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.

yakface wrote:
Again, you may think there is some easy 'RAW' ruling you can abide by, but again I GUARANTEE that if you were to release your FAQ using whatever criteria you decide to use people would start screaming bloody hell that your FAQ is crap and not consistent and changes the rules too much, etc.

If you'll allow me to bastardize an old saying. "You can please some people all of the time, you can please all people some of the time, but you can't please all people all of the time." Personally, I think you did a great job with this. Kudos to you.

I dont have much time to check but have you made a ruling covering models charging through cover that can use grenades but the enemy models themselves are not in cover?

Its basically this situation: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/205093.page

I think that if you don't like "tons" of rulings in this faq, it is up to you to create a better one. Post it right here and see how many people agree with each and every one of your rulings, and see if you will be as patient and nice about all the naysaying as Yak has been. Otherwise at this point you should just shut it. Money where your mouth is time.

I'd just like to give credit where it is due! Thanks, to everyone involved, for taking the time and putting forth the effort! As one of those guys who have been playing this game for the last 20 years (and having sunk enough money into it to retire on!), GW's apparent lack of concern with anything other than the almighty dollar (pound?), has had me a bit worried, as of late. It's good to see something of this nature. I can't say I agree with all of it, but, overall, Great Job!!!

Ellios, give up.

Like I have.

I'll PM you my 2 cents, Ellios.

ColonelEllios wrote:"Strength X" and "counts as str 8 against leadership..." both fall comfortably out of the realm of influence of ID. This is obviously not a weapon that works in any remotely normal way. Assuming ID is an unreasonable stretch of the imagination, since the weapon doesn't have a normal listed strength. However, this isn't a topic for debating RAW, so that's all I'll say on that.

I find it funny that the UKGTs FAQs have it doing even more than the Adepticon FAQ.

"Q. Can the neural shredder instant kill models? If so models with T4 or Ld4?
A. Yes, it will Instant Kill models with a Toughness of 4 or less."

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/files/40k_gt_faq_3.9.pdf

thehod wrote:I dont have much time to check but have you made a ruling covering models charging through cover that can use grenades but the enemy models themselves are not in cover?

Its basically this situation: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/205093.page

This is covered by RB.39.01 and basically the answer is that if the attacking model moves at all through terrain then the defending model counts as being in cover (which then means the attacker can use grenades).


I know for a fact this goes against the way most people play, however we ended up going with the RAW in this particular case for a couple of reasons:


1) Whether or not a defending model is "in" terrain is easy to recognize, but when they are "behind" it is really difficult and subjective to define without coming up with a whole bunch of special rules. Obviously if a model is in base contact with a barrel and the enemy charges over that barrel it is easy to tell that they are "behind" cover, but what happens if the model is an inch away? 2 inches? 3 inches? Where do you draw the line?

2) In this case, the RAW does seem to state that if the defending model's direct charging line crosses over terrain the defender counts as defending cover. I know this leads to some pretty silly situations, but again once you start trying to draw a line in the sand it becomes pretty hard to make a ruling that is easy to understand (and believe me, I tried).

In the end, the fact that the RAW support this position and the fact that it looks as though 5th edition will be played this same way means that it was the right call to make at this time.


Also, it is important to remember that 90% of the time this is a benefit for the defender. It is only in the (fairly rare) cases where the attacker has grenades that the charging model can 'utilize' this tactic.

Blackmoor wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:"Strength X" and "counts as str 8 against leadership..." both fall comfortably out of the realm of influence of ID. This is obviously not a weapon that works in any remotely normal way. Assuming ID is an unreasonable stretch of the imagination, since the weapon doesn't have a normal listed strength. However, this isn't a topic for debating RAW, so that's all I'll say on that.

I find it funny that the UKGTs FAQs have it doing even more than the Adepticon FAQ.

"Q. Can the neural shredder instant kill models? If so models with T4 or Ld4?
A. Yes, it will Instant Kill models with a Toughness of 4 or less."

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/files/40k_gt_faq_3.9.pdf

At least that would be slightly more justified based on the RAW, but still waaaaay off base. "Counts as" isn't "S 8."

ColonelEllios wrote:"Counts as" isn't "S 8."

Where do the rules say that the NS 'counts as' anything?

My =][= codexes both say simply that the NS is strength 8.

Only for the purpose of rolling to wound.

Which would make it count for Instant Death...

Stelek has the right of this argument.

There have already been two long threads about v1 of the FAQ.

The majority like the FAQ. We know this from the straw poll a couple of weeks ago.

The minority have what they consider to be valid objections.

Since neither side is swayed by the opposing arguments, there is no point going through it all again.

The only problem I have with the FAQ is, the answer to the are models in a transport considered off the board for Victory points purposes. While I agree that you opponent should not get victory points for your models in transports at the end of the game I do feel that while they are in transports they do not count as a scoring unit and thus cannot claim objectives of extra points at the end of the game.

Other than that I do like the FAQ and I believe that it is a step in the right direction.

I stand slightly corrected, but my original point remains valid for several reasons:

1) The fact that the actual weapon profile for the NS has "S X" listed is in fact important. This weapon doesn't have a strength value listed in its profile, and should therefore immediately be disassociated with Instant Death, but I'm sure this won't be enough for you so I'll continue...

2) The NS's special rules state: ..."the NS is strength 8 [that's the only place Insaniak is correct] but, rather than using the target's toughness value [I think it's obvious this means no I.D.] their leadership is used..."

3) "Other than this, the to-wound chart is used as normal." [translation: figure out how to roll against leadership using the chart that already exists for normal "to wound" rolls].

Since this weapon operates well outside of the realm of normality in this game, in which you normally just compare S vs. T, uses its own special rules NOT DEPENDENT on the target's toughness, and has no legitimate strength listed in its weapon profile (an equally important part of the rules for this weapon) I say it is wholly ridiculous for anyone to claim any sort of I.D. effect from a Neural Shredder, and I stand by that claim. 40k is rarely this black-and-white; don't try and hurt yourself by imagining shades of gray.

ColonelEllios wrote:1) The fact that the actual weapon profile for the NS has "S X" listed is in fact important.

Indeed it is. And if you read the weapon's entry, you find that it's important purely because the weapon works differently to normal against vehicles.

The fact that the rules entry lists the weapon as having Strength 8 when rolling to wound means that the Strength 'X' listed in the profile is completely irrelevant for ID purposes.

This weapon doesn't have a strength value listed in its profile, and should therefore immediately be disassociated with Instant Death,

Enough? It's not even a start.

2) The NS's special rules state: ..."the NS is strength 8 [that's the only place Insaniak is correct] but, rather than using the target's toughness value [I think it's obvious this means no I.D.] their leadership is used..."

Please point out the part in the Instant Death rule that explains that the Strength/Toughness comparison is ignored if the weapon wounds in some manner other than normal.


It doesn't matter whether or not the weapon uses the model's Toughness for the Wound roll, becuase the Instant Death rules don't care. The sole prerequisite of Instant Death is that the model was wounded by a weapon with a Strength at least twice the model's Toughness. The Instant Death rule doesn't care in the slightest whether that Strength or Toughness were actually used to cause the wound.

So yes, you're right that this rule is clear. Where you're wrong is in making up extra restrictions on Instant Death that don't actually exist.

Col Ellios: you make a valid point, but you're overreaching by claiming that there is no other way to read the RAW. The fact is, you're adding qualifiers to the rules. The rules for instant death simply read "if a model takes a wound from something which has a Strength value of double their toughness or greater, it is killed outright." You are reading into that the requirment that the "something" (their word, not mine) has a tangible, listed Strength value of twice the toughness. Those who disagree are assuming that having a Strength value includes all instances where a strength value is used.

My point is not that you are incorrect in your opinion, but that you are incorrect in saying that the matter is black and white. The Neural shredder is a "something", in at least one instance it has Strength value, and there are no rules, none, for dealing with an attribute value of "X". You seem to be reading that to mean the weapon has no discernable strength, it merely has an effect on models. Others seem to be reading that as simply alerting the player that there is a wacky rule for the weapon, and that simply listing Strength 8 would result in confusion. Again, I'm not making the case for either argument, but there is a valid argument to this.

Ironically, this is exactly why judges and/or FAQs are vital for tournement play. You are completely convinced that you are correct, when obviously many other players disagree.

The problem is that any time you use strength=8 for the shredder, you use toughness=leadership.

The Strength 8 is only for purposes of rolling to wound on the chart. There is no permission to use that strength value for anything other than rolling on the chart (Including instant death calculations).

If you think that any calculations from the strength 8 apply to other parts (IE instant death) then you still have to apply the 'use leadership for toughness'.

You can't have it both ways.

insaniak wrote:The fact that the rules entry lists the weapon as having Strength 8 when rolling to wound means that the Strength 'X' listed in the profile is completely irrelevant for ID purposes.

Really? That's very interesting, considering that the NS rules don't mention "strength 8 when rolling to wound," but rather state, "rather than using the target's toughness value." That's your answer right there. The rule tells you that the weapon doesn't affect toughness. You're not rolling to wound against toughness. There's no other reasonable way to interpret that.

You're confusing the fact that the weapon says "the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." with "the NS is strength 8" [out of context]. You are making the mistake, again, of taking a clause of a rule completely out of context. The weapon is not "strength 8." The weapon is "strength X, and the NS is strength 8 but, rather than using the target's toughness value their leadership is used..." Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose the bits of a rule you like while ignoring the rest.

In short, Skyth has it, and to add: the weapon is strength 8 only against enemy leadership. That, in short, is the correct interpretation, and the only one justified by the RAW.

skyth wrote:The Strength 8 is only for purposes of rolling to wound on the chart.

Which is exactly what makes it apply to Instant Death.

Instant Death applies if the model was wounded by a weapon with a Strength at least double the model's Toughness.

The fact that the wound was made using the models Ld instead of Toughness is completely irrelevant, because ID doesn't specify an exception for models wounded in any particular fashion.

How the model is wounded plays no part whatsoever in ID calculation. All that apples is whether or not the weapon's Strength is at least double the model's Toughness.

The NS, when it wounds, has S8. If 8 is at least double the model's Toughness, then that model suffers ID, regardless of whether or not the model's T is actually used in the calculation of the wound... because the ID rules don't care if the S or T are actually used. All that matters is what those values are.

Unless someone can point to the part in the ID rules that specifies that it only applies if the model's Toughness is actually used for wound calculation, claiming that ID doesn't apply to the NS is adding a restriction that simply doesn't exist in the rules.

So explain why 'rather than using the targets' Tougness values, their Leadership is used' is not applied to the Instant Death rule?

It's not applied because the ID rule doesn't tell you to apply it.

Once again, ID doesn't care in the slightest how the wound was applied. All it cares about is whether the weapon's Strength is at least double the target's Toughness.

The fact that the target's Toughness wasn't actually used to apply the wound doesn't matter a jot, because the ID rules make no distinction for wounds applied in a fashion that is different to normal.

If no such distinction is made, then no such distinction applies. You can wound with the weapon's S vs the target's Ld, Attacks, or underwear size, and it won't make a lick of difference to the ID rule, which simply tells you to compare the S of the weapon that caused the wound to the target's Toughness.

And according to the NS rules, as long as the strength is actually 8, the toughness value used is the leadership score.

Yes, the Ld value is used to determine whether or not the model is wounded.

ID is not a part of the wounding process. It's a seperate effect that applies after the model has been wounded.

To determine if the NS wounds: compare the NS's Strength of 8 to the model's Leadership.

If the model is wounded, we then refer to the ID rule, which tells us that the model suffers Instant Death if it is wounded by 'something' that has a Strength at least double the model's Toughness.

The model's Leadership is no longer relevant at this point. You've already rolled to wound, which is the only point at which the NS tells us to substitute the model's LD for Toughness.

So ID remains as normal: compare the Strength of the 'something' that wounded the model to the model's Toughness. This is not a Wound roll, it's a simple comparison of stats. So the NS's rule telling us to substitute the Ld when rolling to wound simply doesn't apply.

I'm so glad this rule is so perfectly clear to everyone. To put a clarification in a FAQ would be stupid, and incompetent.

Did I get that right?

Insaniak, I'm sure people'd agree with you outright, if it wasn't for that little part of the NS rules where "strength X" and "Strength 8 [against leadership]" are two different things...

How do you resolve this? Where I stand, its the one discrepancy that shoots your interpretation in the foot. The model simply isn't being wounded by a weapon with a normalized strength value, and that's what the ID rules depend upon. They don't apply because the NS has its own special rules, and in their entirety they don't interact with the normal rules for resolving wounds in any significant way.

The strength of the weapon is X. You use 8 on the chart when you are rolling to wound and the leadership.

ColonelEllios wrote:The model simply isn't being wounded by a weapon with a normalized strength value, and that's what the ID rules depend upon.

No they don't. They rely on the strength of whatever wounded the model. Nothing in the rules even hints at a 'normalized' strength being in any way relevant.


But I think I've repeated myself enough for today. Regardless of the interpretation that you personally choose, this little argument should at the very least show that not everybody reads the NS rule the way you do... which is a good reason for it to be in the FAQ.

Moz wrote:I'm so glad this rule is so perfectly clear to everyone. To put a clarification in a FAQ would be stupid, and incompetent.

Did I get that right?

Yes, it would be stupid to include in a FAQ. In an environment as competitive as the one at Adepticon, you would hope that everyone involved would have at least read the first paragraph of p. 23 in the BGB... And realized that the NS's "strength characteristic," as defined there, is in fact "X," and therefore can not possibly interact with the instant death rule, which presumably operates on the "strength characteristic" defined on p. 23. Weapons of "S X," one would hope that it obviously follows, work in exception to the rules laid out by the BGB...

Thereby, being only found at this point in Codex books, and not referencing the main rule set in any way, weapons of "S X" do in fact operate in their own little never-never land, independent of the main rule set, because specific codex rules override the main rules however specifically stated.

EDIT: Really, I think it's completely pathetic that I had to resort to pointing out in detail one of the most basic concepts described in the BGB...

Cant understand how pepole can see it as anything else either honestly.

I am also curious how much you can change the formation of units with lash of submission, most die hard gamers would scream if even one thing is half an inch off while the same pepole would try to use the roughly wording for bunching them up.. also.. didnt Gav T say that it was normal movement with nothing special about the formation, at the last GT or did I just read something false?

ColonelEllios wrote: Really, I think it's completely pathetic that I had to resort to pointing out in detail one of the most basic concepts described in the BGB...

It would be less pathetic if it actually had any bearing on the argument.