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.

Doesn't the vibro cannon work in basically the same way as jaws except it causes wounds for its hits instead of initiative tests?

MrDrumMachine wrote:Doesn't the vibro cannon work in basically the same way as jaws except it causes wounds for its hits instead of initiative tests?

You know it.

DarknessEternal wrote:

MrDrumMachine wrote:Doesn't the vibro cannon work in basically the same way as jaws except it causes wounds for its hits instead of initiative tests?

You know it.

No you take a Initiave test to see if you are affected instead of rolling to hit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

veritechc wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:It's like no one else believes there isn't a precedent for a weapon that shoots a line and has to roll to hit.

You are running up against a basic human truth: people hate to change.

The FAQ changed the way the game plays and people hate that. Personally I will await the final decision from GW or sat a Tournament Organizer for a ruling.

The FAQ did not change anything it mere stated what was already the rules

Empath wrote:
The FAQ did not change anything it mere stated what was already the rules

It absolutely changed things. One, no one was rolling to hit with JotWW and like powers before, now they have to. Two, psykers can't use the same power more than once per turn, which had also been the consensus practice.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Empath wrote:
The FAQ did not change anything it mere stated what was already the rules

It absolutely changed things. One, no one was rolling to hit with JotWW and like powers before, now they have to. Two, psykers can't use the same power more than once per turn, which had also been the consensus practice.

And ramming used to *NOT* be a tank shock action because people parsed bold print to determine they were separate but similar rules where one did not reside as a subset of the other. We fought for years about how Poodles are dogs and other crap and people played it wrong... Then GW released an FAQ and years of wrong play by the consensus was corrected and the meta game shifted.

It happens.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Empath wrote:
The FAQ did not change anything it mere stated what was already the rules

It absolutely changed things. One, no one was rolling to hit with JotWW and like powers before, now they have to. Two, psykers can't use the same power more than once per turn, which had also been the consensus practice.

1)That seems to been argued over with no one agreeing. The FAQ simply states what was the rule already and does not change that JoTWW uses an alternative method like many other powers as stated on P50 of the rulebook a PSA may do. They have not removed the unless specified otherwise rule so it still applies.

2)Yes that was was a change

1) except they havent specified an alternative method. At no point are you told "instead of rolling to hit..." or similar.

Yes, they haven't specified any alternative method such as tracing a line and having models under it test I or be removed....

jmurph wrote:Yes, they haven't specified any alternative method such as tracing a line and having models under it test I or be removed....

How do we know that doesn't replace the 'to wound' part of the shooting attack? Which requires a successful 'to hit' roll?

Many PSAs say 'automatically hits', JotWW doesn't.

Many PSAs use templates and blast markers which have exceptions to 'rolling to hit' as they are resolved differently... JotWW doesn't.

Just because people WANT to treat it like a template attack doesn't mean it is.

jmurph wrote:Yes, they haven't specified any alternative method such as tracing a line and having models under it test I or be removed....

No, they have specified A method for determining who is affected. That isnt the same thing as specifying "this is the alternative to the "to hit" roll you HAVE to make normally"

And would rolling a miss even effect how the power even works, going from how it is worded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jmurph wrote:Yes, they haven't specified any alternative method such as tracing a line and having models under it test I or be removed....

No, they have specified A method for determining who is affected. That isnt the same thing as specifying "this is the alternative to the "to hit" roll you HAVE to make normally"

Would you like to bet you are right?

how about if and when GW rule on JOTWW with a FAQ statement specifiing JOTWW they will say you do not have roll to hit with JOTWW.


Loser never posts on DakkaDakka again


See I dont think you really believe you what you are saying and are just trying to get cheap advantage of poorly worded FAQ.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey elder wrote:And would rolling a miss even effect how the power even works, going from how it is worded.

No it would not

Empath - given GWs inability to rule consistently that is a fools bet. You can take it up if you want, not exactly a loss.

Empath wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jmurph wrote:Yes, they haven't specified any alternative method such as tracing a line and having models under it test I or be removed....

No, they have specified A method for determining who is affected. That isnt the same thing as specifying "this is the alternative to the "to hit" roll you HAVE to make normally"

Would you like to bet you are right?

how about if and when GW rule on JOTWW with a FAQ statement specifiing JOTWW they will say you do not have roll to hit with JOTWW.


Loser never posts on DakkaDakka again

See I dont think you really believe you what you are saying and are just trying to get cheap advantage of poorly worded FAQ.

Ill take that bet that we dont have to roll to hit with JAWS, are you interested Dracula1001 , I think alot people would like to see me gone right .

nosferatu1001 wrote:Empath - given GWs inability to rule consistently that is a fools bet. You can take it up if you want, not exactly a loss.

I knew you did not believe what you were saying

No, I do believe it to be actual rules. However GW and ruling with the actual rules in a FAQ? Theyre not exac tly known for it

If you want to stop posting anyway, thats fine by me.

Why are you scared?

You mistake disinterest in your post for caring.

What part of "fools bet" are you unwilling / able to understand?

Grey elder wrote:

Empath wrote:
Would you like to bet you are right?

how about if and when GW rule on JOTWW with a FAQ statement specifiing JOTWW they will say you do not have roll to hit with JOTWW.


Loser never posts on DakkaDakka again

See I dont think you really believe you what you are saying and are just trying to get cheap advantage of poorly worded FAQ.

Ill take that bet that we dont have to roll to hit with JAWS, are you interested Dracula1001 , I think alot people would like to see me gone right .

Good to see a man with some balls

While I disagree with Nosferatu's reasoning, I must agree on his sentiments on GW FAQing. One's willingness to wager has little to do with what the rules currently are nor how GW will eventually FAQ them!

Ok after reading 3 pages, my head is spinning.

I am surprised our beloved James Bond Sean Conner (sorry forgot your name) hasn't commented yet.

I am curious as to what he has to say about this. Back to page 4 now.

jmurph wrote:Yes, they haven't specified any alternative method such as tracing a line and having models under it test I or be removed....

Unless I am mistaken, most people read that as the result of a successful use of the power.

Empath wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

MrDrumMachine wrote:Doesn't the vibro cannon work in basically the same way as jaws except it causes wounds for its hits instead of initiative tests?

You know it.

No you take a Initiave test to see if you are affected instead of rolling to hit

Oh man. One may as well say, "It doesn't mean that because I don't want it to mean that!!!!!" Clearly, imo, you roll to hit for JotWW to see if that line that everyone under has to take an I test appears where you hoped it would appear. Just like every other shooting attack. You shoot a bolter, you roll to hit and see if what you were aiming at gets hit. Plain and simple.

And, btw, asking someonne, "are you scared" in response to them not taking your web forum challenge seriously, grow the up

YakkFace. Yes I believe that is the name he goes by on the forum. I respect what he says, even though I don't agree with him sometimes.

What does he have to say about this? What is his interpitaions?

Davor wrote:YakkFace. Yes I believe that is the name he goes by on the forum. I respect what he says, even though I don't agree with him sometimes.

What does he have to say about this? What is his interpitaions?

I am kinda interested in INAT's opinions on this new set of FAQs and how they will fill time until GW decides to clarify. Since lots of events use INAT, it would help plan for tourneys if I need to say 'roll a 3+ for that JotWW yo!'

Sorry if brought up earlier but would lash of submission which is psa have to hit. it doesn't effect only one model but the squad so would I role for the squad?

It isnt a PSA, as it neither has a weapon profile nor does it state it is a PSA.

It doesn't have the profile but it says instead of another ranged weapon.

THen I suggest you reread the BRB FAQ, which explicitly states what does and does not count as a PSA.

Lash NO LONGER counts as a PSA. Period. Until they change their mind.

I assume you folks have seen this. I don't always agree with the INAT but I have to say I agree this instance.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.0.pdf

◊SW.37H.07 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require
the psyker to make a ‘to hit’ roll to successfully use it?
A: No [clarification].