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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:IT can only be interpreted in the abusive way if you ignore the "underneath the line" part.

If 3 models from unit A are under the line, then unit A has suffered 3 hits

No, the argument is that it's "hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line", i.e. the number of models in any unit that is under the line, where the "under the line" applies to the unit as opposed to models. I agree that it's insane to interpret it that way though.

Whilst most people have now settled on the correct interpretation of that rule, there was misunderstanding at first. The rule could have been interpreted either way. "number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line" could be seen as "number of hits equal to the [number of models] in the unit [under the line]" or "number of hits equal to [the number of models in the unit] under the line". The number of hits differing dependant on where the emphasis was.

However, it is not that hard to see that the correct interpretation was unit takes hits equal to number of models under the line. If the other interpretation was the correct one, the rule would have been written as "Any unit with at least 1 model under the line takes hits equal in number to the total number of models in the unit", which is ridiculously OP and makes no sense. It is obvious that the intent of the rule is that any unit with models under the line takes the same number of hits as models under the line, which also does not mean that only models under the line have to be removed as casualties. The normal casualty removal process means that if the captain, heavy weapon, and special weapon models from a squad were under the line, you can still remove standard models from that unit instead. (Or have I got that wrong?)

Edit: Ninja'd by AlmightyWalrus.

Not sure what the relevance of discussing spanish language mis-translations is in relation to English based rules but.. The death ray and other necron abilities like it are most likely an attempt by the dev team to get rid of stuff like Jaws of the World Wolf type wording, ie sniping

Kirasu wrote:Not sure what the relevance of discussing spanish language mis-translations is in relation to English based rules but.. The death ray and other necron abilities like it are most likely an attempt by the dev team to get rid of stuff like Jaws of the World Wolf type wording, ie sniping

Sniping wouldn't be possible no matter how the Death Ray is worded, because it causes hits, which means the defending player can allocate wounds however he'd like. JotWW allows for sniping because it's a characteristic test which cannot be allocated.

So, the sniping avoidance explanation only works for one of two reasons:
1) 6th will rework the mechanic for allocating casualties, perhaps we'll allocate hits rather than wounds.
2) GW really doesn't understand the rules that they wrote.

JOTWW works because of how its worded, how can you say sniping wouldn't be possible no matter how its worded? The wording is everything..

It could say "Each unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models under the line, allocated as shooting by the firing player" That would totally allow sniping

JOTWW could be worded "A unit under the line must make a single characteristic test for each model in its unit under the line. These characteristic tests may be allocated by the owning player as per the rules for shooting" or something to that affect

The wording has everything to do with how it plays in the game...My point is that it feels like the devs regret abilities that snipe like JOTWW so perhaps death ray is how they intend to word things in the future. Or it may just be regulated to necrons specifically, who knows. In either case, a spanish FAQ means nothing except to spanish players playing in a spanish store or spanish event

Kirasu, I think you misunderstood me. Let me re-summarize:

Jaws allows sniping specific models due to it's current wording. It could have been worded differently to not allow sniping.

Death Ray does not allow sniping specific models. Even if it was worded in a clearer way "Every model underneath the line takes a hit", it still wouldn't allow for sniping because of wound allocation. There was NO need for the crazy wording GW used on the Death Ray.

I agree, the devs probably regret allowing for sniping specific models (apart from things that explicitly allow it like Mind War or the Vindicator). But, they didn't need to use this confusing language to avoid it in this case.

Right, I agree. Yeah the wording is very strange and I imagine it will finally dethrone Dawn of War deployment as the thing that people play incorrectly... still

BrassScorpion wrote:Perhaps this review of the Necron Codex will provide some clarification till there is an English FAQ. I found it interesting and less histrionic than their video from a few days ago about the background lore:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/necrons-update/

Wow, they're bad at basic English interpretations and grammar if they can come to that death ray conclusion so solidly. They're douchey about it too. Impressive.

They also appear to be bad at 40k if they believe that the doom scythe wouldn't be the most game breaking unit games workshop has ever produced under that interpretation. Is beasts of war a solidly worse blog then BOLS? let the contest begin!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:Right, I agree. Yeah the wording is very strange and I imagine it will finally dethrone Dawn of War deployment as the thing that people play incorrectly... still

Well the wording was semi important to note that if you hit 3 models in unit A, 4 in unit B, and 2 in unit C you don't get 9 hits on each unit total. The emphasis on 'within the unit' was to clarify where the hits are directed. The portion designed to clarify made an utterly ridiculous interpretation possible, though it's still a stretch since you have to emphasize something that is unnatural given the sentence structure.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Right, I agree. Yeah the wording is very strange and I imagine it will finally dethrone Dawn of War deployment as the thing that people play incorrectly... still

Well the wording was semi important to note that if you hit 3 models in unit A, 4 in unit B, and 2 in unit C you don't get 9 hits on each unit total. The emphasis on 'within the unit' was to clarify where the hits are directed. The portion designed to clarify made an utterly ridiculous interpretation possible, though it's still a stretch since you have to emphasize something that is unnatural given the sentence structure.

Rather than saying: "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." they could have just said "Every model (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a hit."

It's the exact same functionality, it reads much easier, and there's no ambiguity.

Grakmar wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Right, I agree. Yeah the wording is very strange and I imagine it will finally dethrone Dawn of War deployment as the thing that people play incorrectly... still

Well the wording was semi important to note that if you hit 3 models in unit A, 4 in unit B, and 2 in unit C you don't get 9 hits on each unit total. The emphasis on 'within the unit' was to clarify where the hits are directed. The portion designed to clarify made an utterly ridiculous interpretation possible, though it's still a stretch since you have to emphasize something that is unnatural given the sentence structure.

Rather than saying: "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." they could have just said "Every model (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a hit."

It's the exact same functionality, it reads much easier, and there's no ambiguity.

No one has accused GW of being clean cut in their rules.

Grakmar wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Right, I agree. Yeah the wording is very strange and I imagine it will finally dethrone Dawn of War deployment as the thing that people play incorrectly... still

Well the wording was semi important to note that if you hit 3 models in unit A, 4 in unit B, and 2 in unit C you don't get 9 hits on each unit total. The emphasis on 'within the unit' was to clarify where the hits are directed. The portion designed to clarify made an utterly ridiculous interpretation possible, though it's still a stretch since you have to emphasize something that is unnatural given the sentence structure.

Rather than saying: "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line." they could have just said "Every model (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a hit."

It's the exact same functionality, it reads much easier, and there's no ambiguity.

That wording would have allowed sniping of specific models, which I'm assuming they wanted to get away from.... maybe.

ShumaGorath wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:Perhaps this review of the Necron Codex will provide some clarification till there is an English FAQ. I found it interesting and less histrionic than their video from a few days ago about the background lore:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/necrons-update/

Wow, they're bad at basic English interpretations and grammar if they can come to that death ray conclusion so solidly. They're douchey about it too. Impressive.

They also appear to be bad at 40k if they believe that the doom scythe wouldn't be the most game breaking unit games workshop has ever produced under that interpretation. Is beasts of war a solidly worse blog then BOLS? let the contest begin!

As much as I loathe BoLS, BoW takes the cake. They are straight up cabbage.

airmang wrote:

Grakmar wrote:they could have just said "Every model (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a hit."

It's the exact same functionality, it reads much easier, and there's no ambiguity.

That wording would have allowed sniping of specific models, which I'm assuming they wanted to get away from.... maybe.

No, because that wording puts hits on specific models. But, once you determine wounds, the player controlling the unit can still allocate those wounds on any model he wants.

If you want to see some truly awful, AWFUL rules manglings, then look at Beasts of War.

They are truly a giggle....

As much as I loathe BoLS, BoW takes the cake. They are straight up cabbage.

Definitely some questionable rules interpretations at both places.

One problem I see with ambiguity in GW rules is occasionally they dangle their modifiers and that may be the problem with the Necron rule Beasts of War was on about. The modifier in a sentence should be closest to the clause to which it applies, but people casually place them sometimes in the wrong spot making it unclear exactly to which part the modifier is about. GW certainly does this occasionally and it does open the door to some unwanted interpretations. But strictly speaking by the rules of English the unwanted or seemingly illogical interpretation could be seen as the correct meaning based on the careless placement of a modifier, such as the "number of models in the unit UNDER THE LINE." Placing that bit at the end could support the interpretation that most people think is incorrect. Of course, when writing a whole book, having it reviewed and edited by others, then trying to meet a deadline certainly contributes to small ambiguities like that and it's unrealistic to expect they'll ever catch them all before printing (it's never happened yet), but those issues of course cause big headaches for the thousands of people playing games involving those books.