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

nosferatu1001 wrote:Im looking for a RULE stating you do not roll to hit. The description of the power, or JAWs, do NOT provide an exception for the roll to hit. THey dont. You havent provided any rules to counter this, at all. IF you belive otherwise - quote them, exactly, showing exactly how they ignore "PSAs roll to hit"

It has already been said, but the INAT states that jotWW doesnt need to roll to hit. You just pass your Psychic Test then draw the line.

There is no good reason for the FAQ to have changed to make JotWW Roll to Hit aside from whingers crying "broken!" and then attempted to justify because it is lumped in as a PSA due to it being used in the Shooting Phase.

Other than the power being used in the Shooting Phase, the RP does not "shoot" anything, he simply opens up a hole in the ground, troops fall in... technically you do not need to "target" a model, you can simply ensure it touches anywhere on the base of any in a unit that you can see, it does not need to be the closest either.

Technicallly you must follow the shooting rules, as its a PSA

Counter it with some rules, or accept it needs to roll to hit. I could care les what INAT says

nosferatu1001 wrote:Technicallly you must follow the shooting rules, as its a PSA

Counter it with some rules, or accept it needs to roll to hit. I could care les what INAT says

Our TO just responded to my earlier query.

JotWW does not need to roll To Hit.

Since he is an AUS-wide recognised TO, I will go with this.

Our TOs have decided the opposite. Given we run some large tournaments, I'm going to go with that.

You still have no rules to counter it, just a ruling frmo a single person.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Our TOs have decided the opposite. Given we run some large tournaments, I'm going to go with that.

You still have no rules to counter it, just a ruling frmo a single person.

You still have contributed nothing to this thread, aside from being an obtuse troll.

Your TO's ruling and the FAQ mean nothing where I play as our TO has ruled differently.

Noone is required to prove anything to you, the Rules and FAQ you favour have been superceded by the INAT ruling in this instance.

LOL

Obtuse troll? No , i've provided a rules based argument which has yet to be countered. As per the tenets of YMDC

You have contributed less than nothing. The INAT ruling means less than nothing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:LOL

Obtuse troll? No , i've provided a rules based argument which has yet to be countered. As per the tenets of YMDC

You have contributed less than nothing. The INAT ruling means less than nothing.

Your opinion of INAT is not an official ruling.

You provided a statement of apparent facts some pages back and since have trolled by reptition of the same statement... which amounts to nothing beyond trolling and spam of the thread.

It's probably best then that you both leave that there and agree to disagree then.

If the TO has made that call then, when playing under those conditions and terms, you have a ruling.

Perhaps, one day, GW will clarify this matter.


If we could avoid the namecalling and cheap digs, that'd be super.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I find this very funny that you would point this out when I have repeatedly said the same thing about virbo cannons to you and you still ignore me... Anyways, yes this is an undead skeletal horse that has been beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, and beaten, etc.....

The only anwser as of right now is that no one not even GW knows... they have not deigned to give us an FAQ covering these questions, so again everyone put down the torches and pitchforks back away from each other ..... and agree to disagree, then before going to any Tourny ask the T.O.

I was not saying that Vibro Cannons dictate how JoTWW works. I was saying that the FAQ dictated how JoTWW works, and that Vibro Cannons provides a model to use to determine how/when the roll-to-hit functions since they contain the same text/targeting mechanism. That's two completely different things. The Murderous Hurricane power does not explicitly allow the secondary effect to occur if it misses or fails to wound, but the FAQ provides that exception explicitly. How any parallels between Murderous Hurricane and JoTWW or Blood Lance can be made is beyond me, as they share nothing in the way of how they function or even contain similar text, outside the fact they are all PSAs.

My only other point with Vibro Cannons was the assertion that "models touched by the line are hit" implies there is no roll to hit is false. Though this is more of a direct comparison, as the exact same text appears in both vibro cannons and JoTWW/others. With this point, such comparisons can be made because it's the exact same text, and you are arguing that exact wording has special meaning. If it did, it'd hold such meaning universally, which is not the case.

Either way, I'm content that it functions as a pseudo-template. It was a possible argument for not rolling to hit I had brought up earlier, but was promptly ignored. Though I would like clarified whether Blood Lance follows all of the template rules, thus ignoring cover saves, or if it only functions as a template in terms of targeting.

AvatarForm wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:LOL

Obtuse troll? No , i've provided a rules based argument which has yet to be countered. As per the tenets of YMDC

You have contributed less than nothing. The INAT ruling means less than nothing.

Your opinion of INAT is not an official ruling.

You provided a statement of apparent facts some pages back and since have trolled by reptition of the same statement... which amounts to nothing beyond trolling and spam of the thread.

The fact still remains that you have yet to use rules to justify his opinion.
Quote for me, please, the specific passage of text you are using to justify your opinion.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

My only other point with Vibro Cannons was the assertion that "models touched by the line are hit" implies there is no roll to hit is false. Though this is more of a direct comparison, as the exact same text appears in both vibro cannons and JoTWW/others. With this point, such comparisons can be made because it's the exact same text, and you are arguing that exact wording has special meaning. If it did, it'd hold such meaning universally, which is not the case.

Either way, I'm content that it functions as a pseudo-template. It was a possible argument for not rolling to hit I had brought up earlier, but was promptly ignored. Though I would like clarified whether Blood Lance follows all of the template rules, thus ignoring cover saves, or if it only functions as a template in terms of targeting.

Here's the thing though, they only share that one line and in different format. Virbo cannons must roll to hit before placing the line, "When firing a vibro cannon battery, roll to hit (the firer does not need to pick a target). If any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36" line from one vibro cannon in any direction. Any unit which the line passes through suffers D6 hits. "

compare to BL, "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by blood lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8, AP 1 hit with the 'lance' type. " Which just tells you to place the line.

This to me does not seem like the exact same text, it is close but no cigar. See the problem is that Virbo Cannons are specifically unique to themselves, they call out Virbo Cannons and only Vibro Cannons. I understand you trying to use them as a model for JAWs and BL but, and again when does one codex rules effect another ones rule?

This I have yet to see an execption arguement is seriously funny, one side is saying, "There are no execptions!" The other, "Here is the execptions!" and repeat. We are not communicating on the same terms. Do not dismiss any statement as being just opinion because you disagree with the statement. At that point you have inserted you anwser and only anwser that could be right... and guess what it is !Only an opinion.

I am of the camp that in BL and JAWs that they modify the normal rules for PSA's. Here is why, BA: Codex page 63 "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by blood lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8, AP 1 hit with the 'lance' type. " I feel that it has specified that any units in the path suffers a hit, it tells me how to use my power, place the line, and what it does, any enemy units in the path suffers a single Strength 8, AP 1 hit with the "lance" type.

But, again I am at the point where we can agree to disagree, and would ask you TO or gamers in your area and house rule it till GW anwsers it. Cheers!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Here's the thing though, they only share that one line and in different format. Virbo cannons must roll to hit before placing the line, "When firing a vibro cannon battery, roll to hit (the firer does not need to pick a target). If any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36" line from one vibro cannon in any direction. Any unit which the line passes through suffers D6 hits."

compare to BL, "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by blood lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8, AP 1 hit with the 'lance' type. " Which just tells you to place the line.

This to me does not seem like the exact same text, it is close but no cigar. See the problem is that Virbo Cannons are specifically unique to themselves, they call out Virbo Cannons and only Vibro Cannons. I understand you trying to use them as a model for JAWs and BL but, and again when does one codex rules effect another ones rule?

Ok, so the bolded parts are not exactly the same. But the variations between the two are nigh-trivial - one is "the line passes through", the other "in the lance's path" - it's the same exact mechanism once the line has been drawn. And yes, the contexts are different. But my point, which you've still failed to grasp, is that saying the mechanism provided by "any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers blah" doesn't require a roll to hit as an unspoken rule/definition is false. If the mechanism was universally used without a roll-to-hit, then we'd be having a different argument. But the problem is there is at least one instance where that mechanism is used where a roll-to-hit is required, which indicates to me that the mechanism does not exclude the possibility of a roll-to-hit being required.

As for the codex bit, aren't you guilty of this as well, citing Blood Lance as a reason for why JoTWW doesn't require a roll-to-hit, and vice versa? If what you said is true, then any discussion on JoTWW here in this thread does not apply to Blood Lance, as it's in a different codex, and we would require another TO to pass judgement on whether or not Blood Lance requires a roll-to-hit. Personally, I'm content to say rulings in one codex can impact ruling in others, when the mechanism in question is clearly identical. That way we can just accept Blood Lance functions like a pseudo-template, doesn't require a roll to hit, and save ourselves from more pointless back-and-forth.

Do not dismiss any statement as being just opinion because you disagree with the statement. At that point you have inserted you anwser and only anwser that could be right... and guess what it is !Only an opinion.

What have I dismissed as just an opinion? I don't even recall using the word "opinion" in this thread until now. I know others have dismissed items as opinions and invalid, but the closest thing I've come to that is saying that fluff != rules. I actually try to consider and dissect every point of a person's argument, instead of glossing over it and only focusing on the parts I like.

I am of the camp that in BL and JAWs that they modify the normal rules for PSA's. Here is why, BA: Codex page 63 "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by blood lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8, AP 1 hit with the 'lance' type. " I feel that it has specified that any units in the path suffers a hit, it tells me how to use my power, place the line, and what it does, any enemy units in the path suffers a single Strength 8, AP 1 hit with the "lance" type.

But, again I am at the point where we can agree to disagree, and would ask you TO or gamers in your area and house rule it till GW anwsers it. Cheers!

Please re-read my posts, or at the very least the last three lines of my last post. I don't think you would have said what you just did if you had - we are not in disagreement about how it works. Why it works that way, maybe. But I'm content to take the TO's ruling that it works as a pseudo-template. I've said this at least three or four times now in this thread, since bigbaboonass posted the ruling from the GW Store in Memphis.

CiaranAnnrach wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Here's the thing though, they only share that one line and in different format. Virbo cannons must roll to hit before placing the line, "When firing a vibro cannon battery, roll to hit (the firer does not need to pick a target). If any of the vibro cannons hit, draw a single 36" line from one vibro cannon in any direction. Any unit which the line passes through suffers D6 hits."

compare to BL, "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by blood lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8, AP 1 hit with the 'lance' type. " Which just tells you to place the line.

This to me does not seem like the exact same text, it is close but no cigar. See the problem is that Virbo Cannons are specifically unique to themselves, they call out Virbo Cannons and only Vibro Cannons. I understand you trying to use them as a model for JAWs and BL but, and again when does one codex rules effect another ones rule?

Ok, so the bolded parts are not exactly the same. But the variations between the two are nigh-trivial - one is "the line passes through", the other "in the lance's path" - it's the same exact mechanism once the line has been drawn. And yes, the contexts are different. But my point, which you've still failed to grasp, is that saying the mechanism provided by "any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers blah" doesn't require a roll to hit as an unspoken rule/definition is false. If the mechanism was universally used without a roll-to-hit, then we'd be having a different argument. But the problem is there is at least one instance where that mechanism is used where a roll-to-hit is required, which indicates to me that the mechanism does not exclude the possibility of a roll-to-hit being required.

As for the codex bit, aren't you guilty of this as well, citing Blood Lance as a reason for why JoTWW doesn't require a roll-to-hit, and vice versa? If what you said is true, then any discussion on JoTWW here in this thread does not apply to Blood Lance, as it's in a different codex, and we would require another TO to pass judgement on whether or not Blood Lance requires a roll-to-hit. Personally, I'm content to say rulings in one codex can impact ruling in others, when the mechanism in question is clearly identical. That way we can just accept Blood Lance functions like a pseudo-template, doesn't require a roll to hit, and save ourselves from more pointless back-and-forth.

Do not dismiss any statement as being just opinion because you disagree with the statement. At that point you have inserted you anwser and only anwser that could be right... and guess what it is !Only an opinion.

What have I dismissed as just an opinion? I don't even recall using the word "opinion" in this thread until now. I know others have dismissed items as opinions and invalid, but the closest thing I've come to that is saying that fluff != rules. I actually try to consider and dissect every point of a person's argument, instead of glossing over it and only focusing on the parts I like.

I am of the camp that in BL and JAWs that they modify the normal rules for PSA's. Here is why, BA: Codex page 63 "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the librarian's base in any direction - this is the path taken by blood lance. Any enemy unit in the lance's path suffers a single strength 8, AP 1 hit with the 'lance' type. " I feel that it has specified that any units in the path suffers a hit, it tells me how to use my power, place the line, and what it does, any enemy units in the path suffers a single Strength 8, AP 1 hit with the "lance" type.

But, again I am at the point where we can agree to disagree, and would ask you TO or gamers in your area and house rule it till GW anwsers it. Cheers!

Please re-read my posts, or at the very least the last three lines of my last post. I don't think you would have said what you just did if you had - we are not in disagreement about how it works. Why it works that way, maybe. But I'm content to take the TO's ruling that it works as a pseudo-template. I've said this at least three or four times now in this thread, since bigbaboonass posted the ruling from the GW Store in Memphis.

Where or where to begin..... your missing the first part of vibro cannons bro.... thats what makes this unapplicable. Just like the FAQ for thunderclap... The part about people not dismissing things was not directed at any one person, or even you directly... you seems to be caught up in a fight with me that I am not participating in.... this saddens me. I also said when I brought up BL that I know its not directly related but, that they are alike so we can figure out how they both work correct? Instead of having another thread with this inane back and forth and people calling people stuff and fighting lets keep it in one and let others avoid it, that is what I was thinking...

Now, lets get to the nitty gritty, you are using two different things to try and make what I say appear to be false. Here's the thing though, it explictly, unequivocally calls for vibro cannon to draw the line after you roll to hit. There is no text in BL or even Jaws to help you support that arguement. Additionally, Vibro cannons are a wargear, BL and JAWs PSA's, that makes it completely two different criteria we have to follow. A weapon in not a PSA, and vice versa, they are like "apples and oranges". Different rules govern them. Different execptions allow you to skip part of those rules. I get the psuedo template thing, I think that is an interesting way of solving it, "you know, I never thought of it that way" but I digress.

I hope we can go back and read these things and not get agrivated with one another, that was not why I wrote what I wrote, also if you hadn't noticed I am not good with using the emoticons and tend to make people offended when I do use them. I was merely trying to show how this arguement of show me some thing , here it is, no thats nothing, arguement has kind of gotten out of hand. No digs, no offense nothing just a little comentary from the peanut gallery.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Where or where to begin..... your missing the first part of vibro cannons bro.... thats what makes this unapplicable. Just like the FAQ for thunderclap... The part about people not dismissing things was not directed at any one person, or even you directly... you seems to be caught up in a fight with me that I am not participating in.... this saddens me. I also said when I brought up BL that I know its not directly related but, that they are alike so we can figure out how they both work correct? Instead of having another thread with this inane back and forth and people calling people stuff and fighting lets keep it in one and let others avoid it, that is what I was thinking...

Now, lets get to the nitty gritty, you are using two different things to try and make what I say appear to be false. Here's the thing though, it explictly, unequivocally calls for vibro cannon to draw the line after you roll to hit. There is no text in BL or even Jaws to help you support that arguement. Additionally, Vibro cannons are a wargear, BL and JAWs PSA's, that makes it completely two different criteria we have to follow. A weapon in not a PSA, and vice versa, they are like "apples and oranges". Different rules govern them. Different execptions allow you to skip part of those rules. I get the psuedo template thing, I think that is an interesting way of solving it, "you know, I never thought of it that way" but I digress.

I hope we can go back and read these things and not get agrivated with one another, that was not why I wrote what I wrote, also if you hadn't noticed I am not good with using the emoticons and tend to make people offended when I do use them. I was merely trying to show how this arguement of show me some thing , here it is, no thats nothing, arguement has kind of gotten out of hand. No digs, no offense nothing just a little comentary from the peanut gallery.

Yeah. I think we either keep missing each others points, or are not explaining our arguments clearly enough that the other person is getting them. As for the dismissal bit, I assumed since the post was a reply to me, that it was directed at me. Either way, no offense taken, at that or any of your other posts, and I hope none was taken from mine as well.

<thread terminated; no new rules discussion has occurred in pages>