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.

Jaw of the world wolf.
Can it be shot by a unit thats inside a landraider?

Any shooting psyhic power can be used from inside a vehicle as long as it has a firing point (in which case the model using the shooting attack occupies the point).

Rewision wrote:Any shooting psyhic power can be used from inside a vehicle as long as it has a firing point (in which case the model using the shooting attack occupies the point).

*Edit*

Never mind, this where the Adepticon FAQ appears to contradict rules. Or maybe I'm confused.

pg. 37 of the SW dex under JoWW:

"As a psychic shooting attack..."

pg. 50 of the main rule book:

"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon. So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target unit, cannot be locked in combat, or must not have run in the Shooting phase if he wishes to use a psychic shooting attack. In the same way, if a psyker targets a unit with a psychic shooting attack, then he can only assault that unit in the ensuring Assault phase."

Adepticon FAQ:

+SW.37H.01 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require a target and/or line of sight?
A: No [clarification].



So..this strikes me as a rules change not a clarification. How does it effect firing ports in vehicles?

This is one of the stupid rule changes marked as a clarification. You absolutely cannot use JotWW from a Land Raider, as there are no fire points.

It's still a psychic shooting attack, and as such requires a firing port among other restrictions for a model inside a vehicle to successfully use.

This is a perfectly clear RAW issue that the Adepticon FAQ has turned into a truly terrible rules change.

I don't even understand how they can justify this one. It's like allowing Lash to be used on units locked in close combat.

There *is* a difference between a firing port and LOS. These 2 things are *not* mutually exclusive. One requires you to have a hole to shoot out of, the other means you have to see something. You can have a firing port and still not have LOS. However LOS would require a firing port.

Shooting attacks still require a firing port and not all shooting attacks require LOS.

But I don't like the ruling on JotWW either. In my opinion I think it requires an 'initial' target that follows all normal shooting restrictions, but then continues until the 24" mark hitting everything in between (regardless of LOS or terrain) until that final point. That's how we play it here, and it clears up the issue in case you have to assault.

I'd say check LOS from the firing point.

Whether or not JotWW requires line of sight, the ability says "... trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest ...".

The rule says to draw a line from the rune priest, or in other words to draw a line from the rune priest model. That means that the power doesn't work when embarked on a transport, for the same reason that web way portals cannot be used from inside transports.

Or is there a convincing argument that the line should be drawn from a fire point if embarked?

When shooting (JotWW is a psychic shooting attack) from vehicles you trace the line from the firing point, unless its an open topped one in which case you can trace it from any point of the hull.

Actually, after reading the GW 5th Edition FAQ, coupled with the Adepticon ruling that JoWW does not require LOS...it appears you could cast JoWW from inside a Land Raider by measuring from the hull. The relevant sections;

GW 5th Edition FAQ

Q. Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle?
A. Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the Shooting phase). If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Adepticon FAQ

+SW.37H.01 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require a target and/or line of sight?
A: No [clarification].



Thoughts?

AgeOfEgos wrote:Adepticon FAQ

+SW.37H.01 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require a target and/or line of sight?
A: No [clarification].



Thoughts?

The Adepticon FAQ is wrong. The power requires a target, as it is a psychic shooting attack. This means it cannot be used from a Land Raider because there is no firing point. Sorry, you can't use the INAT to justify an INAT ruling.

thebetter1 wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Adepticon FAQ

+SW.37H.01 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require a target and/or line of sight?
A: No [clarification].



Thoughts?

The Adepticon FAQ is wrong. The power requires a target, as it is a psychic shooting attack. This means it cannot be used from a Land Raider because there is no firing point. Sorry, you can't use the INAT to justify an INAT ruling.

I'm not . I don't use this power amongst my friends and after testing it in a game, I highly doubt I use it at the Con. However, if I play against someone at Adepticon whom does field it, I'm curious on how they will rule the firing port issue due to their previous ruling.

So would someone involved in the INAT FAQ explain why exactly they are going with this 'clarification'?

This was one I wondered about more than most I have read.

Shooting attacks with no target are . . . rare.

The ruling makes me actually looking forward to a GW SW FAQ, instead of ambivalent.

I would have to agree with nurglitch, I'd really like to know the reasoning behind the clarification.... to me it seemed very simple that its a shooting attack and should have to have a target...

Their reasoning? probably none at all besides "how can we irritate the RAW players as much as possible? i know lets make rules change #3426434 and call it a "clarification" LOL that really pisses em off!" "oh great idea!" ...

thats how it happened guaranteed.

Yeah Im sure thats how it went. A group of guys who take time out of their lives to cover some of the grey areas in the rules to help streamline rules situations at a convention THEY are helping to run participate in said "lets piss people off". Get real. Most if not all of those guys are volunteers.

As far as the ruling, I am curious myself as to how they came up with this clarification. Im sure they had a good reason, or that is how they interpreted the rule. I talked to one of the guys who is on the Adepticon staff, as well as their FAQ ruling comittes and he says they had several meetings over a month that was a total of 8-10 hours just sorting out how the IG codex should be ruled.

Even if you dont agree with the rulings, at least they are posted ahead of time so people can react or at the minimum play consistantly.

Although, if I play someone and they try using the power out of a Land Raider and I say "are you sure you can do that" and they respond, "well the FAQ says I can" I will mark down their sportsmanship by 1, easy as that. I think the spirit of JAWS is you need a fire point but that is my opinion. I am not a fan of people building lists specifically to take advantage of grey areas. Build a nasty list with 7 land raiders, that is fine with me, its a tourney, take 4 land raiders and put a Runepriest in each one, I think that is a little too much. Im sure others will disagree with me, but thats ok.

As far as the ruling, I am curious myself as to how they came up with this clarification.

^^ .... except its not a clarification, its a blatant rule change. The fact that they would label it a clarification means they KNOW it will piss people off who get mad when they change the entire ruleset to suit their idea of how the game should function. Yet say its nothing more thna grey area clarification, which it isnt.

It's great that they take some time out to volunteer, but the fact that they don't employ a method that can be used to obtain reproducible results means that their decisions end up confusing the issue and creating arguments rather than resolving or avoiding them. Not to mention the inefficiency of both their own time and effort...

Citation of decision method and the consequent reproducibility of results are what make things fair and objective, as well as efficient, rather than simply arbitrary, confusing, and time-consuming. I mean, 8-10 hours? I've tried to read through the INAT FAQ and gave up after half an hour - it's as if someone figured out what was wrong with the 40k rules and decided to one-up them, by producing a commentary that manages to be even longer, less systematic, and more aggravating.

The ruling seems strange to me as well but I don't think it's fair to be so critical over their ruling until a member of the council provides the reasoning behind it. I doubt the decision was made on the fly and there may be justification we're not aware of.

AgeOfEgos:

I should qualify my previous post. Yakface has previously explained to me how the answers given in the INAT FAQ are determined, which is apparently that they just sort of work it out between themselves and vote on it (Yakface: Please correct this if you disagree with my characterization of your process).

So far as I'm aware, having discussed the matter with Yakface, they have no reasoning or justification for their decisions that is not arbitrary; in other words they have no process, procedure, or principles to determine consistent and objective answers to rules questions.

Nurglitch wrote:AgeOfEgos:

I should qualify my previous post. Yakface has previously explained to me how the answers given in the INAT FAQ are determined, which is apparently that they just sort of work it out between themselves and vote on it (Yakface: Please correct this if you disagree with my characterization of your process).

So far as I'm aware, having discussed the matter with Yakface, they have no reasoning or justification for their decisions that is not arbitrary; in other words they have no process, procedure, or principles to determine consistent and objective answers to rules questions.

Well, the 'working out process' is what I would be interested in (The justification for their ruling). Until that is offered, well it's just gnashing off the teeth so to speak.

That's just it, they have no process or justification. Arbitrary justification is no justification at all, and a non-reproducible process is not a process. If you dig around you get read about it in previous posts that Yakface has made in YMDC, such as here.

Nurglitch wrote:So would someone involved in the INAT FAQ explain why exactly they are going with this 'clarification'?

Probably for the following reasons that were brought up on numerous other threads:

C:SW pg 37 wrote:
As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24” away. This line may pass through terrain. MC, beasts, calvary, bikes and infantry models that are touched by this line must take an initiative test (see Characteristic Tests in BRB). If the model fails the test, it is removed from play. MC may subtract one from their dice roll due to their tremendous size and strength, though remember that the roll of a 6 is always a failure.

It is a shooting attack BUT it has several unique rules that trump the BRB.

the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24” away. This line may pass through terrain.

Do you roll to hit using the RP BS? No. Does this attack target units (like flamer templates)? No. What does the rule tell you to do? Draw a 24" line across the board. The target is the area on the board over which the line travels across. The attack is therefore indescrimate. Therefore, JOTWW ignores all targeting restrictions such as LOS, friendly models, ect until GW FAQ it.

MC, beasts, calvary, bikes and infantry models that are touched by this line must take an initiative test (see Characteristic Tests in BRB). If the model fails the test, it is removed from play.

Are any wounds caused? No. What happens? Models are removed from play. Which models? The ones touched by the line that fail thier INT save. You may not remove models that were not touched by the line. Why? First, you may only allocate wounds and there were no wounds caused. Secondly the rule specifically states only models hit by the line may be removed. May you take an armour, cover, invulnerable save? No, again, you call only take saves on wounds and no wounds were inflicted. Unless GW FAQs it, this is how the power functions.

So JOTWW is a Psychic Shooting Attack:

Does not cause wounds

Does not need LOS

Targets an area of the board rather than units

Removes models touched by the line that fail an INT test...any models friend or foe

Does not cause wounds

Does not allow armour, cover, or invulnerable saves

In regards to the current topic: It has always been my understanding that you must have a fire point in order to use a psychic shooting attack (per the rules for shooting attacks). Even though LOS or targets are not needed for JOTWW, I do not see anything specified in the power that allows you to ignore this rule regarding fire points.

It would be nice if those were rules based, rather than random assertions.

The same issue that caused those threads to be so long, and as one sided as that post. Which is also why they were locked.

PSA have rules, and apparently JOTWW uses about 10% of them despite having no allowances to ignore the rest.

To point out the 5th ed faq that was posted above does say "psychic powers that are NOT psychic shooting attacks" - so the answer CANNOT be used to justify an answer on a PSA...

IT does not reuqire LOS, as it states in the psychic power that this is ignored. However as it is a PSA it requires a fire point - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Nurglitch wrote:That's just it, they have no process or justification. Arbitrary justification is no justification at all, and a non-reproducible process is not a process. If you dig around you get read about it in previous posts that Yakface has made in YMDC, such as here.

I'll be honest, I didn't read those wall of texts in their entirety but from a hard skim it appears Centurian addressed your points. However, I'm not here to defend their process this thread was not started to bemoan it. So...take it up with them .

As for the topic, Wyoming Fox addressed my question(s). Can you link that thread Wyoming, as I must have missed those explanations (which appear reasonable).

kirsanth wrote:It would be nice if those were rules based, rather than random assertions.

The same issue that caused those threads to be so long, and as one sided as that post. Which is also why they were locked.

PSA have rules, and apparently JOTWW uses about 10% of them despite having no allowances to ignore the rest.

Not sure if I follow? They are drawn directly from the stated rule. It specifically tells you how to use the power, which models to make tests on, and which ones must be removed. By telling you specifically how to use the power it specifically circumvents 90% of all rule restrictions for using a ranged shooting attack regardless if it was a psychic power or not (PSA follow the rules for shooting attacks as a default unless specified otherwise in the entry).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:To point out the 5th ed faq that was posted above does say "psychic powers that are NOT psychic shooting attacks" - so the answer CANNOT be used to justify an answer on a PSA...

IT does not reuqire LOS, as it states in the psychic power that this is ignored. However as it is a PSA it requires a fire point - the two are not mutually exclusive.

I agree, requiring a target, requiring LOS, and requiring a fire point are each their own conditions. JOTWW circumvents the first 2 but not the third. No using JOTWW in a LR.

Many other rules quotes were on that thread as well, IIRC -- I posted some of them. e.g. PSA do not state that to-hit is needed, wounds are taken, nor are any of the things noted related to PSAs.

I see no advantage to starting the debate again. As I have said before (the folks I play with and) I follow the INAT as many local tourneys do so -- even the parts we disagree with.

I would simply like to hear why this change was made in the rules.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Can you link that thread Wyoming, as I must have missed those explanations (which appear reasonable).

The particular thread I pulled from is this one: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/260950.page . Though it OP was talking about Rockfist's TH, a large part of the discussion was looking at how JOTWW worked.