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.

I keep seeing JotWW tossed out as the uber-MC killer, but after reading the rule for it I see an issue that a SW player would have to contend with, that others can exploit fairly easily. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

RAW states that "As a psychic shooting attack, the RP may trace a straight line along the board, starting fromt he RP and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain. MC's, beasts, cavalry, bikes & infantry models that are touched by this line must take an initiative test. If the model fails the test, it is removed from play. MC's may subtract 1 from their dice roll due to their tremendous size and strength, though remember that the roll of 6 is always a failure."

With this wording, won't JotWW affect any SW models it hits as well? So an easy counter would be to keep positioning so that there are always SW models between the RP and your cash cows. Also, LOS applies as it is a shooting attack, so while it can pass through terrain the RP still has to have a LOS to at least one of your models.

True/False?

Razgryz wrote:I keep seeing JotWW tossed out as the uber-MC killer, but after reading the rule for it I see an issue that a SW player would have to contend with, that others can exploit fairly easily. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

RAW states that "As a psychic shooting attack, the RP may trace a straight line along the board, starting fromt he RP and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain. MC's, beasts, cavalry, bikes & infantry models that are touched by this line must take an initiative test. If the model fails the test, it is removed from play. MC's may subtract 1 from their dice roll due to their tremendous size and strength, though remember that the roll of 6 is always a failure."

With this wording, won't JotWW affect any SW models it hits as well? So an easy counter would be to keep positioning so that there are always SW models between the RP and your cash cows. Also, LOS applies as it is a shooting attack, so while it can pass through terrain the RP still has to have a LOS to at least one of your models.

True/False?

Yes, Jaws always has affected friendly models.

And LoS doesn't apply in a traditional sense. You need LoS to an enemy model of some sort, but the line drawn does not need to go towards that enemy or affect them in any way.

Explain please? According to the RAW, any psychic shooting attack still has to have LOS to a target. In this case, the RP would have to draw the line to whatever enemy model he has LOS to, and continue the line from there, right?

edit: More precisely, the RP couldn't shoot it at an enemy model he has no LOS to, right? For example, the Hive Guard rules state that it can shoot at any target, regardless of whether it has LOS or not. The RP doesn't have that statement.

In this case, the RP would have to draw the line to whatever enemy model he has LOS to, and continue the line from there, right?

No he can draw the line in any direction he wants as detailed in the power.

You don't need to specify an enemy model as a target. You can say the target is 1" from the casting model and draw the line where ever you want.

Also, you are correct about the intervening models, but remember the SW player can move the priest and anything in his way before casting in the shooting phase. Also, he is probably willing to lose a marine (on a 5+) in exchange for killing a carnifex.

Edit: ninja'd

AHA! Found it, in the SW FAQ:

Q: Does JotWW require LOS? Does it ignore terrain that blocks LOS?

A: As a psychic shooting attack, JotWW requires LOS. The RP must have LOS to the first model that the power affects - in effect this is treated as the target model and all others just get in the powers way.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m800008a_FAQ_SpaceWolves_2009

Razgryz wrote:AHA! Found it, in the SW FAQ:

Q: Does JotWW require LOS? Does it ignore terrain that blocks LOS?

A: As a psychic shooting attack, JotWW requires LOS. The RP must have LOS to the first model that the power affects - in effect this is treated as the target model and all others just get in the powers way.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m800008a_FAQ_SpaceWolves_2009

Just to warn you, the FAQ ignores the RaW, and also this. (Yes I am still bitter but meh, MEH I say!

I am not saying the FAQ is wrong, I am just saying that it does not follow RaW. If you want to use it, by all means do!

... so the faq doesn't follow raw. who cares?
GW wrote the FAQ... GW wrote the original rules.

The original rules are not the immutable words of an almighty god... GW's FAQ is intended to make their intent with the rules clear, that the gaming community might play the game as the game designers intended. anyone who argues otherwise is a twit.

Honersstodnt wrote:GW wrote the FAQ

This makes me giggle! I suggest you click the link I provided there sport!

But yeah, I'm not gonna go for the bait, so a good day to you, sir!

damnit gwar, fight me! DO IT! DO IT NOW!

Honersstodnt wrote:... so the faq doesn't follow raw. who cares?
GW wrote the FAQ... GW wrote the original rules.

The original rules are not the immutable words of an almighty god... GW's FAQ is intended to make their intent with the rules clear, that the gaming community might play the game as the game designers intended. anyone who argues otherwise is a twit.

Wow gwar, i didnt know you wrote the SW codex ... rofl, if you think gw actually writes their faqs your wrong, they usually just steal the ones helpful people (like gwar) make.

If you still avent clicked gwars link, they literally copy/pasted 99% of the space wolves faq straight from his unofficial faq out long before, with no attribution.

The problem arises when GW puts something contrary to what Gwar thinks is right in a FAQ, it becomes nothing but trash that Gwar won't play.

Only when his ideas are echoed by GW does the FAQ become valid in his eyes.

Brother Ramses wrote:The problem arises when GW puts something contrary to what Gwar thinks is right in a FAQ, it becomes nothing but trash that Gwar won't play.

Only when his ideas are echoed by GW does the FAQ become valid in his eyes.

That is not actually true. My objections to GW FAQs are:
1) They do not man up and say "This is how the game is supposed to be played." They instead use some wishy washy "Oh these are house rules" PC language, which simply annoys me.
2) They continuously put rules changes into these "House rules" when they should be Errata.
3) Only stealing half of my FAQ then cocking up the rest.

So if they had stolen your entire FAQ, would it then be perfectly acceptable for all intents and purposes?

Brother Ramses wrote:So if they had stolen your entire FAQ, would it then be perfectly acceptable for all intents and purposes?

Well, yes, because they would have also labeled the rules changes as rules changes, or changed them to be erratas, or simply changed the wording to say "Play it like this or else".

To be fair to Gwar! He is universal in condemnation of the FAQs even the ones that mirror his own. However on his points:

1) True, hardly a major issue for myself I'm more annoyed that they don't get the original author's to do the FAQs or at least edit them for consistency.

2) This simply isn't true and never happens. They change RaW and label those changes as clarifications but they don't change the rules.

3) I'm not convinced you'd be happy even if they had "stolen" all your FAQ. The fact that half their answers match up to yours doesn't in any way imply they have stolen the ideas from you, it just means you got your interpretations half right...

3) would be right, except for the fact the answers were word for word, punctuation for punctuation, the same in places.

it is beyond likelihood that this is pure coincidence.

Fair enough how many different ways are there of saying the same thing? I've no doubt they read Gwars! FAQ along with several others because the FAQs don't ever appear to be put together with much fore thought or inclusion of the design team so they have to get their answers from somewhere.

If they are doing this as a company they should be asking War and mentioning him even if they aren't copy and pasting from his FAQ but just uising it for "inspiration". So I can understand why Gwar feels aggreived and am on his side onm that front.

No seriously. It's not a matter of how many ways can you say something...

It's literally cut and paste with few changes. Tell me this is an accident:

GW FAQ:
Q. How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own(i.e. his Blood Claw buddies have all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. a Vindicare Assassin) must re-roll all successful to hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same ruling applies in close combat. Unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, Lukas cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. He really is that slippery a customer!

Gwar! FAQ:
SW.52.06 – Q: How exactly does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” work?
A: Under normal circumstances, the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own(i.e. his squad has all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. Vindicare Assassin or Eldar Farseer using “Mind War”) must re-roll all successful To Hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same situation applies in close combat. However, unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, he cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. [R.a.W]

Well there are differences but yeah I concede the point.

Also we all have to remember that Gwar may state what is the correct way to play the game. But this doesn't necesarily the way he plays the game. Because honestly a lot of the rules end up making things a lot harder than they really should be.

And how much would GW lose face if they admitted that they used other people's FAQs? Quite a bit.

In fact currently GW are looking for someone to read through their stuff and proofread etc. All you need is a degree. You can get £14,000 a year to be ridiculed and laughed at by the gaming community lol

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Also we all have to remember that Gwar may state what is the correct way to play the game. But this doesn't necesarily the way he plays the game. Because honestly a lot of the rules end up making things a lot harder than they really should be.

And how much would GW lose face if they admitted that they used other people's FAQs? Quite a bit.

In fact currently GW are looking for someone to read through their stuff and proofread etc. All you need is a degree. You can get £14,000 a year to be ridiculed and laughed at by the gaming community lol

Oshova

Link please?

Or we could, you know, stick to the actual topic...