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.

Recenly at my game store there has been a lot of arguing about the force weapons from both the Deamon Hunter and Witchunter Codexes. It says that a model is slain outright so some people say it's the same as instant death while others say since it's different it bypasses stuff inmmune to instant death. I was just curious as if anyone here knew what it was as the FAQs for both armies don't mention this.

arinnoor wrote:Recenly at my game store there has been a lot of arguing about the force weapons from both the Deamon Hunter and Witchunter Codexes. It says that a model is slain outright so some people say it's the same as instant death while others say since it's different it bypasses stuff inmmune to instant death. I was just curious as if anyone here knew what it was as the FAQs for both armies don't mention this.

I believe, that the 5th Ed rulebooks covers force weapons. Then again, people would probably argue that codex trumps the rulebook with that.

Thats exactly what people did, so we are in quite the coundrum.

I would argue that they intended to mean that the force weapon causes Instant death in the codex for a few reasons.

1. Back in the 3rd edition rule book (which was when the Daemon Hunters codex was released) the rules for force weapons weren't written in the core rule book like they are today. So instead they were written in the codex book.

2. Now also the reason they didn't write that force weapons cause instant death in the daemon hunters codex was because it was a time when the concept of instant death as a packaged rule was relatively new. No weapons caused instant death back then, it was simply the rule for when str was double toughness. So obviously they never thought to refer to it with a weapon.

After all I do not think there were any models back then that were specifically immune to instant death, some creatures just had high toughness that made them immune to it ever happening to them from high str weps. So if no creatures are immune why bother worrying about the nitty gritty words of choice.

3. I do not think GW intends to have multiple rules that are very similar but labelled differently. For example, D weapons cause instant death but with a clause for models who are immune to it. IMO if GW did intend for force weapons in these specific codices to be slaying outright regardless of instant death immunity I guess you'll find out for sure when they re-write the codex and word it like the D weapon. "This causes instant death blah blah, even if your immune you still suffer it."

I guess in the end you just have to ask yourself what do you think GW is more likely to do when they re-write the codex? I'd put my money on them making them force weapons as per the core rule book.


3.

Sorry, but the Dark Angels FAQ clearly shows the your point #3 is wrong. They do indeed have multiple rules for weapons even with the same name.

It is pretty darn clear. The WH/DH force weapons do not cause Instant Death.

They are 'special' force weapons, and operate differently.


If Codex doesn't trump BRB, this game pretty much falls apart.

Given that Nemesis force weapons are only truly force weapons (per the rules) in the only the top tier of the Grey Knights, most of them are not true force weapons.

The breakdown of which count for what is listed on the third page of the armory section, if memory serves me correct.

Page 17 of the Codex

Force Weapon: "...They are treated as a power weapon, but can unleash a psychic atttack that can kill and opponent outright. Roll to hit, to wound and to save as normal. Then as long as at least one wound has been inflicted, make a psychic test for the psyker againts one oppanent wounded by the weapon. The normal rules apply for using psychic powers, and you cannt use another psychic ability in the same turn. If the test is passed then the oppoant is slain outright, no matter have may wounds it has..." I left out the part on vehicles.

IMO being killed outright is diffrent from instant death. You still make a save againts the weapon but since the NFW counts as a power wep. as well you would only get an invoulnerable save. Thus if they fail that save and you pass the psychic test the model is gone. I view it as the modle that is hit by the wep has a massive amount of energy released into hiim and he just explodes from it. No where in the discription of a force wepon say that the model is instant deathed.

edit: separated paragraphs.

Ghaz wrote:Sorry, but the Dark Angels FAQ clearly shows the your point #3 is wrong. They do indeed have multiple rules for weapons even with the same name.

I said I do not think they "intend" to have multiple rulings. Of course according to RAW they do indeed have multiple rulings, that is quite clear. But intent is different. In other words, when they eventually get around to fixing it they will.

Also to quote the dark angels faq is a bit much I have to say. If you look at GW's response in its entirety its a very different picture. They state to always remember the most important rule, that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game, nothing is black and white, having a good time is more important than a small in-game advantage etc.

In context the dark angels response was written because people wanted to use the rules from two different codices, more importantly use a rule from a new codex instead of their old codex because it was better. Ain't no one wanting to use the rules for a force weapon in the space marine codex over the daemon hunters codex, despite it being more well written. People often take the option for the most advantage completely throwing out intent and with it I guess the spirit of the game perhaps. As is seen in many people just running with completely nonsense RAW for some crazy advantage, like warp spiders moving in both assault phases.

coredump wrote:It is pretty darn clear. The WH/DH force weapons do not cause Instant Death.

They are 'special' force weapons, and operate differently.


If Codex doesn't trump BRB, this game pretty much falls apart.

I don't see how you can think that GW actually intended for WH/DH force weapons to be "special". If you do you must certainly think that they also intended for space marines to get these "special" force weapons as well back in 3rd edition. If you have a 3rd edition Space marine codex you should take it out and then look at how the entry for a force weapon is EXACTLY the same as the entry for the Daemon Hunter's force weapon lol. Considering they were all released around the same time it makes sense right.

Like I said, back then GW was not in the habit of using the term Instant Death. The evidence overwhelmingly proves this. Any basis for the force weapons to be special for DH/WH fails because it also use to be written that way for Space marines and then they changed it. When they write the inquisitor codex you can be sure they will fix it up.

It's pretty clear that GW, in the FAQ's, is going with a "use your codex as written."

However when 5th edition FAQs for deamonhunters & witchunters came out GW could have said that the force weapon is changed from "slain outright" to "instant death" and chose not to.

Slain outright does not equal instant death.

Consider it a bonus for having Dedicated Transports that can't be used by another squad. If you want to start rewriting the Codex and letting anyone use a transport vehicle and bring forceweapons into line with the rulebook, that's fine. But, it's now how the game is going now.

In fourth edition, GW made it very clear that Rulebook > Codex. In fifth edition, they've gone the other way. GW is clearly saying Codex > Rulebook.

asugradinwa wrote:However when 5th edition FAQs for deamonhunters & witchunters came out GW could have said that the force weapon is changed from "slain outright" to "instant death" and chose not to.

Slain outright does not equal instant death.

lol. So your saying that anything GW doesn't FAQ is fine as it is?

The FAQs aren't exactly comprehensive lol. Just look at the sticky thread at the top of this forum.

Well isn't the very definition of Instant Death is being killed outright and removed as a casualty?

Page 26 of the small rulebook

Even through a creature might have multiple wounds, there are plenty of weapons in the 41st Millennium that are powerful enough to kill it instantly. If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a strength value of double its toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty. It can be imagined that the creature is vapourised, burned to a pile of ash, blasted limb from limb or otherwise mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion.

To me, thats the same wording for definition as the Force weapons from Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. Instant Death = Killed Outright, even the fluff given in the last sentence seems to go along with that flow of that. So if you are immune to the instant death rule (via Eternal Warrior or other special rule) wouldn't that mean you are immune to the effect of being killed outright?

I'm going with the camp that killed outright =/= Instant Death (note the capital letters, as in the BRB rule).

In the same vein that (iirc) Daemonhunter Landraiders have S6 Heavy 3 assault cannons (NO rending), their force weapons work differently.

GW has been clear, and intentional, that you use your codex rules where they differ from the rulebook/FAQ.

True you can't have double standards. If they get the new Force Weapon the they must get the new assualt cannon but, niether is the case be the FAQ so I would think they'd keep the old one.

Cruentus the autocannon this is diffrent like you thought it was but thats how it is in the codex so that's how it has to be played even though the sm one is better.

NeoMaul wrote:I said I do not think they "intend" to have multiple rulings.

And yet their FAQ makes it clear that this is indeed the case. So how could they not 'intend' to have multiple rulings when everything that they've said so far clearly indicates otherwise?

SirRouga wrote:Well isn't the very definition of Instant Death is being killed outright and removed as a casualty?

Page 26 of the small rulebook

Even through a creature might have multiple wounds, there are plenty of weapons in the 41st Millennium that are powerful enough to kill it instantly. If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a strength value of double its toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty. It can be imagined that the creature is vapourised, burned to a pile of ash, blasted limb from limb or otherwise mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion.

To me, thats the same wording for definition as the Force weapons from Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters. Instant Death = Killed Outright, even the fluff given in the last sentence seems to go along with that flow of that. So if you are immune to the instant death rule (via Eternal Warrior or other special rule) wouldn't that mean you are immune to the effect of being killed outright?

Nope, not according to GW in previous rulings. Previous Nid FAQ spelled out that there was a difference between something that killed by way of the Instant Death rule and something that killed by removing all wounds or any mechanism similar to Instant Death but not using the name ID. So Nids couldn't die to the Eldar Wraithguard wraithcannon because it said it caused Instant Death, but they could die outright to similar effects that weren't called Instant Death. Same situation here. In this case, a rose by any other name.... is not a rose.

So everyone who thinks that GW 'intended' to make the DH/WH force weapon special and different from a normal force weapon, you must also agree that they must have intended to make it special and different for Space Marines in 3rd edition as well.... and then changed their mind later for some reason...

Of course it wasn't because they were tightening up their rules when they reprinted a codex and rule book, it was because they decided to make a distinction between 'Slain Outright' and 'Instant Death' and they wanted DH/WH to have a special stronger force weapon. But even though they made all these active intentions to change rules for some reason they decided to,

1. Not FAQ that they have created a difference between types of force weapons DESPITE making an active decision to do so.

and

2. Not mention anything about this new type of 'Slain Outright' rule in the core rule book. There is no paragraph next to the instant death rule that explains slain outright obviously, you'd think they'd put that in there and clarify its intention.

I mean come on guys. The old space marine codex (3rd ed) has the exact same text VERBATIM from the Daemon Hunter codex for force weapons!

The evidence is overwhelming. They didn't decide suddenly to separate the rules for force weapons somewhere in between the span of 6 years and then keep you guessing.

Its clear that they are just lazy in FAQing, the DH/WH codex is getting old and people are looking to exploit this.

At best you can argue RAW and sure you can get away with it, many people like to go by RAW and that's fair enough. But to say that there is intent in this flies in the face of all logic.

NeoMaul wrote:So everyone who thinks that GW 'intended' to make the DH/WH force weapon special and different from a normal force weapon, you must also agree that they must have intended to make it special and different for Space Marines in 3rd edition as well.... and then changed their mind later for some reason...

Of course it wasn't because they were tightening up their rules when they reprinted a codex and rule book, it was because they decided to make a distinction between 'Slain Outright' and 'Instant Death' and they wanted DH/WH to have a special stronger force weapon. But even though they made all these active intentions to change rules for some reason they decided to,

1. Not FAQ that they have created a difference between types of force weapons DESPITE making an active decision to do so.

and

2. Not mention anything about this new type of 'Slain Outright' rule in the core rule book. There is no paragraph next to the instant death rule that explains slain outright obviously, you'd think they'd put that in there and clarify its intention.

I mean come on guys. The old space marine codex (3rd ed) has the exact same text VERBATIM from the Daemon Hunter codex for force weapons!

The evidence is overwhelming. They didn't decide suddenly to separate the rules for force weapons somewhere in between the span of 6 years and then keep you guessing.

Its clear that they are just lazy in FAQing, the DH/WH codex is getting old and people are looking to exploit this.

At best you can argue RAW and sure you can get away with it, many people like to go by RAW and that's fair enough. But to say that there is intent in this flies in the face of all logic.

If you're talking about "as intended" meaning that GW intended when they wrote the rules for Force Weapons in the DH/WH codex they intended in the future for them to behave differently from the force weapon rules they would add to the core rulebook, then I absolutely agree with you that GW obviously didn't 'intend' to do this.

However, GW has made it very, very clear that you are to use the rules as written in your particular codex and if those rules differ from the basic rulebook versions then so be it.

For example in the rulebook, the smoke launcher and Universal special rules (to name just a couple of cases) specifically mention that any codex deviations from these basic rules take precedence.

And in the official FAQs themselves GW backs up this idea in several cases. For example, the fact that codexes that still have a restriction on dedicated transports carrying other units still retain those restrictions even though the basic rules of the game have changed to allow a transport to carry any friendly unit.


So to assume that a codex follows its rules in those cases but suddenly when it comes to the Force Weapon rules we start ignoring this policy? It just doesn't make sense.

GW has ruled time and time again that you follow the rules in the codex and this means in some cases that certain armies have strange advantages and disadvantages that you may not realize at first glance, but that's just the way it is: For the most part your codex's wording is king when it deviates from the main rulebook.

Demonhunters have a better psychic hood as well. I think until a FAQ comes out to change the DH/WH codex then the rules as written in their wargear section are in affect.

It makes sense fluff wise that an army of psychic demon hunting super men would have access to the finest weapondry in the imperium.

The DH codex is so limited anyway that even finding ways to exploit the force weapons are not going to cause this army to suddenly become a tier 1 army.

NeoMaul wrote:So everyone who thinks that GW 'intended' to make the DH/WH force weapon special and different from a normal force weapon, you must also agree that they must have intended to make it special and different for Space Marines in 3rd edition as well.... and then changed their mind later for some reason...

From the Codex Dark Angels FAQ:

Q. There are a number of cases where things with the same name have different rules or characteristics in Codex Space Marines and Codex: Dark Angels, such as the different transport capacity for the Land Raider. There are also a number of new items of equipment in the Space Marines Codex that are not this one. Which version of the rules should I use, the latest version, or the one in Codex: Dark Angels?

A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from your own Codex, and this is the default solution you must use if you and your opponent can’t come up with a better one (you’ll find that this might be the case in tournaments, for example!).

However, always keep in mind the foreword we have written to all of the Errata and FAQ documents, as well as ‘The Most Important Rule’ described on page 2 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, which states ‘… it is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game.

Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players – not just the victor – have a good time.’ On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!’ Please note that ‘The Most Important Rule’ cuts both ways, and because of this, if you feel that a piece of new equipment might spoil the game for your opponent by giving
your own army an unfair advantage, then you are honour-bound not to use it.

As you can see, the nature of the Most Important Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black and white answer to any question that may arise; instead you and your opponent need to discuss things and come up with the answer that makes both of you the happiest, keeping in mind that having a good time is more important than gaining a small in-game advantage. If for any reason you can’t do this, then simply revert to the default of using the rules from your own Codex.

So yes, it is clearly their intention that they have different rules at this time. Are you going to be psychic and claim to know their intentions better than they themselves do? Because GW's intentions are crystal clear. They do indeed have separate and different rules.

I agree yakface. And I am very glad that at least one person understands what I meant by "as intended".

If people are deciding to run DH force weps to slay outright because codex trumps rule book, RAW etc etc That's fine.

All I was arguing essentially is that it be known that it is this way because GW just ignored it, not because they actively decided to make the force weapons different for DH.

Ghaz, my favourite part of the DArk Angels FAQ you quoted is also the reason me and the guys I game with (even the guy who plays pure GKs) run DH force weapons as per the rule book,

As you can see, the nature of the Most Important Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black and white answer to any question that may arise; instead you and your opponent need to discuss things and come up with the answer that makes both of you the happiest, keeping in mind that having a good time is more important than gaining a small in-game advantage. If for any reason you can’t do this, then simply revert to the default of using the rules from your own Codex.

We didn't get to the last sentence. We were able to come to an agreement that we all thought was fair so we didn't have to revert to using RAW from the codex.

That said though, I do understand why a lot of people who may spend time playing tournaments might not be able to come to an agreement if you just meet someone for the first time.

NeoMaul wrote:All I was arguing essentially is that it be known that it is this way because GW just ignored it, not because they actively decided to make the force weapons different for DH.

And yet again, the FAQ shows that they didn't just 'ignore it'. They answered the question. You use the rules in your own codex. If they ignored it, then there wouldn't have been an answer at all, would there? No. Their intention at this time is that you use the rules in your own codex.

Ghaz wrote:

NeoMaul wrote:All I was arguing essentially is that it be known that it is this way because GW just ignored it, not because they actively decided to make the force weapons different for DH.

And yet again, the FAQ shows that they didn't just 'ignore it'. They answered the question. You use the rules in your own codex. If they ignored it, then there wouldn't have been an answer at all, would there? No. Their intention at this time is that you use the rules in your own codex.

You missed my point. I meant GW ignored/forgot/missed FAQ' ing the DH/WH force weapon and as a result you get to use it as slain outright.

GW never made a 'conscious' decision to make the DH/WH force weapon different from the SM one, it just happened to be that way because the DH/WH codices are old and their FAQs are lacking.

All I was arguing essentially is that it be known that it is this way because GW just ignored it, not because they actively decided to make the force weapons different for DH.

No, they did not actively make the DH weapon different. But they *did* actively say that the rules in the codex are to be followed. So yeah, that is the way I play it
That is why lictors can still assault.
That is why sternguard can be scoring
That is why some smoke launcher work differently
That is why guants fall back towards Synapse
That is why RAS Landspeeders are scoring
That is why some transports work differently
That is why some force weapons work differently.

Because GW has *actively* stated that the rules are build around the codex rules trumping the BRB rules.

Sure, if you guys have more fun playing that DH weapons cause Instant Death. More power to you, really. Some people play that Lictors don't take dangerous terrain checks when DSing. If it is better for you, cool. But it is *not* what the rules state,and yes, GW has said to follow the rules in the codex, as they are written in the codex.

You missed my point. I meant GW ignored/forgot/missed FAQ' ing the DH/WH force weapon and as a result you get to use it as slain outright.

So, are you to be the final arbiter on which codex differences are 'oversights' and which are 'intentional'?

Did GW intend to let guants fall back to synapse?
Did GW intend for some smoke launchers to work differently?
Did GW intend for some transports to only carry one specific unit?
Did GW intend to let entire Command platoons deploy in DoW?
Did GW intend to not let entire Infantry platoons to deploy in DoW?
Did GW intend for DA/BT storm shields to be 3++?

Did GW intend for us to follow the rules in the codex, as written in the codex? Or were they lying when they said that, each time they said it, consistently.

GW knows that some of the codex rules are different. They have acknowledged that, and actively stated that when different, we should follow the codex.
But now you are saying that 'you know' they didn't really mean it when dealing with DH force weapons. So... when else did they not mean it?

coredump wrote:

You missed my point. I meant GW ignored/forgot/missed FAQ' ing the DH/WH force weapon and as a result you get to use it as slain outright.

So, are you to be the final arbiter on which codex differences are 'oversights' and which are 'intentional'?

Did GW intend to let guants fall back to synapse?
Did GW intend for some smoke launchers to work differently?
Did GW intend for some transports to only carry one specific unit?
Did GW intend to let entire Command platoons deploy in DoW?
Did GW intend to not let entire Infantry platoons to deploy in DoW?
Did GW intend for DA/BT storm shields to be 3++?

Did GW intend for us to follow the rules in the codex, as written in the codex? Or were they lying when they said that, each time they said it, consistently.

GW knows that some of the codex rules are different. They have acknowledged that, and actively stated that when different, we should follow the codex.
But now you are saying that 'you know' they didn't really mean it when dealing with DH force weapons. So... when else did they not mean it?

Lol calm down.

Final arbiter? This forum's title is 'You make da call'. I am making da call.

Of course I don't know what GW intends. If you read all of my posts you will see that I made an argument for the intention behind the force weapon rules and that I actually provided strong evidence for it.

I wanted to explain to people that there is a strong case for GW not intending DH force weapons to be any different to SM ones. For some people this might be interesting to know, not everyone plays by RAW.

Obviously you can play the game however you like and yes I do understand how GW says codex trumps everything.

No, GW did not 'forget' the force weapons. The FAQ clearly covers everything, even though it's in the Dak Angels FAQ. It's you who just does not get it. Intentions are like codices. Once there's a new one on a subject, the old one is utterly worthless. You can go on and on all you like how it was GW's intentions years ago that all force weapons would have been the same no matter what the army, but it is absolutely pointless. It was GW's 'intention' in 2nd edition that Terminators got a 3+ save on 2D6. Does that mean I have a valid argument now that GW just 'forgot' to put that in the current codex? No. GW's intentions are crystal clear. As of right here and right now Daemonhunter and Witch Hunter force weapons do indeed work differently than those used by Space Marines. Any arguments based on GW's 'past intentions' are nothing but a waste of time.

NeoMaul wrote:Final arbiter? This forum's title is 'You make da call'. I am making da call.

No, you're not 'making da call', you're making up excuses.