a perils means every psyker in the unit takes a perils

are both assumptions.

And again. If i suffer the penalties of my unit having the Psyker rule, what are my benefits - how many warp charges does a unit containing a farseer generate? which lists does that unit generate powers from?

One could also point out that GW has been fairly consistent in not allowing you to remove more models than you have hits, i.e. Instant Death + Blast v. Swarms.

Actually, that is an inconsistency given the previous 3 editions allowed this (maybe 3rd was different, 4th and 5th i remember)

@Gwyidion There are many instances of effects targeting a unit cascading down based on model qualities.

Take Fortune: "A friendly unit can re-roll all failed saving throws and Deny the Witch rolls."

Units do not have saving throws, the models in it do. The psychic power grants the effect to each model to apply based on the model's rules and characteristics. When a unit gains the Fortune effect you check its individual statline to see what value is re-rollable - if a unit is hit by the Condemnor it makes similar sense to then check each model to see if it is a psyker. Whether that check results in a single perils wound, or one per psyker is very debatable, but arguing the item never has an effect because no unit will ever have the psyker rule is... silly.

The BRB is not written with future knowledge of every potential future rules conundrum (see: Gravity Guns). The only thing we know for a fact is that Games Workshop writes precisely imprecise rules made for casual gaming, not for grammatical scrutiny. I am happy to play with the Condemnor having no effect on units in any game were most psychic powers also have no effect because units and models are "very different things" meant to represent distinct objects on the tabletop.

Well, I'll stipulate that there is precedent for things that affect units to affect models in units. So Perils might be able to affect units.

We'll move beyond noticing that perils says it affects models, not units, so saying a unit suffers perils runs afoul of that as well.

Beyond that, It isn't silly to argue that the weapon has no effect.

The gun having an effect is predicated on the unit having the psyker special rule.

Fortune has no effect on units which don't have saves. You can apply it to sv - units - no save, no effect.

Condemnor hits unit, unit doesn't have the psyker rule, BoP, PP - no effect.

And again, this is the YMDC forum. Please cite where it states that models with a rule (psyker) cause the unit to have that rule.

GW has a history of being pretty good about this; lots of phrases such as "units with models within..." or "a unit which has a model that has .... ", or "Units consisting entirely of models with...."

Also, here's another question - a unit has one psyker and 9 regular guys. Is the argument here that because it contains one psyker, the unit counts as having that rule, and therefore the condemnor causes the unit to take perils? if so, why then do the other 9 members not also take perils? Is the argument against that, "well, the unit counts as being a psyker, but when you resolve the perils only the psyker counts as being a psyker, and the rest of the models don't". This is a bit of gymnastics when it comes to the state of this unit.

foot note - the condemnor still works just fine against anything with the brotherhood of psykers rule. That both designates how the unit is treated w/r/t psychic powers and perils of the warp, and everything seems to fit neatly into place.
and again
HIWPI - one perils, closest psyker - not OP, not nullifying wargear's entire use.

Gwyidion wrote:

Also, here's another question - a unit has one psyker and 9 regular guys. Is the argument here that because it contains one psyker, the unit counts as having that rule, and therefore the condemnor causes the unit to take perils? if so, why then do the other 9 members not also take perils? Is the argument against that, "well, the unit counts as being a psyker, but when you resolve the perils only the psyker counts as being a psyker, and the rest of the models don't". This is a bit of gymnastics when it comes to the state of this unit.

Good point, any hit from a Condemner Boltgun does one unsavable wound to every model in the unit hit, at least according to the people who are saying it kills units of psykers. By their logic, it kills units of anything if there's even one Psyker.

Gwyidion wrote:

Fortune has no effect on units which don't have saves. You can apply it to sv - units - no save, no effect.

Condemnor hits unit, unit doesn't have the psyker rule, BoP, PP - no effect.

No unit has a save, only models have saves. By the logic above there should never be an effect from Fortune, Fortune does not check to see if a unit has saves it just says the unit may re-roll them. No unit has a saving throw, you have to look at the model to interpret the effect of Fortune.

You look per model to see if it is sv- (or 2+. 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+) to determine what happens. A clear case of an ability referring to a unit but implying (and requiring!) using qualities of a model within the unit to determine the effects. The psykers in a unit are logically impacted the same way: boltgun hits a unit, check each model for psyker rule, if rule is found apply perils.

It makes plenty of sense based on applying prior precedent to a situation not covered by the BRB.

Furthermore, BOP clearly states you randomize which model is affected by a perils... why would removing the closest model apply when there is a more specific precedent for handling a perils among a group of psykers? Switching stances from "it can not have an effect because models are not units" to "pick the closest" is cherry-picking which rules to follow.

As noted before, there is not going to a clear resolution to this until GW FAQs it. Each tournament, FLGS, pair of players is going to need to decide what works for them. I am just a biased party simply trying to make it clear how varied that decision can be. There is no definitive support for any of the proposed interpretations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:

Also, here's another question - a unit has one psyker and 9 regular guys. Is the argument here that because it contains one psyker, the unit counts as having that rule, and therefore the condemnor causes the unit to take perils? if so, why then do the other 9 members not also take perils? Is the argument against that, "well, the unit counts as being a psyker, but when you resolve the perils only the psyker counts as being a psyker, and the rest of the models don't". This is a bit of gymnastics when it comes to the state of this unit.

Good point, any hit from a Condemner Boltgun does one unsavable wound to every model in the unit hit, at least according to the people who are saying it kills units of psykers. By their logic, it kills units of anything if there's even one Psyker.

To stick with the meltagun example someone brought up earlier... if the model does not have the psyker, BOP, or psychic pilot rule there is no effect to that model. Meltaguns have armorbane, the rules on how to use armorbane are clear (it affects things with an AV value), so when I shoot infantry with it I know not to apply armorbane. The Perils of the Warp rules are clear they only impact psykers (and variants), so you know how to apply it when the boltgun's effect affects a mixed unit. Screamer? Not a psyker, move on. Herald? Psyker! Whammo with the Perils wound.

quiestdeus wrote:

To stick with the meltagun

That comparison was already proven inadequate.

This reminds me of the preferred enemy arguement. Tiggy in a blob (we will be seeing this a lot I think ). Chaos space marines shooting at the blob. Now will they get preferred enemy?, it has a space marine in there. Just like a screamer star or seer council has a psyker in there.

Except that one is answered by the Page 39 rules.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:

To stick with the meltagun

That comparison was already proven inadequate.

Other than the fact that I disagree, that is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The only thing the previous comparison and this example have in common is the fact that they use meltaguns. One is talking about composition, the other application of special rules. I can switch to talking about a multimelta if that helps though.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mynd

It doesn't say Psyker unit. It say unit with the Psyker rule. Since the unit benefits from Psykers for things like Deny the Witch I'd say it qualifies as a unit with the psychic rule. But I'm admittedly biased

God I love the smell of contention in the morning!!!

It always amazes me how animated these GW rules debates get...LOL! I think when listening to reasoned debates both pro and con it is always important to know the standing and motivation of those involved. Hyv is currently running a psyker deathstar in his tournament list in which he throws in 3 characters. If it is ruled that the condemnor boltguns do indeed affect every model in a unit where at least one model has a model with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules it will ruin his day. So understand there are hidden agendas here at work. ( Link to his current tourney build - http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2013/10/hyv3mynds-eldar-dark-eldar-october-rtt.html#more )

Oh, and to be open and honest as well, I have about 5000 pts of Sisters dying to come out and play as well as my new digital codex in hand!!!

As you were...

Accusation of bias isn't polite without proof.
There are plenty of people in here that do their absolute best to stay unbiased when discussing rules.

MajorSoB wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mynd

It doesn't say Psyker unit. It say unit with the Psyker rule. Since the unit benefits from Psykers for things like Deny the Witch I'd say it qualifies as a unit with the psychic rule. But I'm admittedly biased

God I love the smell of contention in the morning!!!

It always amazes me how animated these GW rules debates get...LOL! I think when listening to reasoned debates both pro and con it is always important to know the standing and motivation of those involved. Hyv is currently running a psyker deathstar in his tournament list in which he throws in 3 characters. If it is ruled that the condemnor boltguns do indeed affect every model in a unit where at least one model has a model with the Psyker, Brotherhood of Psykers, or Pyschic Pilot special rules it will ruin his day. So understand there are hidden agendas here at work. ( Link to his current tourney build - http://synaps3.blogspot.com/2013/10/hyv3mynds-eldar-dark-eldar-october-rtt.html#more )

Oh, and to be open and honest as well, I have about 5000 pts of Sisters dying to come out and play as well as my new digital codex in hand!!!

As you were...

Actually you've got just about everything wrong.

Since you find the need to make this personal, let's get this 100% clear. MajorSoB is a local troll who has made it a personal crusade to defame me for whatever reasons. In fact, my blog and gaming club were both founded directly due to his constant trolling and flaming me on our local forums.

Thanks for the blog plug. If you actually know my list it has a single farseer, a single spiritseer, and no warlocks. Farseers generate 3 warp charges per player turn and can use 1 to cancel perils each time. Even with the worst possible ruling, the ONLY effect on my army would be losing my (non warlord) spirit seer to 2 comdemnor hits. It would take 6 hits to take out my farseer. My list doesn't rely on a 2++ rerollable and I've not used that combo in a single tournament game... ever.

The claim that I have a hidden agenda is a flat out lie without any foundation. Since I blog literally every list and game I play, feel free to try and prove me wrong.

My main concern is for the "health" of the game. I don't believe GW would create a 10pt piece of wargear that can remove 500pts of models without rolling to wound, no armor, no cover, no lookout sir. My only agenda is promoting an atmosphere and enjoyment of the hobby to the widest possible cross section of players. Since the RAW is unclear, my defense of the lesser beneficial RAI also leads to the least amount of people "rage quitting" due to significant chunks of their army getting removed by cheap wargear with poorly written rules.

@hyv3mnd

But couldn't the convese be true? Couldn't the ridiculous 2++ drive potentially more people away from the hobby than a ruling on an item that honestly only damages two builds in the entire game?

I know my enjoyment of the game diminishes when the type of list this effects shows up in force to events (and it has been). And let's be clear, I never felt diminished enjoyment when I saw tons GK's or Long Fang Spam, or Mech IG. I still got to play the game at that point

For what it's worth I don't think you have a "hidden" agenda. Nor do I really care. I've admitted my bias for my decisions. The way the local GT ruled it will make a better scene overall in my opinion and that's what I'm after. See, biased

I don't really think the "less rage quits" argument really applies when you want a ruling that encourages 2++ rerollable saves across a unit that every army has to deal with.

We have a tourney coming up and I think I just got the slow answer of the year when I asked how this was going to be ruled.

They are going to allow you to LOS the hit at STR5 AP-.

I have had a couple of people ask how we will be ruling on the Condemnor Boltgun for the Series event on Sunday (and, until GW issues a FAQ on it, into the future), and this is what we've decided:

When a unit that contains one or more models with the Psyker USR is hit by the Condemnor Boltgun, there will always be a "wound" added to the wound pool from that result. If the "to wound" roll for the weapon is successful, that wound will be a S5 AP - wound with the SOB version of "Psi-Shock". If the "to wound" (or armor penetration) roll is unsuccessful, it *still* puts something into the wound pool, but it is *only* the Psi-Shock effect. Wounds then get allocated as normal. If the wound (or the Psi-Shock) gets allocated to a model with the Psyker USR, that model suffers a perils.

Some illustrative examples. In all of these the target unit is a squad of Grey Hunters (GH) with Rune Priest (Psyker) attached. The Rune Priest is the closest model to the firer.

Example #1: Shooter scores one Condemnor wound. If the Rune Priest makes a Look Out Sir! roll, the Condemnor wound is passed to the nearest GH model, who takes a S5 AP- wound (i.e., Armor Save) plus Psi-Shock, which does nothing to the non-Psyker.

Example #2: Condemnor hits but fails to wound. Rune Priest can attempt to LOS! the hit onto a GH. If successful, there is no effect, since the shot didn't cause a wound, only Psi-Shock.

This ruling applies only to weapons with the new version of Psi-Shock that is in the "new" SOB codex. It's not clear whether the new codex authors intended for this change the existing Psi-Shock to be universal or not (e.g., the wave of FAQ updates to harmonize Servo Arms once the new SM Codex landed), so for now we're leaving it confined to the one weapon that has the variant rule.

For anyone that's interested in why we went this direction: It's a really poorly written rule. "Units" do not typically have the "Psyker" special rule. Individiual Models have the Psyker rule, and it is not one of the rules (e.g., Slow and Purposeful) that conveys from a single model to a unit. The GK Condemnor gets around this problem by requiring that an unsaved wound (not just a "hit") occur to trigger Psi-Shock.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mnd

But couldn't the convese be true? Couldn't the ridiculous 2++ drive potentially more people away from the hobby than a ruling on an item that honestly only damages two builds in the entire game?

I know my enjoyment of the game diminishes when the type of list this effects shows up in force to events (and it has been). And let's be clear, I never felt diminished enjoyment when I saw tons GK's or Long Fang Spam, or Mech IG. I still got to play the game at that point

It most certainly could be true, but that relies on several assumptions and assigning benefit of the doubt to a company with a history undeserving of that.

1. Fun is subjective. See all the comp debates that have popped up since the advent of 2++ rerollable. People complained about builds in the past being unfun. Despite this, there are always competitive gamers who say "I want to try by best list vs someone else's best list, and have fun doing so".

2. GW doesn't design the game for tournaments, and doesn't play test competitive tournament builds. Many people have the belief that GW didn't even realize a 2+ rerollable was possible or intended. The idea that they would design a piece or wargear to cause anywhere from 1 up to 13 (2 farseers, libby, 10 warlocks) perils on a unit with a single shot relies on the idea that they thoroughly playtest all unit combos.

3. TBH, when I hear the guys who brought thudd gun spam to a tournament complain about someone else's army ruining their fun, I LOL IRL. See point #1. The fact that you've used units in the past that "diminish others' enjoyment" causes me to throw out your whole "2++ rerollable is unfun" argument.

4. The screamerstar and jetseerstar rely on randomly generated psychic powers, successful psychic tests, and avoidance of psychic defenses such as runic weapons and SiTW. Condemnors are guaranteed (pay 10pts and you have it every time) and only require a 3+ to hit. No roll to wound, no armor, no invuln, no lookout sir. While people claim there's a huge issue with the 2++ rerollable deathstars, I believe only a single player (Matt D.) has had continued success at the GT level with it, when they need to generate the key powers in all 6/8 games. While it sucks when you're the guy they got their key powers against, I fail to see how it's different than a player with no AA facing the flying circus. And based on tournament results, those builds aren't a guaranteed win or dominating uncontested.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@hyv3mnd

But couldn't the convese be true? Couldn't the ridiculous 2++ drive potentially more people away from the hobby than a ruling on an item that honestly only damages two builds in the entire game?

I know my enjoyment of the game diminishes when the type of list this effects shows up in force to events (and it has been). And let's be clear, I never felt diminished enjoyment when I saw tons GK's or Long Fang Spam, or Mech IG. I still got to play the game at that point

It most certainly could be true, but that relies on several assumptions and assigning benefit of the doubt to a company with a history undeserving of that.

1. Fun is subjective. See all the comp debates that have popped up since the advent of 2++ rerollable. People complained about builds in the past being unfun. Despite this, there are always competitive gamers who say "I want to try by best list vs someone else's best list, and have fun doing so".

2. GW doesn't design the game for tournaments, and doesn't play test competitive tournament builds. Many people have the belief that GW didn't even realize a 2+ rerollable was possible or intended. The idea that they would design a piece or wargear to cause anywhere from 1 up to 13 (2 farseers, libby, 10 warlocks) perils on a unit with a single shot relies on the idea that they thoroughly playtest all unit combos.

3. TBH, when I hear the guys who brought thudd gun spam to a tournament complain about someone else's army ruining their fun, I LOL IRL. See point #1. The fact that you've used units in the past that "diminish others' enjoyment" causes me to throw out your whole "2++ rerollable is unfun" argument.

4. The screamerstar and jetseerstar rely on randomly generated psychic powers, successful psychic tests, and avoidance of psychic defenses such as runic weapons and SiTW. Condemnors are guaranteed (pay 10pts and you have it every time) and only require a 3+ to hit. No roll to wound, no armor, no invuln, no lookout sir. While people claim there's a huge issue with the 2++ rerollable deathstars, I believe only a single player (Matt D.) has had continued success at the GT level with it, when they need to generate the key powers in all 6/8 games. While it sucks when you're the guy they got their key powers against, I fail to see how it's different than a player with no AA facing the flying circus. And based on tournament results, those builds aren't a guaranteed win or dominating uncontested.

1. I consider myself a competitive player. However I think you missed my point. It's not my fun I'm worried about. I'll probably just make the game a silly what happens event for myself. But it's hard to argue that this list isn't frustrating. It's basically twice as bad as wound allocation shennanigans from 5th. And we all know how much the general player loved those even though there were work-arounds.

2. I'm not saying it's designed for it. I'm saying maybe a dude at GW was like "Know what, Sisters Hatred of all things psychic should have some punch! What about this? It's totally cinematic!". We don't know. I'm not saying they meant for it to fix a problem. i'm sayin I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when they accidentally fix a problem. See the difference?

3. Wow, took all the way to point three to try and make it personal. Well done. Last I checked a single unit isn't spam. Disregard that the list it was in was Target's, not mine and add in the only person who admitted to being upset by what the weapon did was a guy who beat us by the way Good try man.

4. It's not a lock but it's statistically suppose to happen. Oh, you can mitigate ally flyer vs. no AA on the tabletop. You can't really mitigate the damage the two units in question can do right now. Again, I'll beat most of those lists that go to actual game turns ending. But it's not about me.

Sorry you seem to feel I'm out to get you and you want to make it personal. Good luck to you sir in your crusade to defend two whole units from this single item.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Good luck to you sir in your crusade to defend two whole units from this single item.

Just to make this abundantly clear for those assigning intent where there is none.

I don't play the "two whole units" which I'm "crusading to defend". I don't own a single warlock. I don't own a daemon army.

I've spoken my mind about the rules in question. The debate is happening across blogs and forums everywhere and TO's are starting to make their rulings. I'll now know what to expect in my own meta and play accordingly.

Your own point about "ruining other's fun" not being valid invalidates your argument about ragequitting just as well. You seem to imply people who bring unfun units shouldn't be able to complain about 2++ rerollable saves, yet claim that people with those units may quit over the cb. Have it one way or the other.

Looks like this on has run it course.

The wording is vauge enough to give a T.O. the ability to take specific lists out of the running if facing sisters. At the same time, it equally alows him to say units don't have the psyker special rule therefore it does nothing.

Personally, if your really that up and arms against seer council and screamer star there is really no reason why you can't rule one randomized or 1 closest model perils, as both ruleings still allow the sisters to kill significant numbers of warlocks/heralds and don't 1-2 shot the unit psykers.

The random or even better the closest model makes the game fun for both players mainly because it forces the sisters to tactically use the condemnors, rather than oh I shot your 700 point unit and hit once killing 400 points of it. It forces the sisters to postion correctly multiple units to focus on the heralds/warlocks that are the ones with the powers needed to make the stars work.

Even if they only end up doing X Perils wounds for X total hits, they are still ridiculously powerful and there isn't much room to complain if that's how it shakes out.

I have no sympathy for any army built around the notorious re-rollable 2++ save. A strong counter is needed.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
We have a tourney coming up and I think I just got the slow answer of the year when I asked how this was going to be ruled.

They are going to allow you to LOS the hit at STR5 AP-.

I have had a couple of people ask how we will be ruling on the Condemnor Boltgun for the Series event on Sunday (and, until GW issues a FAQ on it, into the future), and this is what we've decided:

When a unit that contains one or more models with the Psyker USR is hit by the Condemnor Boltgun, there will always be a "wound" added to the wound pool from that result. If the "to wound" roll for the weapon is successful, that wound will be a S5 AP - wound with the SOB version of "Psi-Shock". If the "to wound" (or armor penetration) roll is unsuccessful, it *still* puts something into the wound pool, but it is *only* the Psi-Shock effect. Wounds then get allocated as normal. If the wound (or the Psi-Shock) gets allocated to a model with the Psyker USR, that model suffers a perils.

Some illustrative examples. In all of these the target unit is a squad of Grey Hunters (GH) with Rune Priest (Psyker) attached. The Rune Priest is the closest model to the firer.

Example #1: Shooter scores one Condemnor wound. If the Rune Priest makes a Look Out Sir! roll, the Condemnor wound is passed to the nearest GH model, who takes a S5 AP- wound (i.e., Armor Save) plus Psi-Shock, which does nothing to the non-Psyker.

Example #2: Condemnor hits but fails to wound. Rune Priest can attempt to LOS! the hit onto a GH. If successful, there is no effect, since the shot didn't cause a wound, only Psi-Shock.

This ruling applies only to weapons with the new version of Psi-Shock that is in the "new" SOB codex. It's not clear whether the new codex authors intended for this change the existing Psi-Shock to be universal or not (e.g., the wave of FAQ updates to harmonize Servo Arms once the new SM Codex landed), so for now we're leaving it confined to the one weapon that has the variant rule.

For anyone that's interested in why we went this direction: It's a really poorly written rule. "Units" do not typically have the "Psyker" special rule. Individiual Models have the Psyker rule, and it is not one of the rules (e.g., Slow and Purposeful) that conveys from a single model to a unit. The GK Condemnor gets around this problem by requiring that an unsaved wound (not just a "hit") occur to trigger Psi-Shock.

They just ruled that the special rule on the CBG does nothing on a 2+. It normally causes a str 5 hit regardless. Since when can you LOS PoTW? Ridiculous nonsense.

This ruling was probably made by people with 2++ save exploiting armies. This rule was obviously added to add balance to the game.

dadakkaest wrote:

This ruling was probably made by people with 2++ save exploiting armies. This rule was obviously added to add balance to the game.

This attitude and comment is unhelpful to the discussion. If you want to complain about an overpowered build (9 Wave Serpents, for example), take it to Tactics. They'll help you figure out how to defeat it.

Suffice it to say that regardless of implied motives the RAR says that upon a successful hit perils are suffered. Not wound. This is before wound allocation so this ruling is contradictory to the core rules of the game.

I don't see how you can LoS a PotW.

Yeah that seems to break the normal flow of resolving shooting entirely. Changes from roll to hit, roll to wound, roll saves from closest model, save rerolls, feel no pain, Look out sir.

Apparently Condemnor Boltguns are so powerful that they now resolve shooting roll to hit, look out sir, roll to wound, saves, etc. And no one ruled if the closest model is an independant character, do they get a second LoS at the end?

Really under the current rules you can 2+ LoS a bullet from a Vindicare Assassin...
Wearing 41st century stealth camo.
With BS8.
Sitting the equivalent of several hundred yards away...
At night!

So who knows how this will finally get ruled. I'm pulling for resolve perils according to the rules of the closest model in the squad with the psyker special rule and then resolve wound as normal. That seems like it's not too OP and would still give the Witch Hunters the ability to hunt some witches.

FAQ doesn't let you LOS the Vindicate anymore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
FAQ doesn't let you LOS the Vindicate anymore.

Sure it does. And then the Vindicare still gets to allocate the wound.

 Happyjew wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
FAQ doesn't let you LOS the Vindicate anymore.

Sure it does. And then the Vindicare still gets to allocate the wound.

Thanks for splitting hairs there. The point was more that you can't shuffle that wound off anymore because in the end you'll end up taking it anyways.

I wish I had read that FAQ before My vindicare's wounds in the last apocalypse game I played got reallocated off of some sort of chaos aspiring champion who later in the game forced a toughness test on my seraphim unit with some piece of wargear and killed off half of them despite the chaos cultists losing combat.

Enough about me failing though. Condemnor Boltguns, how do they work?

Seems to me that if/when they FAQ it this thing will either be feast or famine. Either it will be the envy of every witch hunter in the galaxy... or the sisters will constantly mock the superior for her lack of useful equipment.

Personally, I thought it was kinda nice to see something specifically against psykers that was useful. Kinda in character with the army and yet lacking in the former books.

Guess we'll see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if we don't get the useful rules, i'll stick with a combi-melta so I can pop 260 point land raiders in one shot instead.

The digital version of codex Adepta Sororitas was updated. Should resolve the condemnor boltgun questions. It now clearly procs upon hitting an individual psyker instead of a unit.

farrenj wrote:
The digital version of codex Adepta Sororitas was updated. Should resolve the condemnor boltgun questions. It now clearly procs upon hitting an individual psyker instead of a unit.

Could you please provide the new rule for clarity?

I just updated my iTunes version and I'm still showing the old rule on all entries with the Condemnor so I don't know what's going on there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just updated my iTunes version and I'm still showing the old rule on all entries with the Condemnor so I don't know what's going on there.

The rule quoted in the other thread seems to be a summary rule and is less clear and certainly doesn't clarify the issue. We will see. Doesn't seem like anyone else is showing the updated rule.

 Zagman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just updated my iTunes version and I'm still showing the old rule on all entries with the Condemnor so I don't know what's going on there.

The rule quoted in the other thread seems to be a summary rule and is less clear and certainly doesn't clarify the issue. We will see. Doesn't seem like anyone else is showing the updated rule.

I saw that post too, but I didn't see it in my book as all the versions of Psi-Shock I could find have the original rule in it.

 Zagman wrote:

farrenj wrote:
The digital version of codex Adepta Sororitas was updated. Should resolve the condemnor boltgun questions. It now clearly procs upon hitting an individual psyker instead of a unit.

Could you please provide the new rule for clarity?

As per the iBook version:

Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.

Not to sound accusatory but has anyone else even confirmed this? I've updated my copy twice and it still shows the same rule that started this thread.

I confirm it. IBooks edition, now it's the psyker hit. Stilly have issue of damage prior to wound allocation, but whatever.

Kinda sucks again. 5pts, maybe. 10? Nope.

 TheKbob wrote:
I confirm it. IBooks edition, now it's the psyker hit. Stilly have issue of damage prior to wound allocation, but whatever.

Kinda sucks again. 5pts, maybe. 10? Nope.

Huh. I have no idea what's going on with my version then. This is annoying me a bit now actually.

Well I'm glad I didn't expect it to stay good. That would have been too easy.

The Epub version wasn't updated. So with 3 versions going around (iBook, Epub and mobi) are we going to have 3 sets of rules? Without a FAQ it seems so..

You hit units though, not models. Assuming the above quote is verbatim, doesn’t that make the ‘whole seer council dies’ argument stronger?

I disagree as the whole shooting process exists for one simple reason: To generate a wound pool.

That wound pool is then allocated not to the unit as a whole, but one at a time to each individual model that makes up this unit. This allocation is done before said model uses any ability or war-gear to try and negate the wound, making it dead easy for us to conclude which models where hit by potentially lethal shots during said shooting attack. Given that the shooting attack is designed to generate something which affects individual models, and the ease at which we can conclude which models are actually hit, I have to conclude that shooting attacks do in fact hit individual models and not the unit as a whole.

No, you hit units. Cite the rule that allows a hit to be on a model.

Besides precision shots (and other similar special rules) hits are done to the unit.

So with this new update, how do you allocate the perils result? If you assign it to the same model that gets wounded by the condemnor, what if the condemnor fails to wound?

teban wrote:

Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.

Good thing my sisters squads aren't taking stake crossbows. Ugh to copy-pasting the 5th edition pre-WD dex stake crossbow rule. Stake Crossbows don't even appear in the new Dex. They were inquisitor only gear way back in the day.

The psi-shock rule hasn't changed in my download and condemnor bolt gun still has the psi-shock RAW AFAIK.

Psychic death stars with 2++ reroll need to go away for good.

If the entity of a shooting attack is resolved against an unit as a whole; then please tell me how many wounds the unit has....

I do conclude that certain elements of a shooting attack are done at a unit level, for one you nominate which unit you are actually shooting at. However it is not the entirety of the shooting attack that addresses entire units, there are a lot of elements that can only ever be resolved against individual models. In fact, I would say once you reach a certain point in the sequence you have moved away from the 'unit level' as everything after that point is resolved against individual models. Wounds are allocated to the closest individual model, then saves are taken against that models characteristics. If the attack is successful, then individual models are wounded and removed as casualties.

It is pretty obvious we have a system which allows us to see which individual models are 'hit....'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallguynsc,

Treat it as any other weapon with a unique special rule, roll the To Hit separately and keep any wounds generated separate within the pool.

Dont' have my book nearby, but would Psykers be able to Look Out Sir the Perils result or do they not get to as there is not a To-Wound roll? (not quite sure if that's necessary to make a LoS).

Jinx - only hits are against the unit; wounds allocate to models, not hits.

Isn't wound allocation part of the shooting sequence?

Yes, however the shooting sequence differentiates between unit and model, consistently. Hits are units, wounds are models.

I've updated my iPad version 4 times now and it still says "a unit that...."

Maybe I need to uninstall and reinstall it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind. From the GW DE Facebook page:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Charles,
They haven't, the ibooks edition of Codex:Adepta Sororitas revived a formating update to bring it in line with the new Apple Mavericks operating system for apple computers, but the rules are unchanged.

The eBook edition does not automatically update, but the date of the last update is always displayed on the product page, and you can re-download an up-to-date copy at any time from the 'my downloads' section of your account.

- Eddie

The rule hasn't changed then.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Condemnors are guaranteed (pay 10pts and you have it every time) and only require a 3+ to hit. No roll to wound, no armor, no invuln, no lookout sir.

I disagree with guaranteed.

10pts to have a a single 50% chance to cause a wound against psyker special rule models within 24" isn't guaranteeing anything. Especially since it's so situational and against armies that don't use psykers is not simply less useful but rather completely useless. Spamming condemnors is going to cause a sisters' force that's already barely adequate against MEQ's in their shooting range to suffer a greater disadvantage, And even moreso against hordes where a single extra combi-flamer shot can make a potential difference between being charged and not charged.

Then I will need to review the To Hit section when I get home, it is a step that I have done so many times without referencing so I honestly do not know the exact wording within anymore.

I do have to ask something though:
What is the exact wording on the updated rule, if it even exists?

Normally special rules that change the standard order of events are very specifically written. They will use terminology like 'on a successful To Hit roll' to inform us at what point the rule is deviating away from the standard process. They are then followed with detailed instructions on what you do instead of the standard methods because without such details... well broken rules are broken. Therefore if this rule is talking about 'hitting psykers' to mean the To Hit roll, and not the wound allocation steps, it would need to have to use this exact term to inform us when the special rule takes affect and provide details on how the special rule is resolved because it is operating outside of the standard methods.

Does it contain this rule contain such terminology and instructions?

JinxDragon wrote:
Then I will need to review the To Hit section when I get home, it is a step that I have done so many times without referencing so I honestly do not know the exact wording within anymore.

I do have to ask something though:
What is the exact wording on the updated rule, if it even exists?

According to GW Digital Editions, no rules were updated. Frankly I'm willing to believe them since they're the ones who do the updates.

So we are trying to work out how a rule that doesn't exist functions based on a single poster who commented that it 'procs on hit'....

JinxDragon wrote:
So we are trying to work out how a rule that doesn't exist functions based on a single poster who commented that it 'procs on hit'....

Well the rule as it stands says it causes perils on a hit so it's not like the "new rule" really was making anything better.

Guess the only thing we can honestly say on the matter is this: Badly written rule is badly written.....

While I was more then willing to try and fit this triangle peg into the square hole of 'standard shooting rules,' just for some sort of resolution, it really isn't looking good thanks to the poor terminology chosen. The term 'on a hit' really is not very well defined, far from the usual 'on a successful To Hit roll' that I would normally expect from better written rules, but that isn't enough to state they are talking about something other then the To Hit roll because they very well could be talking about said roll. So I have to conclude that it is so poorly written that it is possible to simply call it broken and be done with it, because it clearly is....

 ClockworkZion wrote:

According to GW Digital Editions, no rules were updated. Frankly I'm willing to believe them since they're the ones who do the updates.

Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

I think Kyrinov was in the codex up until almost the end and got shifted to fluff when his mold wasn't renewed.

JinxDragon wrote:
So I have to conclude that it is so poorly written that it is possible to simply call it broken and be done with it, because it clearly is....

That's really... unhelpful...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

I think Kyrinov was in the codex up until almost the end and got shifted to fluff when his mold wasn't renewed.

Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as the Condemnor Boltgun goes, we've been playing it as such:

Target unit.
Roll to hit.
Did condemnor hit?
Yes.
Add 1 wound to the wound pool with no save allowed.
Shooter determines when wound is dealt in the order of wounds.

So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

JinxDragon wrote:
So we are trying to work out how a rule that doesn't exist functions based on a single poster who commented that it 'procs on hit'....

I don't appreciate the implication here. Maybe GW screwed up and different versions were updated differently but my digital codex on my ipad that I updated through ibooks today has changed the psi-shock rules to the stake crossbow verbage.

I also don't appreciate that you're trying to say that my word choice of proc would somehow suggest that what I say isn't trustworthy. Everyone here understands what the word proc means even if the terminology isn't native to 40k or wargaming.

Dadakkaest,
I did try and put it into context of a standard attack; but people complained that 'hits' are resolved at the unit level. While I am still not convinced that 'psykers hit' means the 'To Hit' roll, and not wound allocation, it doesn't matter. The interpretation of 'hit' could very well be derived from the To Hit roll, which can easily be argued is resolved against the targeted unit and not individual models. Helpful or not, this does mean the rule is broken because it is penned in such a way that it can never be applied as written....

Farrenj,
I do not mean to imply that you are being dishonest. There are possible reasons as to why you where able to access this information when others where unable to. It could very well be an error on Game Workshop's part, maybe they accidentally released the information ahead of scheduled and then withdrew it. Maybe they are still in the process of updating other sources, so only the type being used by you right now is accurate. Whatever the reasoning though, the update can not be independently verified from multiple sources at this exact moment so I simply can not trust the accuracy of the post until then.

However I do have to point this out: When discussing rules, particularly rules as written, the terminology used within those rules is very important.

 deviantduck wrote:
So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

And if it's the only wound in the pool and the Psyker is 5 models away?
You just arbitrarily kill something that isn't a Psyker?

Yeah, that's my least favorite house rule interpretation of the rule.

 deviantduck wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah the language about "Stake Crossbow" is old text left over from the Witch Hunters 5th ed codex. The new Adeptas Sororitas codex is definitely in need of an editor, for example the first paragraph fluff for Redemptor Kyrinov (also from previous ed. witch hunters codex) appears at the end of Jacobus' entry in the Digital Edition.

I think Kyrinov was in the codex up until almost the end and got shifted to fluff when his mold wasn't renewed.

Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.

You have a basis for that? I ask because between our theories mine is looking a bit more likely since his relic is in C:AS and his model is OOP.

rigeld2 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

And if it's the only wound in the pool and the Psyker is 5 models away?
You just arbitrarily kill something that isn't a Psyker?

Correct. That is how we house rule it. It's similar to dealing 5 flamer wounds to guys out of the templates range because they're within the squads range. it only makes sense in the rules, not the fluff. I would love it to be hit a squad, kill its psyker, no questions asked, but it's tough to convince the owner of the psyker model, based on vaguely worded rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.
You have a basis for that? I ask because between our theories mine is looking a bit more likely since his relic is in C:AS and his model is OOP.

They wouldn't leave him out just because of lack of model, a model which has been around for decades and easy enough to obtain. Also, in one of the inquisition threads someone quoted from a GW email response he wasn't 'left out' of the AS codex. I could very happily be wrong, it just feels like they are moving him from AS to Inquisition.

 deviantduck wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So you could kill off 3 front guys with bolters, then when the model you want to receive the wound is now closest model, you then allocate the condemnor wound.

And if it's the only wound in the pool and the Psyker is 5 models away?
You just arbitrarily kill something that isn't a Psyker?

Correct. That is how we house rule it. It's similar to dealing 5 flamer wounds to guys out of the templates range because they're within the squads range. it only makes sense in the rules, not the fluff. I would love it to be hit a squad, kill its psyker, no questions asked, but it's tough to convince the owner of the psyker model, based on vaguely worded rules.

It'd be harder to convince me that you're causing a PotW wound on a non-psyker model... but have fun with that house rule.

We've played it such that you cause one peril on the closest psyker for each hit. That was our reading of intent - so no wiping out units, but no getting away from having to take the perils if the unit is hit.

Causing a perils on a non-psyker model seems a bit wierd to me.

It seems no less weird than a perils occuring on the opposite side of a unit which may or may-not be outside the condemnor's range.

We haven't run across it yet, but until it is FAQd, i'm not letting someone pop my psykers without pointing to the Psyker rule in the list of unit special rules.

It doesn't seem weird to me. You can fluff it out easy enough. An anti-psyker bolt gets too close to a psyker and their mixed energies cause a rift in the warp a mere few feet from the psyker and the warp eats the psyker's buddy, Carl the Boltgun guy.

I paid 10 pts to deal an unsavable wound. I'm happy.

Beside the causal effect of the psi shock, can someone point to where it states that it is a combi weapon? I see it listed in warhead, as a separate entry than combis. Just wondering if I missed something.

graeye wrote:
Beside the causal effect of the psi shock, can someone point to where it states that it is a combi weapon? I see it listed in warhead, as a separate entry than combis. Just wondering if I missed something.

Right above the statline in the Reliquary Ministorum:

A condemnor boltgun follows all the rules for combi-weapons. The primary weapon is a boltgun. The secondary weapon has the following profile

Until GW pulls their heads out of their rears, I will play it as follows:

Page 55 – Condemnor Boltgun, profile *.
Change to “* Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a
stake crossbow shot[…]”

from C: GK.

 Happyjew wrote:
Until GW pulls their heads out of their rears, I will play it as follows:

Page 55 – Condemnor Boltgun, profile *.
Change to “* Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a
stake crossbow shot[…]”

from C: GK.

Which makes it, unfortunately, completely useless.

 pretre wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Until GW pulls their heads out of their rears, I will play it as follows:

Page 55 – Condemnor Boltgun, profile *.
Change to “* Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a
stake crossbow shot[…]”

from C: GK.

Which makes it, unfortunately, completely useless.

It really doesn't - but I'd allow it to be "allocated a Wound" instead of suffering an unsaved wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Until GW pulls their heads out of their rears, I will play it as follows:

Page 55 – Condemnor Boltgun, profile *.
Change to “* Any psyker taking an unsaved Wound from a
stake crossbow shot[…]”

from C: GK.

Which makes it, unfortunately, completely useless.

It really doesn't - but I'd allow it to be "allocated a Wound" instead of suffering an unsaved wound.

See, that would make it useful.

'Unsaved Wound' makes it pretty yucky, since most psykers have at least 3+ save and the Condemnor doesn't take that away. Allocate is good since they would take a wound from the Perils right there.

Maybe that is why I never see GK players take them. I agree, though, if the wound is allocated to a psyker, it suffers Perils.

Clearly I am with the group that would like to house-rule this to read 'when a wound is allocated' because that is the only way I can see individuals model being 'hit' by a weapon.

 deviantduck wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kyrinov isn't in the SoB codex because he's going to be in the Inquisition codex. They lanced him off because cool inquisitors are few and far between. I'm wondering if Coteaz will suffer the same fate.
You have a basis for that? I ask because between our theories mine is looking a bit more likely since his relic is in C:AS and his model is OOP.

They wouldn't leave him out just because of lack of model, a model which has been around for decades and easy enough to obtain. Also, in one of the inquisition threads someone quoted from a GW email response he wasn't 'left out' of the AS codex. I could very happily be wrong, it just feels like they are moving him from AS to Inquisition.

Actually post dealing with CHS, they would. No rules for things with no model is the policy now it seems.

Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Except models don't get hit. Units do. It doesn't fix anything. And not all editions were updated and the digital guys said they didn't change everything. So not quite done yet.

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

 pretre wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Except models don't get hit. Units do. It doesn't fix anything. And not all editions were updated and the digital guys said they didn't change everything. So not quite done yet.

And that's quite obviously the psi-shock rule wording for the 5th edition Witch Hunters book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

It's been updated.

teban wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

It's been updated.

That's pretty vague and unhelpful. I've tried updated 5 separate times and have the same rule in my codex as before. I was asking if someone who updated and sees this new rule can try updating again and seeing if it changes again. This is to test a theory that perhaps a bad update went out that was replaced with a different one later that changed the rule back.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

teban wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Guys, the rule got updated. I'm not it lying. It's Psyker hit takes a perils. It's done.

Mind doing me a favor and trying to update again? I've tried 5 times now (3 yesterday, 2 today) and it still doesn't show the changed rule. I'm wondering if it was an accidental update that was replaced by the older version of the rule.

It's been updated.

That's pretty vague and unhelpful. I've tried updated 5 separate times and have the same rule in my codex as before. I was asking if someone who updated and sees this new rule can try updating again and seeing if it changes again. This is to test a theory that perhaps a bad update went out that was replaced with a different one later that changed the rule back.

Sorry, it took a while to upload the image, but here it is



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Okay, but did you update again to see if it stays that way or not?

Christ is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Okay, but did you update again to see if it stays that way or not?

Christ is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?

I updated it yesterday, which had the other wording. Give me some minutes and i'll give you that answer

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Okay, but did you update again to see if it stays that way or not?

Christ is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?

It would appear not.

I would help but I do not possess funds to purchase either a viewer or the book.

I have downloaded the ibook version again. The wording remained the same as in the picture i uploaded 2 posts up.

In other words... this remained:



I don't understand why you're not getting the new version. I'm not very familiar with the iPad, however, you should try to reset your cache on your device.

Well to try and see if it was just a failed update on my end I just deleted my copy and am downloading a fresh copy. I'll post when it's downloaded and I can actually say what my new copy has.

Also, is your version the ebook or via ibooks? That might have something to do with it. They might be two different versions. I have the ibooks version and just updated it and it still reads the same.

 Happyjew wrote:
Maybe that is why I never see GK players take them. I agree, though, if the wound is allocated to a psyker, it suffers Perils.

well the rules state that any psyker hit by it suffers perils, OBS we dont really know who is hit till the wound is allocated, but then with things like LOsir to re allocate, even though the psyker was actually hit (wounding is after hits) gets bit complex,

so its a bit of a kerfuffle for sure with the wording on the rule. Id say the intent is that once the psyker is determined to be the model hit (ie is 1st in line to be allocated the wound, before LOSirs), then it suffers perils, even if it LOS's the wound away, as he has been hit before wounds are allocated. its very much ambiguous and poorly written.

to be honest, its a moot point, either way, the condemner is utterly worthless since its a one shot only thing, and its "intended" use would really only seem to work if you had a psyker first in line to take the hits

Regardless of how the ruling eventually goes, it will be pretty powerful against Daemon MCs, Tyranid MCs, and GK Vehicles/MCs. Any single-model unit that is a Psyker will take wounds--not too shabby.

Alright looks like the problem was a cache issue.



So to quote a movie here: "It just raises too many questions."

Yes, that wording is incredibly unhelpful, as units are hit not models. It also doesnt work, as it is a condemnor boltgun not a stake crossbow....

So they changed it to what is written in the GK codex (and was overridden by the FAQ)...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, that wording is incredibly unhelpful, as units are hit not models. It also doesnt work, as it is a condemnor boltgun not a stake crossbow....

condemner boltguns special shot is the stake crossbow,
its just a combi weapon with a one shot crossbow in the detailed desctiption in GK codex.

thats why I say its worthless, its one shot only, and very few models can take it.

even if RAW and RAI were just that you had to "hit" the psyker, and he cant re allocate hits as he can wounds, so no getting out of the perils with a LOS roll, its just ONE perils, and done,

very un usefull even if it works as intended, as without precision shots you wont hit the psyker, as you will with mindstrike missles, which have the same stupid "if hit then perils" wording,

I posted on GW: DE's Facebook page about the issues with "hits" and how it's supposed to work in regards to Psykers hidden in a squad. We'll see if they get back to us.

They should just make the damn thing a combi that fires a small blast template that only perils and doesn't do the str5 AP- hit and use the psi-shock missile FAQ from the GK codex and be done with it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, that wording is incredibly unhelpful, as units are hit not models. It also doesnt work, as it is a condemnor boltgun not a stake crossbow....

Yep. This "update" was pretty much worthless. If they were going to go through the effort of updating the wording, they could have at least gotten it close to usable.

So here's what I posted on FB yesterday (for context):

Games Workshop: Digital Editions, so I dig the update to the Sororitas codex but a couple of small things:
1. On the iPad version if you look at the "Act of Faith" rule for the Canoness under her listing in the Army List it brings up the "Armour of Faith" entry that belong to the Emperor's Champion.
2. For the Condemnor Boltgun, it says when a Psyker is "hit" they suffer a perils of the Warp, and that works for Psykers who aren't in units and units with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, but how do we determine if a Psyker in a unit of non-Psyker models is "hit"? The rules don't give us a way to allocated "hits" only "wounds".

And here's the reply:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions,
We're aware of both of those and an update is going through Apple now for Approval.
When you get the prompt to update, those changes will be in included.

So that should be updated in a few days.

At least we now know it is worthless to take. Unless your opponent is a muttonhead and puts his psyker out front or runs him solo your odds of this thing doing much are nil.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
At least we now know it is worthless to take. Unless your opponent is a muttonhead and puts his psyker out front or runs him solo your odds of this thing doing much are nil.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Regardless of how the ruling eventually goes, it will be pretty powerful against Daemon MCs, Tyranid MCs, GK Vehicles/MCs. Any single-model unit that is a Psyker will take wounds--not too shabby.

Also, any unit with BoS/P will take an usaveable wound. Kill the Justicar in a GK unit? That's pretty cool.

Because all GK players have the justicar out front or won't think to take a LOS will they?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Because all GK players have the justicar out front or won't think to take a LOS will they?

Go read the Brotherhood of Psykers rule again. Doesn't matter if you hit the Justicar or not, he's eating the Perils.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Because all GK players have the justicar out front or won't think to take a LOS will they?

Go read the Brotherhood of Psykers rule again. Doesn't matter if you hit the Justicar or not, he's eating the Perils.

And secondly half this thread has been discussing the issue of the rules not alowing the allocation or LOS of hits, only wounds.

The ruling for the Las Vegas GT regarding condemnors is the following. All editing issues between the epub and ibook aside. There's also no such thing as a LoS for hits, only wounds. So the Wound from the Str5 could be LoS'd but not the PotW

Condemnor Boltgun for Sisters of battle. When it hits a unit with a psyker, it does normal damage and causes Perils. Now in a unit with more than one psyker, does it cause Perils to every psyker or unit with brotherhood of psykers? Or just one? If just one, how do you determine which one?
We read it as one Perils allocated to the closest psyker.

- See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/10/22/signals-from-the-frontline-warhammer-40k-and-general-gaming-news-rumors-tactics-and-humor-3/#sthash.L6iimTnn.dpuf

Keep this in mind when choosing where and how many of the condemnors to take.

You do realize that the DEX entry everyone was talking about for the first 5 pages was changed don't you?

I have the dex. I bought it on Black Library There's a conflict between the Epub and the Ibook. Therefore the issue is not settled. And the fact that the wording is the same as my 4th ed Witch Hunters dex is more reason to believe that the Ibook version is yet another of the many errors in editing on the dex. Added to the literal admission by GW in this thread that it's not correct and there have been no intentional changes since the first issuance.

The ruling for the GT stands and I'm willing to bet that Condemnor is going to be meant to coutneract cheaty psyker units like screamerstar and seer counsil.

But screamerstar and Eldar munchkins who want their win button like a fat kid wants a candy bar at the expense of the hobby at large don't want to listen.

This is the newly worded entry ( mine updated today) in the ibook copy. Unfortunately fairly clear the psyker has to be closest to even take a perils.

Psi-Shock
Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.  

I explained it to you already, read my post again. That is the wording for the 4th edition dex, which cruddace obviously copypastad as the base for the new dex. Which is why Confessor Krynov still appears in an inexplicably unedited paragraph after Jacobus.

Also stake crossbow doesn't exist in the current game. Therefore my entry which defines the rules for condemnor boltgun (which is not a stake crossbow, or a meltagun, or a splinter rifle, or anything else which is not called condemnor boltgun) supercedes it. Not arguable.

Also Games Workshop has literally come down into this thread and said that they haven't edited the dex from the original text. Therefore the reinclusion of the stake crossbow text is fairly obviously an error and not intentional.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
This is the newly worded entry ( mine updated today) in the ibook copy. Unfortunately fairly clear the psyker has to be closest to even take a perils.

Psi-Shock
Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.  

And? That has already been posted, and shown to be useless. You don't hit models, you hit units, and the stake crossbow doesn't exist....

B.B.B.but this will make my screamerstar merely amazing and not simply autowin!

dadakkaest wrote:
I explained it to you already, read my post again. That is the wording for the 4th edition dex, which cruddace obviously copypastad as the base for the new dex. Which is why Confessor Krynov still appears in an inexplicably unedited paragraph after Jacobus.

Also stake crossbow doesn't exist in the current game. Therefore my entry which defines the rules for condemnor boltgun (which is not a stake crossbow, or a meltagun, or a splinter rifle, or anything else which is not called condemnor boltgun) supercedes it. Not arguable.

Also Games Workshop has literally come down into this thread and said that they haven't edited the dex from the original text. Therefore the reinclusion of the stake crossbow text is fairly obviously an error and not intentional.

They then said yesterday that they just released the update and then I got confirmation that another update is coming as soon as iTunes approves it.

Thanks CwZ. I also sent GW a note and tried to get an expedited ruling.

I really hope all of our messages to GW will result in a clear, concise rule regarding this weapon that balances the psyker abusing army lists in the current meta and is a boost to sisters, Grey Knights, and Codex: Inquisition making them competitive armies in the future.

The current situation of broken Eldar and Chaos lists in meta mostly due to abuse of psykers needs to be balanced.

dadakkaest wrote:But screamerstar and Eldar munchkins who want their win button like a fat kid wants a candy bar at the expense of the hobby at large don't want to listen.

dadakkaest wrote:B.B.B.but this will make my screamerstar merely amazing and not simply autowin!

Accusations of bias are cute. Especially since the GT ruling means literally nothing outside that GT.
Do you want to discuss rules or just throw out insults?

Remember, it will take 6 Condmenor shots to kill a Farseer. 7 to kill Eldrad.

 Happyjew wrote:
Remember, it will take 6 Condmenor shots to kill a Farseer. 7 to kill Eldrad.

I think paying the points for a Condemner is a fair trade for Eldrad getting less powers off. (I'd pay it if I ever took a Hereticus Inq)

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Remember, it will take 6 Condmenor shots to kill a Farseer. 7 to kill Eldrad.

I think paying the points for a Condemner is a fair trade for Eldrad getting less powers off. (I'd pay it if I ever took a Hereticus Inq)

Except he'll still get to cast the same number of powers, since Warp Charges are generated at the start of each (player) turn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
This is the newly worded entry ( mine updated today) in the ibook copy. Unfortunately fairly clear the psyker has to be closest to even take a perils.

Psi-Shock
Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.  

And? That has already been posted, and shown to be useless. You don't hit models, you hit units, and the stake crossbow doesn't exist....

The sad part is you believe this. I guess you've never heard of the term combi weapon where on part is a bolter and the other part is a.......wait for it.......stake crossbow. Do yourself a favor and take a look at the Adepta Sororitus Dex under the weapons section. Actually read it and guess what you find as the description for the condemnor boltgun? Any bet you find the words "stake crossbow".

The rule is not for a condemnor boltgun. It's for a stake crossbow from 4th edition which is a compltely seperate weapon and is in fact, not a combi-weapon...

Psykers take perils and are removed from the table. This is the ruling from the TO's of the Las Vegas GT.

GT TO > You.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
This is the newly worded entry ( mine updated today) in the ibook copy. Unfortunately fairly clear the psyker has to be closest to even take a perils.

Psi-Shock
Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.  

And? That has already been posted, and shown to be useless. You don't hit models, you hit units, and the stake crossbow doesn't exist....

The sad part is you believe this. I guess you've never heard of the term combi weapon where on part is a bolter and the other part is a.......wait for it.......stake crossbow. Do yourself a favor and take a look at the Adepta Sororitus Dex under the weapons section. Actually read it and guess what you find as the description for the condemnor boltgun? Any bet you find the words "stake crossbow".

Please cite permission to use fluff as rules.

Since the name of the weapon is "Condemnor Boltgun" (as listed in the profile for the one-shot weapon), and not "Stake Crossbow". Now, if you read the information for the GK Condmenor Boltgun, you'll notice the rues refer to the one-shot weapon as a "stake-crossbow".

These rules are more recent than the 5th edition codex you are citing and supercede the now outdated codex text unless you have expressly agreed to play by 5th edition rules..

dadakkaest wrote:
The rule is not for a condemnor boltgun. It's for a stake crossbow from 4th edition which is a compltely seperate weapon and is in fact, not a combi-weapon...

Psykers take perils and are removed from the table. This is the ruling from the TO's of the Las Vegas GT.

GT TO > You.

The Condemnor used to be called "Bolter-Stake Crossbow" which was specifically mentioned to be a combi-weapon in 3rd actually.

The name changed but the weapon is the same, and that is not the old rule for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, GT TO is only "> you" when you play in their tournament, otherwise they are no greater than any other player out there.

Okay I give up, you guys win. Go screamerstar and Ovesastar spam each other until the whole hobby collapses in on itself for lack of balance, diversity, and competitiveness.

 Happyjew wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
This is the newly worded entry ( mine updated today) in the ibook copy. Unfortunately fairly clear the psyker has to be closest to even take a perils.

Psi-Shock
Any psyker hit by a stake crossbow shot suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other effects.  

And? That has already been posted, and shown to be useless. You don't hit models, you hit units, and the stake crossbow doesn't exist....

The sad part is you believe this. I guess you've never heard of the term combi weapon where on part is a bolter and the other part is a.......wait for it.......stake crossbow. Do yourself a favor and take a look at the Adepta Sororitus Dex under the weapons section. Actually read it and guess what you find as the description for the condemnor boltgun? Any bet you find the words "stake crossbow".

Please cite permission to use fluff as rules.

Since the name of the weapon is "Condemnor Boltgun" (as listed in the profile for the one-shot weapon), and not "Stake Crossbow". Now, if you read the information for the GK Condmenor Boltgun, you'll notice the rues refer to the one-shot weapon as a "stake-crossbow".

Are you saying you'd not allow someone to use the AS condemnor in a game?
So by your logic there is no such thing as a combi flamer, melta or anything else? When you fire the melta part of a combi metla what is the STR and AP of the shot? How do you know it is a melta weapon? Could it be due to the description of the weapon. The Stake Crossbow isnt in fluff it is in the Weapon description. Or is what you are saying is that you don't beleive the description of a crossbow armature that fires silver stakes with siguls isn't a stake crossbow? If that is your stance OK then I guess we are done here.

@dadakkaest: This is a "Rules as Written" forum, not a "Rules as Interpretted by TOs in Events Only a Few Will Play At".

Just because it's broken right now does not mean it will be broken later. GW Digital Editions has already said an update is on the way, it just needs to get approved by iTunes first. Until we see what that says unbunch your britches and take it easy. This isn't going to break the game, it leaves the game no worse than where it was before Sisters got an update.

Besides if people want anti-psyker so bad, take Grey Knights for the time being. Between their Condemnors and Minstrike Missiles, they can make a mess of some Psykers.

Or Tyranids.

Well if we're going with RAW then the Condemnor does perils on every psyker in the unit, because that's what the last codex update says, regardless of what Ipad users say. See the earlier communication with GW in the thread for reference.

I'm fine with that.

I also pulled my sisters out of the basement after 10 years for this update. If they nerf condemnors while ignoring abuse of chaos 2++ rerollable and Deldar/eldar rerollable invulnerable saves, I'm going to write GW a long letter full of nasty words and sell them. Simple as that. I'm kind of upset about their inability to balance the game in regards to these obviously broken rules.

dadakkaest wrote:
Well if we're going with RAW then the Condemnor does perils on every psyker in the unit, because that's what the last codex update says, regardless of what Ipad users say. See the earlier communication with GW in the thread for reference.

I'm fine with that.

Except that's not what it says at all. Please leave your obvious bias out of your posts.

Nonsesnse accusations of bias

Everyone should be biased. aginst metagame breaking rules like 2++ rerollable saves.

AFAIK in my ebook says the unit takes perils from a condemnor bolt gun. This is the only 6th edition text for this rule.

Psi-shock: Any unit with the Pskyer, Brotherhood of Psykers or Psychic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage.

Any unit.

That means the whole unit.

On a hit.

Stake crossbows aren't in my codex.

You can disagree, but you're wrong.

That's my interpretation of the RAW. Period.

@dadakaest, have you tried updating your ebook codex? I'm just curious if there is a more recent version for you since the Black Library site says there was an update:

Black Library wrote:Latest Update:
November 7th 2013 - Condemnor Boltgun and Allies rules clarifications

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, could you tone it down a bit? You're being overly defensive about this topic and as established even if it got resolved today, you'd need to hit Eldrad with roughly 7 Perils in the same turn actually kill him that way. He's more likely to die from wounds from the S5, AP- shot first than the actual Perils. It's a nice utility weapon but it's not game changing and frankly there aren't enough Sisters armies out there for it to really change how things are being played.

I guess this is just what I get for expecting GW to give a damn about veteran players. Okay I give I'll stop trying to play an interesting and rareish army and go play screamerstar, wave serpent, and riptide spam.

feth this game.

dadakkaest wrote:
Yeah I am biased. And so are you I hope.

Against metagame breaking rules like 2++ rerollable saves.

Not when discussing rules. And I don't have a problem with 2++ rerollable saves.

AFAIK in my ebook says the unit takes perils from a condemnor bolt gun. This is the only 6th edition text for this rule.

Psi-shock: Any unit with the Pskyer, Brotherhood of Psykers or Psychic Pilot special rules that is hit by a weapon with this special rule suffers the Perils of the Warp in addition to any other damage.

Any unit.

Any unit with the Psyker rule.
Go ahead - name every unit in the game with the Psyker rule. You won't find Screamers on that list.

That's my interpretation of the RAW. Period.

And your interpretation has no basis in actual rules.

- Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

@dadakkaest: you haven't told me if you've tried updating your codex yet. I know the iPad version is updated, and the BL says they updated their rules.

I got the latest one now.

GW to veteran players with diverse lists: Get fethed.

GW to broken monobuild codxes: Please, more of this.

Games Workshop are garbage. I feel entirely suckered for playing their games for as long as I have. All of my models are going on sale on ebay tomorrow. I'll post the links on dakkadakka. You guys can all go Riptide spam each other.

dadakkaest wrote:
I got the latest one now.

GW to veteran players: Get fethed.

Games Workshop are garbage. I feel entirely suckered for playing their games for as long as I have. All of my models are going on sale on ebay tomorrow. I'll post the links on dakkadakka. You guys can all go Riptide spam each other.

Easy there. There is another update coming that may fix it. As pointed out in previous posts the Condemnor wasn't going to be enough to overturn Screamerstars or Seercouncil madness on its own anyways.

Sisters won't get REALLY good until we eventually get a proper update with new models and all that. Until then we've just got to play to the best of our ability with what we got (and what we got ain't bad).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I don't think GW knows or understands powergamers and how they work. If they did the Riptide would be a 0-1 choice.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

the Condemnor wasn't going to be enough to overturn Screamerstars or Seercouncil madness on its own anyways.

Well, that's really the majority of the point for keeping it as it was. It's a minor change in the meta at best, as the things are purely situational. I am seriously upset about it and wrote them a giant nastygram.

They have no time to deal with obviously broken rules, but have time to nerf the rare armies played by a few die hards. This means they do not demand or deserve the benefit of the doubt. They demonstrably detest their core fanbase.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I don't think GW knows or understands powergamers and how they work. If they did the Riptide would be a 0-1 choice.

I completely agree. And would add at this point that GW would be more than happy if people stopped playing their games competitively altogether. It would enable their laziness more and would take them off the hook for their obvious lack of desire to engage in game design, model design, or interaction with fanbase.

dadakkaest wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

the Condemnor wasn't going to be enough to overturn Screamerstars or Seercouncil madness on its own anyways.

Well, that's really the majority of the point for keeping it as it was. It's a minor change in the meta at best, as the things are purely situational. I am seriously upset about it and wrote them a giant nastygram.

They have no time to deal with obviously broken rules, but have time to nerf the rare armies played by a few die hards. This means they do not demand or deserve the benefit of the doubt.

The rule didn't work in the first place. There is no such thing as a unit with the "Psyker" rule. That's an individual model rule unlike Brotherhood of Psykers which is a rule that affects the whole unit, so we didn't really get nerfed, they just traded us one rule that didn't work for another. It's nothing really to get upset about.

dadakkaest wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Also I don't think GW knows or understands powergamers and how they work. If they did the Riptide would be a 0-1 choice.

I completely agree. And would add at this point that GW would be more than happy if people stopped playing their games competitively altogether. It would enable their laziness more and would take them off the hook for their obvious lack of desire to engage in game design, model design, or interaction with fanbase.

GW has made it very clear at the start of 6th that the rules aren't really meant for competitive play, nor are the books balanced for them. They're doing what they think is fun and cool. Those who already play by that mindset are adjusting fine, but the more competitive and hardcore players are not.

I don't chalk it up to laziness (though better rules would make the game better, it's not like it doesn't function as is), more of a lower bar that they set for themselves design wise on how "tight" the game is compared to where we set the bar to where we want it.

I think I missed the part where they basically accepted that their game isn't worth playing at all because there would be no attempt whatsoever to balance.

Setting the bar so low and demanding prices so high are somewhat contradictory design goals, don't you think?

dadakkaest wrote:
I think I missed the part where they basically accepted that their game isn't worth playing at all because there would be no attempt whatsoever to balance.

Setting the bar so low and demanding prices so high are somewhat contradictory design goals, don't you think?

I think you're missing what I'm saying. The game itself is fine. The problem is more with players who refuse to accept the game as a casual beer and pretzels thing and have to play with the most ball busting lists to have fun. That isn't GW's fault, those players will always exist in every game and will do everything they can to stack odds in their favor with things the creators neither intended or foresaw happening.

The thing is GW can't go in and start restricting stuff without going against their design goal of player freedom. They WANT you to be as free as possible with the system so you can have as much fun as possible, restricting things goes against that because they start taking choice away.

Player freedom = roll your own. Fine. Games Workshop's job is to balance point totals so that players can have a game over an afternoon that comes down to a reasonable margin of victory. They are entirely derelict in that regard and don't care. Every game is a blowout. Armies who aren't in favor tabled on turn 3 or sooner. That's the entire meaning of the term "Metagame."

For the absurd prices we pay to keep up with our favorite hobby this is simply not acceptable. Especially for those of us who started an all metal army years ago and are hoping to enjoy it now. IT's like waiting for a sequel for a blockbuster movie you loved for a decade, and then part 2 is made in India on a shoestring budget and about nothing even remotely related to the original.

I'm sorry man I see where you're coming from, but the real world isn't full of gracious winners. It's full of rules lawyers and sore losers. They ruin the hobby. GW's job is to make life painful for them, not add incentive for people being unfun jerks in a gentleman's game.

Unfortunately that's all they're interested in doing, obviously.

I've been playing Sisters since 2010. The army has not been in favor for a long time and I can't recall a game where I was tabled any sooner than Turn 5. And I can count the number of times I've been tabled total on one hand (it's like 4).

Played well Sisters can be and are effective as an army. The thing is they have to play the mission, tailor for the mission and concern themselves with being able to try and handle the mission as much as possible. Everything you do needs to be to be done with the intent by winning the mission. Very rarely will you really win any other way.

I've started referring to them as my "Dark Souls" army. You don't win by being the biggest, baddest thing in the game, you win by playing smart, and working hard to achieve a goal. And it's damn rewarding when you do.

Well I bought my first canoness model in 2001, prior to that I had IG and CSM armies and they all sat in storage for a decade while 4th edition had the guy with the knife running roughshod over models with 40th millenium firearms and body armor but that's sort of besides the point.

This ruling is the latest evidence that ultimately GW will do absolutely nothing to balance this game, which means I'd rather go play something else. Reliably losing to favored lists that sell more models to new players is not fun.

Lots of painted sisters and Orks headed to Ebay. See the Swap forum. Everyone else can eldar jetbike V. Tau Riptide V. Screamerstar until they're blue in the face. I'm done.

If you want a serious, balanced competitive game, try Field of Glory. It was written for historical tournament play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've been playing Sisters since 2010. The army has not been in favor for a long time and I can't recall a game where I was tabled any sooner than Turn 5. And I can count the number of times I've been tabled total on one hand (it's like 4).

Played well Sisters can be and are effective as an army. The thing is they have to play the mission, tailor for the mission and concern themselves with being able to try and handle the mission as much as possible. Everything you do needs to be to be done with the intent by winning the mission. Very rarely will you really win any other way.

I've started referring to them as my "Dark Souls" army. You don't win by being the biggest, baddest thing in the game, you win by playing smart, and working hard to achieve a goal. And it's damn rewarding when you do.

Just what he said. Sisters of Battle are not meant to table someone as they stand in their current iteration; They need to play the objective and forget about 'killing' the enemy. Get the objectives, hold them and buy time for your sisters. Sometimes you will actually annihilate your buddy, but that is only on rare occasion (assuming both players are playing on the same skill level).

We've only had but a small update that has had a big impact in some areas in the way Sisters were played before but not big enough to put them on par with the rest of the armies. If anything, the army lacks options other armies have... and that damned skyfire. So far Penitent engines are cool looking models... and Repentias are not far off - on your nightstand. Not on the gaming table.

I hope this condemnor boltgun thingie gets fixed and/or faq'ed as soon as possible. As is, it's quite useless.

As a fan of fielding Repentia....they are useless as an actual part of your army. A 6+ invul save and no assault vehicle just means they're going going to die to a slight breeze that wafts by because no one is going to intentionally let them hit their lines.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Are you saying you'd not allow someone to use the AS condemnor in a game?

When did I say that? My argument is from a RAW standpoint, not HIWPI view.

So by your logic there is no such thing as a combi flamer, melta or anything else?

Please enlighten me on this. The rules for "combi-weapon" is that you have a primary weapon and a secondary weapon. An AS Condemnor Boltgun is a boltgun and condemnor boltgun. A combi-flamer is a boltgun and a flamer.

When you fire the melta part of a combi metla what is the STR and AP of the shot?

Whatever is listed for the secondary profile, in this case the secondary profile is labeled "Meltagun".

How do you know it is a melta weapon?

Because the profile has the "Melta" special rule, in this example.

Could it be due to the description of the weapon.

No, due to the profile as I've mentioned.

The Stake Crossbow isnt in fluff it is in the Weapon description.

"A Condemnor boltgun follows all the rules for combi-weapons. The primary weapon is a boltgun. The secondary weapon has the following profile:
CONDEMNOR BOLTGUN Range: W Strength: X AP:Y Type: Z"
Where does this mention "stake-crossbow" at all?

Or is what you are saying is that you don't beleive the description of a crossbow armature that fires silver stakes with siguls isn't a stake crossbow?

Again, you are trying to use fluff as rules. This just like the "Drop Pod doors must be open because the codex says the hatches are blown" argument. Unless you are told to use fluff (and GW does use fluff for rules purposes once in a while) then you have no permission to use the fluff as rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

Again, you are trying to use fluff as rules. This just like the "Drop Pod doors must be open because the codex says the hatches are blown" argument. Unless you are told to use fluff (and GW does use fluff for rules purposes once in a while) then you have no permission to use the fluff as rules.

Or am I perhaps using the description of the weapon on Page 32 of C: Adepta Sororitus? You know the one that says this;

The condemnor Botlgun is a hightly specialized comib-weapon used by the operative of the Ordo Hereticus and Adepta Sororitas. Combining a boltgun with a ( wait for it...........................) (just a little longer now......................) single-shot crossbow armature, these archaic seeming weapons fire a silver stake........ect......

That reads like a weapon description to me. Let me guess you don't allow the new DEX to ally with anyone either since the BRB says Sisters and this DEX calls them Adepta Sororitas. You know even in a forum dedicated to RAW interpretation occasionally a small dose of common sense is required.

No, that's still fluff. Spotted the phrase "stake crossbow" yet?

I could honestly give a rats ass if it said it was built with pink flowers. It is in the weapon description in the DEX. Does it really matter if a few adjectives and adverbs were thrown in for embellishment? You can answer then. Would you allow someone with Adepta to use the condemnor in a game? Also would you allow AS to ally since only sisters are listed in the matrix?

I honestly think they took a mediocre weapon and made it worthless with this change so I'll never pay the points for them.

I guess the difference between us is I use common sense when there is a single item in a DEX with only one description in one spot and only one function in one spot that even thought the verbiage is not 100% the same they are the same item.

You're right Boss - they are being ridiculous. Just ignore them and play. It's not like they can come to where you play to try enforcing their opinions.

Ah, so you're not making a rules argument? Then please avoid breaking the tenets further by marking your pasts hywpi, so people don't attempt to debate your opinion.

Some people seem to struggle with separating a rules discussion taking place on a sub forum dedicated to discussing rules and an actual game. Note at no point did I state how I would play it, nor was I asked , instead insults were heaped upon me for pointing out the actual rules.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Would you allow someone with Adepta to use the condemnor in a game? Also would you allow AS to ally since only sisters are listed in the matrix?

As I said before, yes I would allow it in game. Why? Because I know what the intent is (at least in this case). However, that is not going to stop me from telling someone presenting HTWPI as RAW they are wrong.

Luckily for all of us they have now updated the AS Ally rules:

To determine which armies your Adepta Sororitas detachments can ally with, replace the words ‘Sisters of Battle’ with ‘Adepta Sororitas’ on the Allies Matrix on page 113 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook



Of course they did not sort out the cock up with Black Templars Ally rules but hey its a start

There is no Black Templar cock up.

There is - the Ally rules seem to directly contradict everything written in the codex - hence cock up.

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is - the Ally rules seem to directly contradict everything written in the codex - hence cock up.

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about this? The only issue I'm familiar with comes from people not reading rules correctly. Even then it's not a direct contradiction.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is - the Ally rules seem to directly contradict everything written in the codex - hence cock up.

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about this? The only issue I'm familiar with comes from people not reading rules correctly. Even then it's not a direct contradiction.

Its been done - it went nowhere. The info in the Codex says that the AS and BT are the equivalent of Battle Brothers - the Ally Matrix says the opposite - complete cock up.

back on topic - I'll post again the issues with the Condemor on the GW Digital Facebook page.

 Mr Morden wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is - the Ally rules seem to directly contradict everything written in the codex - hence cock up.

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about this? The only issue I'm familiar with comes from people not reading rules correctly. Even then it's not a direct contradiction.

Its been done - it went nowhere. The info in the Codex says that the AS and BT are the equivalent of Battle Brothers - the Ally Matrix says the opposite - complete cock up.

back on topic - I'll post again the issues with the Condemor on the GW Digital Facebook page.

There is another upate coming as soon as it gets past iTunes.

Thats good news - they do at least tend to take notice when you put stuff on their page which is nice