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.

When you use the Blood Lance it says it's a psychic shooting attack but not much else. So I have a few questions about how it is used

1. As a psychic shooting attack the rulebook says I must choose a target
2. It says in the description that I may extend in any direction 4d6 inches and each unit touched takes a blah blah blah blah...

Following what it says here (I know this sounds like bull) I could choose a target infront of me, but extend the line in a completely different direction to hit a different unit than the "target". Meaning the way I'd use this, is to target a vehicle nearby, but charge into the infantry unit I could slaughter.

I have heard 3 different ways of this being interpreted

1. The kid I discussed how this worked in a game yelled at me and told me to stop trying to cheat, despite the fact he couldn't come up with a solution to the rule.

2. I can do this, but in the assault phase I have to charge in the direction the line was extended in

3. Any unit hit by this would count as a target, and I could charge any unit it hit.



Does anybody know how this works? Because I'm not so sure how it works in this context...

Technically, you nominate a target unit, then stretch the line in any direction, and the line does not have to even touch the nominated unit.

However, I'm sure playing like that will cause arguments, so I would say 3 is the easiest way to play.

grayspark wrote:When you use the Blood Lance it says it's a psychic shooting attack but not much else. So I have a few questions about how it is used

1. As a psychic shooting attack the rulebook says I must choose a target
2. It says in the description that I may extend in any direction 4d6 inches and each unit touched takes a blah blah blah blah...

Following what it says here (I know this sounds like bull) I could choose a target infront of me, but extend the line in a completely different direction to hit a different unit than the "target". Meaning the way I'd use this, is to target a vehicle nearby, but charge into the infantry unit I could slaughter.

I have heard 3 different ways of this being interpreted

1. The kid I discussed how this worked in a game yelled at me and told me to stop trying to cheat, despite the fact he couldn't come up with a solution to the rule.

2. I can do this, but in the assault phase I have to charge in the direction the line was extended in

3. Any unit hit by this would count as a target, and I could charge any unit it hit.



Does anybody know how this works? Because I'm not so sure how it works in this context...

By the RaW:
It is a psychic shooting attack, so to use it you must have at least ONE Enemy Unit in LoS.
You must declare an enemy unit as the target.
Upon the passing of the Psychic test, you draw a line the distance rolled. It does NOT have to go anywhere near the target unit.
You may only assault the unit designated as the target.

On an unrelated note, if someone is calling you a cheat because you are following the rules, I would suggest not playing them again.

Extending the line along the path taken to the declared target would make sense to me (and if I played BA would probably be how I played it).

I'm not sure about not hitting the declared target, that just seems odd.

I agree with Gwar!, don't play people that curse at you.

while technically RAW, gwar is right.

However, I would argue that the weapon should follow the rules of a template weapon (the closest thing found in the 40k rulebook... an area of effect shooting attack that doesn't scatter and projects from the firer).

This would indicate that you need to hit as much of the target squad as possible.

Cursing someone out for playing RAW isn't the way to go. However, EVERY other shooting weapon can only fire at the target squad (except jaws of the world wolf, which is just as stupid, and should follow the same interpretation as this). So, this one weapon is an exception to a rule every other weapon has to follow, even though it doesn't explicitly state it? I don't buy it. You can claim its RAW all you want, it won't help you when I pack up my models, refuse to play you again, and encourage everyone else to never play you again.

The RAW is as has been stated-- however, I think the INAT approach to JotWW for SW is a good compromise.


Basically, the first unit contacted by the power is the 'target unit' for the psyker's unit, so any further shooting by his unit must be done at that first unit (as will any further assaults).

It prevents some of the silliness a pure RAW approach creates (target one unit, then shoot in a totally different direction) and keeps in the spirit of the assaulting/targeting restrictions of the BRB.

Obviously not a straight RAW, but, like I said, I think it's a good compromise way to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and if someone is calling you a cheat, you either need to a) have calmer rules discussions with them or b) not play them again.

Honersstodnt wrote:while technically RAW, gwar is right.

However, I would argue that the weapon should follow the rules of a template weapon (the closest thing found in the 40k rulebook... an area of effect shooting attack that doesn't scatter and projects from the firer).

This would indicate that you need to hit as much of the target squad as possible.

Cursing someone out for playing RAW isn't the way to go. However, EVERY other shooting weapon can only fire at the target squad (except jaws of the world wolf, which is just as stupid, and should follow the same interpretation as this). So, this one weapon is an exception to a rule every other weapon has to follow, even though it doesn't explicitly state it? I don't buy it. You can claim its RAW all you want, it won't help you when I pack up my models, refuse to play you again, and encourage everyone else to never play you again.

On what basis do you argue your idea? It isn't, by your own admission, the RAW way to play it. Do you claim that it is broken? If so then allow me to whine about any rule I choose and declare that I want it to work a different way.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:
The RAW is as has been stated-- however, I think the INAT approach to JotWW for SW is a good compromise.


Basically, the first unit contacted by the power is the 'target unit' for the psyker's unit, so any further shooting by his unit must be done at that first unit (as will any further assaults).

It prevents some of the silliness a pure RAW approach creates (target one unit, then shoot in a totally different direction) and keeps in the spirit of the assaulting/targeting restrictions of the BRB.

Obviously not a straight RAW, but, like I said, I think it's a good compromise way to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and if someone is calling you a cheat, you either need to a) have calmer rules discussions with them or b) not play them again.

I personally think the INAT way, no offense to Yakface, is slowed. The RAW is clear in this case as it is with JotWW and thus there is no reason to change the way it works. I would dare to say anybody who plays it the INAT way is a cheat even though I know many tournaments use it.

Because declaring a target you have no intention of actually firing at is the very model of common sense...

kartofelkopf wrote:Because declaring a target you have no intention of actually firing at is the very model of common sense...

Because superhuman soldiers with computer aided targeting not being able to fire at one squad and charge another makes sense...

Well, given that the rule for assaulting what you shoot at is in place to represent the unit firing at a unit as they close into combat with them, it does make sense. The turn/sequence system is a fragmented representation of a battle that would "realistically" be taking place in real time.

All this is beside the point, though.

The BRB dictates that you assault what you shoot at, that you choose a target unit.

For every other (JotWW notwithstanding) psychic shooting attack, this means you'll be assaulting the unit you're ACTUALLY targeting/affecting.

So, does it make more sense for this one power to be a singular exception in the 40k rules universe, or for one to compromise the absolute RAW for something in keeping with the spirit of the game?

There's no set answer to that question-- and calling one approach slowed is presumptuous and outright rude on your part.

You have to declare a target for the power. I dont care what your argument is, you should TRY TO HIT YOUR fething TARGET.

Norade, your either the most masterful troll in existance, or just have a very... interesting notion of common sense.

Shooting target = something your trying to hit. if you didn't need to declare a target, then fine, you can fling the lance out in any direction. Because you have to choose a target, its fairly obvious that you should be SHOOTING AT THAT TARGET.

Let me guess, your the kind of guy who says daemonhunters shouldn't get bonuses against chaos dameon princes, because they aren't specifically listed in the chaos codex?

While you might be right RAW, nobody plays it that way. INAT, thank god for it, is used in tournaments, so those who argue RAW and only RAW can take solace in the fact that it isn't going anywhere, and the creators have a notion of common sense.

You can call the INAT faq slowed all you want, but tournaments use it, and GW endorces it at their tournaments, then really, who is wrong?

kartofelkopf wrote:Well, given that the rule for assaulting what you shoot at is in place to represent the unit firing at a unit as they close into combat with them, it does make sense. The turn/sequence system is a fragmented representation of a battle that would "realistically" be taking place in real time.

All this is beside the point, though.

The BRB dictates that you assault what you shoot at, that you choose a target unit.

For every other (JotWW notwithstanding) psychic shooting attack, this means you'll be assaulting the unit you're ACTUALLY targeting/affecting.

So, does it make more sense for this one power to be a singular exception in the 40k rules universe, or for one to compromise the absolute RAW for something in keeping with the spirit of the game?

There's no set answer to that question-- and calling one approach slowed is presumptuous and outright rude on your part.

Sure, claim the game that has super soldiers unable to shoot their primary weapon before charging is one where any semblance of logic is used or any shred of realism exists...

The BRB also says the specific overrides general and therefor the rules works and contradicts nothing. As for it being an exception, if you're going to complain about that then why not try to get an FAQ that normalizes old smoke, re-balances costs for units like Chimeras and Rhino's and makes old 3 and 4e rules work right again?

As for there being no clear way to recolve it, you're flatly wrong. The BRB and codex outlines in clear black and white how the rule is played. You shoving fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't changes nothing.

Lastly, don't put words in my mouth ever again, I never once called anything slowed and nor will I. If you can't refrain from making personal attacks then kindly stop posting.

Norade wrote:

I personally think the INAT way, no offense to Yakface, is slowed.

Norade wrote:


Lastly, don't put words in my mouth ever again, I never once called anything slowed and nor will I. If you can't refrain from making personal attacks then kindly stop posting..

HUR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Norade wrote:

I personally think the INAT way, no offense to Yakface, is slowed. The RAW is clear in this case as it is with JotWW and thus there is no reason to change the way it works. I would dare to say anybody who plays it the INAT way is a cheat even though I know many tournaments use it.

NINJA'd by Honersstondt

Honersstodnt wrote:You have to declare a target for the power. I dont care what your argument is, you should TRY TO HIT YOUR fething TARGET.

Norade, your either the most masterful troll in existance, or just have a very... interesting notion of common sense.

Shooting target = something your trying to hit. if you didn't need to declare a target, then fine, you can fling the lance out in any direction. Because you have to choose a target, its fairly obvious that you should be SHOOTING AT THAT TARGET.

Let me guess, your the kind of guy who says daemonhunters shouldn't get bonuses against chaos dameon princes, because they aren't specifically listed in the chaos codex?

While you might be right RAW, nobody plays it that way. INAT, thank god for it, is used in tournaments, so those who argue RAW and only RAW can take solace in the fact that it isn't going anywhere, and the creators have a notion of common sense.

You can call the INAT faq slowed all you want, burnaments use it, and GW endorces it at their tournaments, then really, who is wrong?

Funny, if I say that common sense says that bolters should be assault you'd have an issue, but when I say that we should play by the rules you moan at me...

As for choosing a target, as dumb as it seems that is the exact way the rules work and you can't change it. IF GW wanted it to work in any other way they could have changed to wording on it to make it say that the line must pass through as many targets in the targeted unit as it can just as they did for the flamer.

Daemonhunters don't get a bonus against daemon princes or most of the Chaos Daemon codex. IF GW wants to change it they can take a few hours and write new errata.

RAW versus INAT, I know which side is right. The other side cheating is petty and a weak attempt to gain advantage over other lists.

Once again, I never used the word slowed and I would ask you kindly to stop putting words into my mouth. This is a civil debate and I will not face down personal attacks when I can not flame back.

EDIT: I will retract my complain about the word slowed as I did use it. I will still however ask that you refrain from making personal attacks.

but... bolters clearly say they are rapid fire :-/ the blood lance thing is ambiguous and unclear (lack of an explanation does not mean clarity... if it was one of the rare exceptions to the shoot what you charge rule, you'd think they would mention that).

You cannot argue that GW proofreads their codex to a high degree... there are too many typos in there after the fact. When they are asked about it, they say that their rules are a "guideline"... and players are welcome to houserule things. Its very likely they MEANT the rule to follow the normal pattern for shooting attacks. We can't tell, because GW won't answer our questions on things like this. They just tell us to "houserule"

well, INAT does just that. You can know in your heart that your right, and that INAT is wrong. Doesn't matter. Most tournaments still use INAT for rules disputes, just because its such a well known FAQ. If you know that beating up old ladies with a hammer is the right thing to do, but the rest of the world tells you its not, should you really continue to wail on the old ladies?

So, you call things slowed, then claim not to have done so, keep calling users of the most widely used, comprehensive 40k FAQ in existence "cheat[ers]" "petty" and "weak[ly] attempt[ing[ to gain advantage over other lists."

And then accuse others of personal attacks?

A WINNER IS YOU!!1


Meh. Lock it up-- the RAW has been presented, the INAT compromise for a very similar situation has been presented, and the thread has been trolled. We've got it all.

Honersstodnt wrote:but... bolters clearly say they are rapid fire :-/ the blood lance thing is ambiguous and unclear (lack of an explanation does not mean clarity... if it was one of the rare exceptions to the shoot what you charge rule, you'd think they would mention that).

You cannot argue that GW proofreads their codex to a high degree... there are too many typos in there after the fact. When they are asked about it, they say that their rules are a "guideline"... and players are welcome to houserule things. Its very likely they MEANT the rule to follow the normal pattern for shooting attacks. We can't tell, because GW won't answer our questions on things like this. They just tell us to "houserule"

well, INAT does just that. You can know in your heart that your right, and that INAT is wrong. Doesn't matter. Most tournaments still use INAT for rules disputes, just because its such a well known FAQ. If you know that beating up old ladies with a hammer is the right thing to do, but the rest of the world tells you its not, should you really continue to wail on the old ladies?

They do mention it as an exception, or do you ignore the meaning of "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the Librarian's base in any direction"?

Do I need to argue that GW does anything but provide us with a book that contains rules to play their game? No.

So, I don't have to agree with INAT while you have to agree that by RAW I can play how I describe the power. Your little fantasy about me going to a tourney and arguing are sadly false, I will ask for the local TO's ruling and abide by that and build accordingly. I can win by skill even with a power that should be better being nerfed for no reason besides conformity.

Also, thanks for the person accusation that I beat old ladies and for trying to equate that beating elderly women is the same as a rules dispute about a game. You do a great job of showing your morality there.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:So, you call things slowed, then claim not to have done so, keep calling users of the most widely used, comprehensive 40k FAQ in existence "cheat[ers]" "petty" and "weak[ly] attempt[ing[ to gain advantage over other lists."

And then accuse others of personal attacks?

A WINNER IS YOU!!1


Meh. Lock it up-- the RAW has been presented, the INAT compromise for a very similar situation has been presented, and the thread has been trolled. We've got it all.

Calling a spade a spade is no personal attack.

cheating(a): violating accepted standards or rules; "a dirty fighter"; "used foul means to gain power"; "a nasty unsporting serve"; "fined for unsportsmanlike behavior"

The codex ad BRB are the most widely accepted standards set out for Warhhamer 40k, thus playing any other way is cheating.

Calling such attempts to cheat weak works as well as RAW clearly supports me.

I also already conceded to point about the use of the word slow so kindly drop it.

Once again, thank you for the personal attack, my the Mods see it when they close the thread.

I wasn't accusing you of beating old ladies... I was using an analogy... analogy =/= conclusion.

I'm also not ignoring the meaning of "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the Librarian's base in any direction"... as the target unit can be in any direction.

I'm quite sure that you will abide by any tournament ruling, I wouldn't imply your arguing against them at a tournament.

However, the OP asked a question, and wanted to know how to play this. 90% of the time, you will follow INAT, because thats what most rational people use, because GW rules need someone to clean them up and clear up ambiguities.

Honersstodnt wrote:I wasn't accusing you of beating old ladies... I was using an analogy... analogy =/= conclusion.

I'm also not ignoring the meaning of "Extend a straight line, 4d6" long, from the Librarian's base in any direction"... as the target unit can be in any direction.

I'm quite sure that you will abide by any tournament ruling, I wouldn't imply your arguing against them at a tournament.

However, the OP asked a question, and wanted to know how to play this. 90% of the time, you will follow INAT, because thats what most rational people use, because GW rules need someone to clean them up and clear up ambiguities.

A poor analogy then, and one unbefitting a civil debate.

Except that dreadnoughts normally cannot shoot what they cannot see and their sight is a 45* cone from their front side. Thus it is a clear deviation from established rules.

In the grand scheme of things, INAT users represent the single largest, identifiable sub-group of 40k players.

Calling them all cheaters is asinine. Period.

You contradict yourself, have a tenuous grasp of the rules (check again re: dreadnoughts LOS), and are rude.

Calling this a civil debate is silly-- you've dragged it down with every post, and added nothing substantive to the discussion outside of calling people who disagree with you cheaters.

Something about throwing stones and glass houses...

kartofelkopf wrote:In the grand scheme of things, INAT users represent the single largest, identifiable sub-group of 40k players.

Calling them all cheaters is asinine. Period.

You contradict yourself, have a tenuous grasp of the rules (check again re: dreadnoughts LOS), and are rude.

Calling this a civil debate is silly-- you've dragged it down with every post, and added nothing substantive to the discussion outside of calling people who disagree with you cheaters.

Something about throwing stones and glass houses...

Funny, players with the rule books are still a larger group some my definition is right.

Also, Dreadnoughts can't fire at what they do not see, see the chaos fire frenzy debate for this, thus the ruling in Blood Lance is the exception.

If the target unit isn't hit by the weapon (Blood Lance), is it said to by "out of range", ie. the shot misses automatically?

If the shot misses automatically, does that mean that no other units get hit?

Steelmage99 wrote:If the target unit isn't hit by the weapon (Blood Lance), is it said to by "out of range", ie. the shot misses automatically?

If the shot misses automatically, does that mean that no other units get hit?

No, the rules don't say that the shot misses or that you need to hit your target for the power to work so it works just fine.

Steelmage99 wrote:If the target unit isn't hit by the weapon (Blood Lance), is it said to by "out of range", ie. the shot misses automatically?

If the shot misses automatically, does that mean that no other units get hit?

No, you check range and LOS when yo8u declare the target, and the power doesnt HAVE range.

JotWW and this should have just been ruled as vibrocannons, which is the closest thing to these powers

I smell smoke

Also the INAT's JOTWW ruling does make the most sense of those given here so far.

Edit: I almost forgot:

HoverBoy wrote:I smell smoke

Also the INAT's JOTWW ruling does make the most sense of those given here so far.

Edit: I almost forgot:

Not sure how a ruling that goes against clear cut RAW can ever make sense but...

Anyway, thanks for trolling with that +1 post count post.

MUWHAHAHA... fine, we need to play as raw all the time.

Blood angels don't ever get blast templates off their vindicators, even though every other vindicator in existence does.

Wolf lords on thunderwolves are toughness 4(5)

Blood claws never benefit from the Berserk Charge rule.

Land Raiders can fire while smoked

Land Raiders can fire two weapons in the same turn. (rapid fire multimeltas lolz)

Bjorn the fell handed never benefits from his invulnerable save, because he can't be wounded.

You can model weapons anywhere on a vehicle it might be advantageous to, they don't specify anywhere on the codex. Hell, I think i'll put a 3' tower on top of my landraider so my lascannons always have LOS.

Half the Tau weapons in the game have no effect.

Mawlocs can't try to deep strike on a unit , it needs to scatter onto them.


... I could go on, and on... Just because RAW is clear doesn't mean its right.

Honersstodnt wrote:MUWHAHAHA... fine, we need to play as raw all the time.

Blood angels don't ever get blast templates off their vindicators, even though every other vindicator in existence does.

Wolf lords on thunderwolves are toughness 4(5)

Blood claws never benefit from the Berserk Charge rule.

Land Raiders can fire while smoked

Land Raiders can fire two weapons in the same turn. (rapid fire multimeltas lolz)

Bjorn the fell handed never benefits from his invulnerable save, because he can't be wounded.

You can model weapons anywhere on a vehicle it might be advantageous to, they don't specify anywhere on the codex. Hell, I think i'll put a 3' tower on top of my landraider so my lascannons always have LOS.

Half the Tau weapons in the game have no effect.

Mawlocs can't try to deep strike on a unit , it needs to scatter onto them.


... I could go on, and on... Just because RAW is clear doesn't mean its right.

Yup, and according to the other thread you can't even start some games by RAW. Not my fault, and not nearly on the same scale as this rule.

Besides if I played as BA I'd rather have proper Blood Lance and gimpy Vindi's because they'll errata the Vindi's and they likely won't even FAQ Blood Lance.

Honersstodnt wrote:MUWHAHAHA... fine, we need to play as raw all the time.

Blood angels don't ever get blast templates off their vindicators, even though every other vindicator in existence does.

Wolf lords on thunderwolves are toughness 4(5)

Blood claws never benefit from the Berserk Charge rule.

Land Raiders can fire while smoked

Land Raiders can fire two weapons in the same turn. (rapid fire multimeltas lolz)

Bjorn the fell handed never benefits from his invulnerable save, because he can't be wounded.

You can model weapons anywhere on a vehicle it might be advantageous to, they don't specify anywhere on the codex. Hell, I think i'll put a 3' tower on top of my landraider so my lascannons always have LOS.

Half the Tau weapons in the game have no effect.

Mawlocs can't try to deep strike on a unit , it needs to scatter onto them.


... I could go on, and on... Just because RAW is clear doesn't mean its right.

Sorry but no, your wrong, all the situations you listed were when the rules dont work or are ambiguous, this is not at all the case in this instance. Clear cut RAW, they only made the faqs to purposefully gimp the power, because INAT loves rewriting the rules how they think they should have been written.