Switch Theme:

verdict on the new fire prism?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





You cannot forfeit something you do not have.


That's true, you can't forfeit something you don't have, but something you don't have can be subject to forfeiture.

It's the meaning of the word "forfeit." It doesn't mean "pay." It means you "lose the right" to do/have something.

The most applicable definition of the verb form of the word: "to lose or become liable to lose, as in consequence of crime, fault, or breach of engagement."

The key here is "to become liable to lose." If you have the thing in question (a legal shot that turn) you lose it. If not, you don't. But it's not a price, it's an effect. That's just what the words mean.

The word means "you don't get to do [the thing]." It doesn't mean you have to have that thing and give it up. You just don't get it.

Example:  If you want to get on an airplane, you forfeit any nail clippers you are carrying when you do so.  That doesn't mean you have to bring a set of nail clippers to the gate to trade for the right to get on a plane...

ALSO:  I don't have the full codex, so this may be addressed elsewhere, but this quote refers to "prism cannons."  It would appear, according to this wording, that a Fire Prism could fire its Shuriken Cannon in the same turn it uses its prism cannon to combine with another prism cannon.  After all, it's the prism cannon that forfeits its chance to fire, not the Fire Prism itself.

ALSO ALSO:  A friend of mine tells me that the British usage of the word "forfeit" is more synoymous with "pay" than the American usage.  It could be that the "pay" definition could be accurate for British English.  None of which excuses the ambiguity of the rules.




=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DA:70+S++G+++M+++B++I++Pw40k00#+D++A++++/wWD250T(T)DM++
======End Dakka Geek Code======

http://jackhammer40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Los Angeles

Has anyone else also noticed that you don't need to be within firing range of the other prism to do the super shot? All you need is LOS. I can't imagine ever not being within 60", but this could come up some day from some fluff monger.

Just something I noticed.

"The last known instance of common sense happened at a GT. A player tried to use the 'common sense' argument vs. Mauleed to justify his turbo-boosted bikes getting a saving throw vs. Psycannons. The player's resulting psychic death scream erased common sense from the minds of 40k players everywhere. " - Ozymandias 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Combining beams and other language of that nature, as well as the nature of the rule would indicate that logic takes precidence here and that if you can not fire due to being stunned or having a weapon destroyed, then you have no beam to contribute.

But RAW monkeys tend to only use logic when it suits their own arguments so who knows

   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





But RAW monkeys tend to only use logic when it suits their own arguments so who knows


If you want to question the quality of a RAW monkey's rules interpretation, that's fine... If he's saying the RAW are something they're not, and doing it to his own benefit, I can see why you'd dismiss it. But, in this case, I think there's at least three valid and glaring RAW problems with the prism cannon rules.

The problem is that there was an article in a recent White Dwarf where Jervis Johnson stated that playing by the RAW is the default starting point. While I think that's a reasonable approach to take, I find it even more ridiculous that GW has (relatively) officially affirmed that approach, and now the first Codex to come out since that affirmation has rules that crumble under a strict RAW interpretation.

It's one thing if GW's attitude is that they don't really care about RAW-mongers, and don't write rules that are meant to rigorously scrutinized... Then I can forgive it somewhat if the rules don't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. But when they come out and SAY that the RAW is the correct first approach, they better take the time to make sure that their rules, when taken as RAW, mean what they intend.

Metagame logic and rules precedent CLEARLY tell us that a stunned Fire Prism can't combine shots, that a Fire Prism can't combine shots and still shoot it's Shuriken Cat at another target, that a Fire Prism would be subject to normal range restrictions when combining shots... But, lo and behold, this appears not to be the case at all with the RAW.

Of course, as I've said, I don't yet have the Codex, so the issues I'm whining about could be cleared up in other passages, but the one passage that was quoted is seriously ridiculous.

At the very least, a word like "forfeit," which apparently has significantly different meanings in the American and British dialects, should not be used in the rules section of a Codex. People who are in the business of writing rules systems which are designed to be read strictly as written should be aware of such linguistic complications, and take them into account.



=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DA:70+S++G+++M+++B++I++Pw40k00#+D++A++++/wWD250T(T)DM++
======End Dakka Geek Code======

http://jackhammer40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Los Angeles

Posted By Wayfarer on 11/15/2006 3:12 PM
Combining beams and other language of that nature, as well as the nature of the rule would indicate that logic takes precidence here and that if you can not fire due to being stunned or having a weapon destroyed, then you have no beam to contribute.

But RAW monkeys tend to only use logic when it suits their own arguments so who knows

Of course, O Wise One, the weapon destroyed question is moot because the codex specifically says that a Prism Cannon has to have LOS to another Prism Cannon.  There's no Fire Prism to Fire Prism wording, so that's all cleared up.


"The last known instance of common sense happened at a GT. A player tried to use the 'common sense' argument vs. Mauleed to justify his turbo-boosted bikes getting a saving throw vs. Psycannons. The player's resulting psychic death scream erased common sense from the minds of 40k players everywhere. " - Ozymandias 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Miss the point some more please.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Los Angeles

Oh, don't worry. I've been trying to figure out an argument that combines the ability to shoot with drawing LOS in order to prevent a stunned prism from helping with a combined shot, but I don't think it's there.

But I'm tryin', Wayfarer. I'm tryin' real hard to prove that Prism Cannons can't fire when stunned.

"The last known instance of common sense happened at a GT. A player tried to use the 'common sense' argument vs. Mauleed to justify his turbo-boosted bikes getting a saving throw vs. Psycannons. The player's resulting psychic death scream erased common sense from the minds of 40k players everywhere. " - Ozymandias 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





What?

 

Edit: Oh I see now, because my post directly followed yours, you thought I was attacking you and got all defensive. Makes sense now. Don't worry guy, your post made a valid point, albiet illogical. I was talking about combining beams when you can't even shoot. Not range.


   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex





The prism must "Give up its chance to shoot" to be able to fire its prism cannon in combined shot mode.

If you're stunned/shaken, you don't have a chance to shoot to give up.

I went over that
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Denison, Iowa

So, what do people think of combining the shots from three Fire prisms to make a Strenth 7 AP 2 shot that uses the large blast marker. Could be useful for taking out terminator armies like deathwing or the Lysander wing.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex





I think it'd be great if you got it off, but good luck
   
Made in us
Unbalanced Fanatic





Minneapolis, MN

If you were in a mega battle and combined the fire of six fire prisms, you should just be able to throw a basketball as hard as you can at his army from ten feet back.  I'd play those rules.

The 21st century will have a number of great cities. You’ll choose between cities of great population density and those that are like series of islands in the forest. - Bernard Tschumi 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Now I dont have my rule book in front of me, so I may be talking out of my ear... But isnt the fire prism's "forfeit" of its shooting phase similar to a model giving up shooting for fleet of foot?

So what if you take a Banshee Exarch with Mirrorswords or a DA Exarck with Shimmershield/power sword? Does that meen they cant fleet because they have no ranged option?

Now dont get me wrong, stunned prisms shouldnt (logically) be able to boost another prism, but GW rules arent allways what I would call logical.

Just a thought...
   
Made in us
RogueSangre





The Cockatrice Malediction

What about shooting enemy prisms? Can you boost/be boosted by enemy prism cannons?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: