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.

it says in the Chaos Codex that lash of submission is a psychic power that is used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon, it also only affects non-vehicle units.
What if I wanted to lash a unit 20 inches away, and then assault something else?
This came up in a recent game where I wanted to assault my opponent's Land Raider tank (my prince being the only reliable AT i had, aside from one lascannon), and also use lash of submission on a different squad.
Can I do that?

We ended up d6ing it, I lost, so I just assaulted instead (and popped it with 1 hit, so i can't complain.)

Where does it say the Lash is a Shooting attack (as opposed to just being used in the shooting phase, big difference)?
if it does, then you must assault the unit you lashed.
If it doesn't, then you don't.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Where does it say the Lash is a Shooting attack (as opposed to just being used in the shooting phase, big difference)?
if it does, then you must assault the unit you lashed.
If it doesn't, then you don't.

Uh-oh...

WTF is that meant to mean?
I was serious. I don;t have the Chaos codex. If it says it is a Shooting attack, then you can't. If it says it is just used in the shooting phase, you can.

How did that Warrant that (frankly) insulting image?

Canonness Rory:

Part of the problem here is that you have not paraphrased Codex: Chaos Space Marines correctly. The Lash of Submission is used "instead of using another ranged weapon."

Dictionary.com wrote:an⋅oth⋅er
  /əˈnʌðər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nuhth-er] Show IPA
–adjective
1. being one more or more of the same; further; additional: another piece of cake.
2. different; distinct; of a different period, place, or kind: at another time; another man.
3. very similar to; of the same kind or category as: What we need today is another Thomas Jefferson.

It says it can be used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon, so I guess you can. Thanks Waaaagh!

Is there precadent, like, another psychic power you can or cannot use and then assault a different unit?

Typeline wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Where does it say the Lash is a Shooting attack (as opposed to just being used in the shooting phase, big difference)?
if it does, then you must assault the unit you lashed.
If it doesn't, then you don't.

Uh-oh...

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:WTF is that meant to mean?
I was serious. I don;t have the Chaos codex. If it says it is a Shooting attack, then you can't. If it says it is just used in the shooting phase, you can.

How did that Warrant that (frankly) insulting image?

i find nothing insulting about the above picture, back on subject: i agree with Waaaaaaagh if it says it is a shooting attack then you must assault the same unit, you dont have to.

A psychic power that is used in the shooting phase instead of using a weapon IS a psychic shooting attack.

So you answered your own question inside your question, and if you do assault you have to assault the unit you used the lash on.


Sliggoth

There was a big thread on this awhile back that was inconclusive due to "psychic shooting attack" wording being a newer thing. RAI is that Lash is a pyschic shooting attack, RAW is inconclusive but leans towards it being one.

Since we already have a thread on lash, let me ask a similar question as well instead of making a new thread: If you have a lash sorc attached to a squad, say for example a squad of oblits, then if you lash and plasma cannon can you move the units before resolving the plasma cannon shots (and group them up) or do you have to do the PCs at the unit before you do the lash move?

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:...... if you lash and plasma cannon can you move the units before resolving the plasma cannon shots (and group them up) or do you have to do the PCs at the unit before you do the lash move?

I do believe this also comes down to whether or not Fzorgle is a Shooting attack. I personally lean towards it being one, therefore the PC shots would be resolved simultaneaously: before the unit moves (imagining that the shots impact at the same time the lash 'hits' the unit, but just before they start to move).

From the Inat FAQ, which major tournaments make use of:

CSM.88.01 – Q: Which Chaos psychic powers are psychic shooting attacks?
A: Doombolt, Wind of Chaos, Lash of Submission, Nurgle’s Rot and Bolt of Change [clarification].

In other words, you may not assault a target other than the one that was lashed. However, you could be clever and lash units in such a way as to engage multiple units at once.

Wildeyedjester wrote:From the Inat FAQ, which [SOME]major tournaments make use of:

Fixed. Please refrain from giving the impression that the FAQ is official.

Its more official than the rubbish GW put out TBFH

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Its more official than the rubbish GW put out TBFH

No thats not true at all. Perhaps it is more fair, realistic, clear etc, but thats is not what official means.

from dictionary.com

–adjective
2. of or pertaining to an office or position of duty, trust, or authority: official powers.
3. authorized or issued authoritatively: an official report.
4. holding office.
5. appointed or authorized to act in a designated capacity: an official representative.
6. (of an activity or event) intended for the notice of the public and performed or held on behalf of officials or of an organization; formal: the official opening of a store.
7. Pharmacology. noting drugs or drug preparations that are recognized by and that conform to the standards of the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary

Unless GW endorses the FAQ, it is not official.

The GW FAQs are nearly as official as the rulebook. I know of no major tournaments that discard them.

Dracos, I would not go down the path you have started, if you do, you will always be in the minority.

In any event the FAQ at worst is the RAI from GW. Its the way I play it, its the way all tournaments I have played in, play it, its what GW clarifies it to be. Its nice to know if you follow it, then we are all playing the game the same way. I say what do we lose by accepting the game designers clarifications on their own game?

That said the Inat FAQ is still unofficial, and basically like iterating the opinion of a poster with whom you agree. The problem with an appeal to the authority of Inat is that they do not provide any reference, citation, or argument to support their opinion. Hence there is no way of checking for, and thus correcting errors, in their judgment, which is necessary when a source is unofficial.

Dracos wrote:

Wildeyedjester wrote:From the Inat FAQ, which [SOME]major tournaments make use of:

Fixed. Please refrain from giving the impression that the FAQ is official.

Adepticon is the biggest major tournament there is. GT sized tournaments are also using them. I never said the FAQ was official but see below.....

Also, it is fine to disagree with someone but 'fixing' a post doesn't back your opinion up. Its pretty much disrespect and does a lot to discredit your own post.

Nurglitch wrote:That said the Inat FAQ is still unofficial, and basically like iterating the opinion of a poster with whom you agree.

The INAT Faq is from Adepticon which runs the warhammer 40k championships so it is well beyond reiterating a random post from the internet. This is the best set of overarching guidelines you will get to clear up difficult and ambiguous rules areas. It is much easier to simply agree to use this faq set with friends or serious opponents to settle disagreements, than to hash out all the problems in the game on your own. The community has been crying out for a set of full faqs for a long while and this is the best (closest to official) we have. MOST tournament organizers realize this as such, and have chosen to implement the INAT faqs as official in their tournaments.

While you may choose to not use these faqs - if you are a tournament player you will probably play under these rules sooner or later.

If you would learn to all read, only the Errata is Official, the FAQ's are as Unofficial as the IANT FAQ.

Wow... did you reproduce asexually Nurglitch and spawn little Dracos? It is like you are two sponges on the same rock. Sponges who like to overuse the dictionary and completely misconstrue statements.

Wehrkind:

Quality as always. Stay classy.

Nom Nom Nom Nom

Wehrkind wrote:Wow... did you reproduce asexually Nurglitch and spawn little Dracos? It is like you are two sponges on the same rock. Sponges who like to overuse the dictionary and completely misconstrue statements.

Lol this is pretty funny. I like how you accuse me of using words too accurately. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Dracos wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Wow... did you reproduce asexually Nurglitch and spawn little Dracos? It is like you are two sponges on the same rock. Sponges who like to overuse the dictionary and completely misconstrue statements.

Lol this is pretty funny. I like how you accuse me of using words too accurately. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

When it comes to game rules yeah :(. Sadly parts of speech and whether or not a word is an adjective or noun doesn't relate to its game use. It may imply, but you could never use an argument like that to justify something. For instance, in the eldar codex for the Waveserpents, if you read the text, the weapons section implies that you are buying two twin-linked weapons....

pg 63 Wave Serpent Transport

Wargear: .... and one weapon from the following list: twin linked shuriken cannonS

That implies that there would be two shuriken cannons if you bought the upgrade. Some kid tried to argue that his wave serpent had two twin linked brightlances due to this misconception. So really you can't argue the words value in a sentence because that =/= gaming terms.

Umm you are buying two weapons, and those 2 weapons are twinlinked. I fail to see how proper use and understanding of language does not apply to 40k.

edit: and if you are reading it that the S at the end means multiple twinlinked weapons, how are you arriving at the number 2?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The gaming system uses standard definitions of words unless otherwise specified. If it does not, one can arbitrarily define any word not defined by the rules system in any way you see fit. Obviously unless otherwise stated, words use standard definitions.

Did I seriously just have to point that out?

EzeKK wrote:When it comes to game rules yeah :(. Sadly parts of speech and whether or not a word is an adjective or noun doesn't relate to its game use. It may imply, but you could never use an argument like that to justify something. For instance, in the eldar codex for the Waveserpents, if you read the text, the weapons section implies that you are buying two twin-linked weapons....

The rules are written in English, so English grammar will always be used in decoding them.

The instance you cite is false and the Wave Serpent options do not imply that the player is buying two twin-linked weapons because the Twin-Link rule specifies that a pair of weapons is treated as a single weapon with a re-roll. Hence the apparently plural term "twin-linked shuriken cannons" refers to a single weapon.

What you cite is not an example of the rules of ordinary language being irrelevant to the language of the rules, but of being crucial to identifying and explaining a misconception about the content of the rules.

Starting to get reports on this thread.

Please remember to keep the discussion polite, and refrain from any personal attacks.

OK?

Nurglitch wrote:

EzeKK wrote:When it comes to game rules yeah :(. Sadly parts of speech and whether or not a word is an adjective or noun doesn't relate to its game use. It may imply, but you could never use an argument like that to justify something. For instance, in the eldar codex for the Waveserpents, if you read the text, the weapons section implies that you are buying two twin-linked weapons....

The rules are written in English, so English grammar will always be used in decoding them.

The instance you cite is false and the Wave Serpent options do not imply that the player is buying two twin-linked weapons because the Twin-Link rule specifies that a pair of weapons is treated as a single weapon with a re-roll. Hence the apparently plural term "twin-linked shuriken cannons" refers to a single weapon.

What you cite is not an example of the rules of ordinary language being irrelevant to the language of the rules, but of being crucial to identifying and explaining a misconception about the content of the rules.

I do believe that cannon is an acceptable plural for "cannon", esp. in British English, so that may be where that interpretation comes from.

willydstyle wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

EzeKK wrote:When it comes to game rules yeah :(. Sadly parts of speech and whether or not a word is an adjective or noun doesn't relate to its game use. It may imply, but you could never use an argument like that to justify something. For instance, in the eldar codex for the Waveserpents, if you read the text, the weapons section implies that you are buying two twin-linked weapons....

The rules are written in English, so English grammar will always be used in decoding them.

The instance you cite is false and the Wave Serpent options do not imply that the player is buying two twin-linked weapons because the Twin-Link rule specifies that a pair of weapons is treated as a single weapon with a re-roll. Hence the apparently plural term "twin-linked shuriken cannons" refers to a single weapon.

What you cite is not an example of the rules of ordinary language being irrelevant to the language of the rules, but of being crucial to identifying and explaining a misconception about the content of the rules.

I do believe that cannon is an acceptable plural for "cannon", esp. in English, so that may be where that interpretation comes from.

Fixed it for you. There is nothing Called British English, for it is the Correct English, and such needs no Qualifiers. What next, we start Calling it Russian Russian and French French? last I checked, the Language of the Country it Originated from had no Qualifiers. Hence you Have Spanish, Mexian Spanish, French, Canadian French and English and American English.

</Nitpick>

Okay this is veering way off topic. Should anyone wish to continue this debate about the use of language in the 40k system, we should start a new thread.

Dracos wrote:Okay this is veering way off topic. Should anyone wish to continue this debate about the use of language in the 40k system, we should start a new thread.

Bravo, nicely done....You bring up 'proper' language (i.e. Dictionary quotes) and then complain about the "use of language" debate.
Hypocrisy 101.