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.

Autohit isn't so bad since a psychic test is required. The I test or ignore every defense in the game is bad rules design.

I would rather not have Jaws and have Stormcaller give a 4++ :-)

I just find it an interesting ruling as the SW FAQ makes it quite clear that the first model under the line is the 'target model' and the BRB FAQ also makes it quite clear all PSAs must roll to hit.

It is not the target model, it is "effectively" the target model, implying that while it serves a similar function, the underlying mechanics are different.

I find it interesting that people try to limit a badly designed ability through twisted rules interpretations rather than just accepting it's a poor rule that unfairly penalizes certain targets. Some rules just suck.

I think the argument is that the line you draw with JAWS effectively works like a template, yes?

And, yes, Jaws is broken. Poor, poor Tau.

it effectivly works like a template, but it still requires a "To Hit" roll because we arn't given explicit information that it doesn't.

Flame Template weapons ARE explicitly told they do not roll to hit and this is why PSAs which use them don't roll to hit. Jaws isn't a flamer template.

Until there is a faq about this there will be 2 camps. I fall into the it needs a to hit roll, as powers that don't are explicit in stating they don't.

thunderingjove wrote:

Noir Eternal wrote:Well that just sucks......

Yeah, I am glad that my Meta in MD accepts the INAT as a standard that everyone follows for things not addressed in the FAQ.

I just wouldn't want to play in a location where people just use whatever rules they want to because it benefits them

The INAT is a real resource, and we acknowledge it as gospel, essentially; most people want concision, not advantage in rules per se.

However, I do dislike the lack of trial for JOWW; there doesn't require much to ruin your opponent. I'm an Ork player; it really doesn't affect me; nonetheless, I consider it a poorly conceived power, which a to-hit requirement would somewhat fix. This is for another thread, though.

Man I am an ork player as well and it wreaks my KFF big meks in my kan wall army. Also smart players manage to pick off your powerclaw nobs in your boy squads also. A 2 initiative is not good to have when the world wolf howls.....

I have a huge bias against SW's anyway. JOWW is just the icing on the cake. Like I know a guy who has basically shelved his nids cause SW's run rampant at our FLGS and JOWW has made his nids face too much of an uphill battle.

Farseer Jenkins wrote:
Man I am an ork player as well and it wreaks my KFF big meks in my kan wall army. Also smart players manage to pick off your powerclaw nobs in your boy squads also. A 2 initiative is not good to have when the world wolf howls.....

Right there with ya. Having a 50% chance of outright losing my Big Mek just for being within 24" of the Rune Priest is just silly. No power in the game should work like that IMO. I feel worse for Tyranids though.

Requiring a To-Hit roll on the power would at least lower the probability of success a tad, but you'd still have a stupid power that is useless against some armies and awesome against others. I'd rather they decide to Errata the power itself and effectively re-write it, but I'll be sunbathing on Fenris the day that happens.