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.

Hi all,

Hopefully a simple one.

"If when using this power the Librarian fails his psychic test, place the Vortex of Doom blast marker on the Librarian - in this case the template will not scatter."

If the Librarian is embarked in a vehicle and using this power from the firing point, do you just place the blast over the vehicle hull and resolve the hit? So, this means that the Librarian will only take a pretty weak vehicle hit as opposed to an instant-death blast, right?

Cheers!

I think you have it correct although I would not describe the hit to be weak- S10 + D6.

The more difficult question is which AV do you result the hit on: front, side, or rear?

Sorry, poor grammar on my part. I meant to emphasise that it would be a hit on a vehicle (an expendable rhino in my case) rather than near-certain death to the librarian and any squad accompanying him - when I said weak hit, I meant the S3 hit (or whatever it is) that the models inside take when a vehicle is destroyed.

FWIW the Ork wierdboy can end up doing a similar thing (mine does it nearly every game!)
The Ork FAQ says that it hits the vehicles rear armour - OUCH!

S4 AP- hit of a vehicle explosion. I'm not convinced you could put the blast marker on the librarian when he's embarked anyway but, assuming you can, i would place it over the firing point.

Hmm, 2 ways to do this (until an faq is published i.e. 2050); place the blast marker over the fire point and resolve it from there. Or, since the libby has called a VoD into being inside the vehicle, resolve it against the rear armour (this would be a better reflection of a vortex appearing inside the vehicle).

So if you were to place the marker over the firing point on a rhino that would be rear armor because the firing point is that top hatch. Is that correct?

The only way to properly resolve this is to use what happens when a Weirdboy messes up.

Gotta love GW. They FAQ a problem for Orks, then create the EXACT SAME PROBLEM without fixing it.

Does that mean i can use the same rules for my skaven?

Lol..

I don't have skaven.

Seriously though, wouldn't the rear armour thing be designed for open-topped vehicles?

You could also interpret this as placing the blast marker so that the hole is over the vehicle, just like you would with the disembarked Librarian. You get to pick the exact spot. If you put it in the front, it hits front armor unless it scatters.

It doesn't scatter.

I would simply place it over the center of the transport and resolve the hit versus the front armor.

G

Gwar! wrote:The only way to properly resolve this is to use what happens when a Weirdboy messes up.

Gotta love GW. They FAQ a problem for Orks, then create the EXACT SAME PROBLEM without fixing it.

Frustrating indeed!

So, is it fair to say we're all agreed that if embarked in a vehicle when catastrophe occurs, the Librarian isn't in danger of sucking up up the blast himself? Let's sidestep the question of where on the vehicle is hit for now.

Yes although i still wouldn't say it has to go against rear armour from the Ork FAQ. Ork vehicles don't tend to have firepoints and, unless Yakface tells us why his council ruled rear armour, i still think fire points is a better option.

I'd tend to go the same way as the weirdboy ruling, just for consistency.

There is no requirement to have consistency between two codices, or even within one for that matter. You are allowed to place the template anywhere over the vehicle, so if you put it in the front, it hits front armor. Your opponent will not be able to argue with that.

Correct, there is no requirement for consistency, but! it's the only ruling GW has made on a similar issue. Good enough for me.

If I was playing this casually (and this IS you make da call, after all) I would say the librarian and his buddies fry inside the vehicle, along with a nice rear armor hit on the vehicle. That said, if this came up in a tourney, I would think that a rear armor hit would be fair enough. If my opponent pushed for anything more than that, we'd have to get a ruling or do a roll-off, or maybe take it outside (where we could play chicken with our cars to decide who was right.)

Tantras,

Can you please repost this question into the INAT question submission thread stickied at the top of this forum?

Thanks!

yakface wrote:
Tantras,

Can you please repost this question into the INAT question submission thread stickied at the top of this forum?

Thanks!

Done, and I tidied it up a little to avoid the initial confusion.

thebetter1 wrote:There is no requirement to have consistency between two codices, or even within one for that matter.

There is no requirement, but it sure makes the game easier to play, and good rules and FAQ writers try to bear it in mind. And most players (IME) instinctively look at similar cases for precedent when trying to resolve an unclear rule.

thebetter1 wrote:You are allowed to place the template anywhere over the vehicle, so if you put it in the front, it hits front armor. Your opponent will not be able to argue with that.

In your previous post you opined that one could “interpret” the rule as allowing you to place the template anywhere over the vehicle, which would be somewhat consistent with the written rule re: the disembarked Librarian, which states to place the template with the hole over his base. Now your opinion is that the rules definitively and clearly allow you to place the template anywhere you want over the vehicle, and your opponent won’t be able to argue with it?

A. I disagree. I think the case is more similar to the Weirdboy, and thus that's a more useful precedent to work from.
B. What new evidence did you encounter which made you change your opinion?