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.

Garukadon wrote:The pic may be an indicator as well. It shows a BIG straight blast coming out, not a zig zagging line goin from one trooper to the next. So it probably is just the models under the line that get hit.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
I understand the English language, and grammar, quite well, thank you. It is possible for a sentence to be ambiguous, but it's actually fairly hard.

There are rules for what an "it" in any sentence refers to as the subject. In most cases, it's the simply the last defined subject. ("subject" here means a specific noun)

If you understand those rules, there is no ambiguity, it's actually a surprisingly clear rule as far GW goes. Those who are reading it to mean other than the obvious are either bad at grammar, or, as I think more likely, misreading it on purpose.

Think of it this way: The sentence has an obvious, first glance meaning, right? Enough so that you have to take pains to explain any alternative meaning, right? Well , that initial meaning is actually the only technically correct one, if you follow the strict rules of grammar. It's not a coincidence.

At first reading of the rule it was obvious, a unit of 10 would take 10 hits. As a native English speaker even I know that the language is no where near as clear cut as you are trying to make it out to be, especially with all the pointless rules that exist in the language. IIRC even it's parent language doesn't have as many rules but each verb of the parent language has about 7 different forms dependent on use. I am neither bad at grammar nor am I misreading it on purpose, I am reading it to have 2 equal yet opposite readings because of the lack of proper grammar and sentence structure. I will of course in practice follow the most harmful to me version of the two readings until it is officially FAQ'd to clearly make it one or the other (that would happen to be a unit of 10 would take 10 hits even if only 1 model is under as I don't play Necrons). This also isn't the only poorly written rule that the author of the new Codex Necrons has written, he has put at least 1 in every codex he touched. BTW I don't take pains to explain any alternative meanings unless someone insists that a rule that can be read more then 1 way, can't.

Ladies and Gentlemen.....MATT WARD

Now, I'm new but I definitely side with the more balanced side of the weapon. Epic weapons in the 40k universe aside no weapon should be able to vaporize an entire unit(or two or three) in one go. I feel like it was designed for anti massed infantry. So that if you get a good roll you could take out 10 or 15 models from a couple squads. If it was a lower strength weapon then maybe it would be different. If it attacked whole squads it could wipe out half an army in one turn if your not careful with how you leave em. My cousin and played the right way and it was still a major pain in my ass. You necron players need to stop thinking you might have some super unit capable of killing an entire army in the right circumstances because if it was intended like that then more codexs(don't know the plural for that) would have a similar unit.

All that being said I do have a serious question for you all that if I don't get an answer for ill repost elsewhere.

When a necron player shoots the doom weapon, does he have to roll to hit? My cousin and I played as if you didn't have to. I thought that a shooting weapon always has to roll to hit but the way the codex puts it I really couldn't argue with my cuz. Just looking for some clarification on this. Thanks

Wolfnid420 wrote:Now, I'm new but I definitely side with the more balanced side of the weapon. Epic weapons in the 40k universe aside no weapon should be able to vaporize an entire unit(or two or three) in one go. I feel like it was designed for anti massed infantry. So that if you get a good roll you could take out 10 or 15 models from a couple squads. If it was a lower strength weapon then maybe it would be different. If it attacked whole squads it could wipe out half an army in one turn if your not careful with how you leave em. My cousin and played the right way and it was still a major pain in my ass. You necron players need to stop thinking you might have some super unit capable of killing an entire army in the right circumstances because if it was intended like that then more codexs(don't know the plural for that) would have a similar unit.

All that being said I do have a serious question for you all that if I don't get an answer for ill repost elsewhere.

When a necron player shoots the doom weapon, does he have to roll to hit? My cousin and I played as if you didn't have to. I thought that a shooting weapon always has to roll to hit but the way the codex puts it I really couldn't argue with my cuz. Just looking for some clarification on this. Thanks

No, you don't have to roll to hit, similar to flamer template weapons, all units caught under the line get hit.

Nope. No roll to hit, as you're not aiming at a specific target. It's like a template in that respect.

Interestingly, I don't think most of the Necron players are the ones that are interested in the 'op' version. I don't play Necrons myself, but think the other type would be hilariously fun to play.

9a. How are the number of hits per unit determined when firing The Staff of the Destroyer and the Death Ray?
Spoiler:

Relevant Rules:
Codex: Necrons, p.50, Death Ray:
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.

Possible interpretations:*
*I have placed words denoting reference into the rule rather than reword the rule via interpretations.
1. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit [that are] underneath the line.
2. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models [that are] in the unit underneath the line.

Hope this helps. Personally, I feel that those who favor the more powerful version of the effect have to believe that GW made a typo and also used redundant language in order to preserve their interpretation, while the other side of the coin has to assume that GW wrote a rule poorly.

I side with the second camp, as it is easier and less requiring of extrapolation on what the rules actually say. Outside of the ruling aspect, it also has the nice side effect of lowering the chance of your opponents looking at you funny.

Oh, definitely want the second to be true. And once again, speaking as an Ork player. I just think it would be incredibly fun. Also, would severely reduce the amount of time it would take to play a game, as well as helping redefine strategies and such. Now if every army had something as powerful as that, it'd be awesome.

Suitably priced, of course.

Wolfnid420 wrote:Now, I'm new but I definitely side with the more balanced side of the weapon. Epic weapons in the 40k universe aside no weapon should be able to vaporize an entire unit(or two or three) in one go. I feel like it was designed for anti massed infantry. So that if you get a good roll you could take out 10 or 15 models from a couple squads. If it was a lower strength weapon then maybe it would be different. If it attacked whole squads it could wipe out half an army in one turn if your not careful with how you leave em. My cousin and played the right way and it was still a major pain in my ass. You necron players need to stop thinking you might have some super unit capable of killing an entire army in the right circumstances because if it was intended like that then more codexs(don't know the plural for that) would have a similar unit.

All that being said I do have a serious question for you all that if I don't get an answer for ill repost elsewhere.

When a necron player shoots the doom weapon, does he have to roll to hit? My cousin and I played as if you didn't have to. I thought that a shooting weapon always has to roll to hit but the way the codex puts it I really couldn't argue with my cuz. Just looking for some clarification on this. Thanks

Yes you do have to roll to hit. The rules for Death Ray do not stated that no roll is made.

Saiisil...it hits automatically. If you are implying you get to roll to hit a second time because all shooting attacks technically are supposed to roll to hit...that's a whack level of WAAC you're talking.

Technically, you only roll to hit when firing at a target. As the death ray has no target, no roll to hit is needed.

Kitzz the rules are permissive and being that it never says or implies auto hits, hell I am a Blood Angels player that believes a to hit roll is needed for Blood Lance because it doesn't say it auto hits. Show me where it says Line weapons act like templates or put up an shut up there is no WAAC talk in what I am saying. Oh and just because there is no target doesn't mean it doesn't need to roll to hit take the Eldar Vibro Cannon for example, no target, places a line, needs to roll to hit.

Saiisil wrote:Kitzz the rules are permissive and being that it never says or implies auto hits, hell I am a Blood Angels player that believes a to hit roll is needed for Blood Lance because it doesn't say it auto hits. Show me where it says Line weapons act like templates or put up an shut up there is no WAAC talk in what I am saying. Oh and just because there is no target doesn't mean it doesn't need to roll to hit take the Eldar Vibro Cannon for example, no target, places a line, needs to roll to hit.

The rule itself says, "Every unit ... suffers a number of hits..." That's what says that it auto hits. You don't hit a unit, and then roll to hit again.

Rephistorch wrote:

Saiisil wrote:Kitzz the rules are permissive and being that it never says or implies auto hits, hell I am a Blood Angels player that believes a to hit roll is needed for Blood Lance because it doesn't say it auto hits. Show me where it says Line weapons act like templates or put up an shut up there is no WAAC talk in what I am saying. Oh and just because there is no target doesn't mean it doesn't need to roll to hit take the Eldar Vibro Cannon for example, no target, places a line, needs to roll to hit.

The rule itself says, "Every unit ... suffers a number of hits..." That's what says that it auto hits. You don't hit a unit, and then roll to hit again.

Agreed, rolling to hit does not come into play. The unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models touched by the line. The weapon has rules that spell out how it works.

Not sufficient evidence, as I said it needs to say it doesn't need to role to hit and it doesn't say that, it doesn't spell out in any way that it doesn't need to roll to hit.

EDIT: Oh and Rephistorch, the Vibro Cannon (while written by a much better and clearer author) also says that every unit under the line suffers hits, so I guess it auto hits right? wrong.

It does auto-hit . . . the vibro cannon's specific rules require you to make a to-hit roll.

Death Ray: to fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapons range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then draw a straight line between the two points. Ever unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line SUFFERS A NUMBER OF HITS EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF MODELS UNDERNEATH THE LINE.

Sounds to me that every unit under the line suffers hits equal to the number of models in that unit under the line, automatically. But hell, what do I know, right? Anyway, I say save it for the FAQ.

Basic shooting rules provided in the BGB require a to hit roll for all attack unless an attack specifically says no roll is needed, now where does Death Ray say that no roll is needed? While the Vibro Cannon spells everything out it was written by a different author whom apparently saw the need to make things perfectly clear but it serves as a perfect example of how line attacks work that do not specifically state that no attack roll is needed.

Saiisil wrote:Basic shooting rules provided in the BGB require a to hit roll for all attack unless an attack specifically says no roll is needed, now where does Death Ray say that no roll is needed? While the Vibro Cannon spells everything out it was written by a different author whom apparently saw the need to make things perfectly clear but it serves as a perfect example of how line attacks work that do not specifically state that no attack roll is needed.

The Death Ray is replacing the BGB's usual sequence of events. Normally, pick a target, roll to hit, roll to wound, etc. The Death Ray replaces that with, pick a spot within 12", draw a straight line 3d6" long, then you "hit" (and it says hit specifically) the unit underneath that line X times depending on the number of models the line passes over. That wording very specifically replaces the normal shooting rules up to, and including the "to hit" rolls. After you place the "straight line", you roll to wound based on the number of hits the unit has suffered, as per the codex.

Yet no where does it say that it auto-hits, the line about units under the line cant be used to say that because then you open the door for Eldar players to say they don't actually have to roll to hit because while the Vibro Cannon says to roll to hit it also says units under the line suffer hits which according to what your saying that means auto-hit. it is a contradiction in the rules at that point and any player would much rather take the option that benefits them. The weapon doesn't specifically say it auto-hit so it doesn't auto-hit period.

No, it does not, in fact, specifically say "Auto-hit". It does, however, say that it hits automatically. Isn't the English Language lovely, with all those different ways you can say the same thing.

Saiisil wrote:Yet no where does it say that it auto-hits, the line about units under the line cant be used to say that because then you open the door for Eldar players to say they don't actually have to roll to hit because while the Vibro Cannon says to roll to hit it also says units under the line suffer hits which according to what your saying that means auto-hit. it is a contradiction in the rules at that point and any player would much rather take the option that benefits them. The weapon doesn't specifically say it auto-hit so it doesn't auto-hit period.

You're wrong. Period. The necron rules do say it autohits. "take a number of hits.." Not gets a number of shots, takes a number of hits. But at this point I'm thinking you'll just keep yelling over and over to infinity and beyond.) The rules are pretty damn easy on this one, but if you can't see that, it's certainly not worth arguing further, or reading your comments.

Ok Anvildude you got me there, but it doesn't specifically say it automatically hit's either.

mikhaila, learn to read before saying I am wrong. period.

There you go. It isn't often I unleash my snark, but I try and keep it for good causes.

And I heard once that part of the reason for so much confusion was that GW, being from Britain, wrote rules in 'the Queen's English'. Load a' bunk if you ask me. Grammar don't change across the pond, folks.

face it if he can't get "suffers a number of hits..." through his head, then nothing we say can prove otherwise until a FAQ clears it up.

How about this king, show me in the rules where it says that "suffers x hits = automatic hits". Everything I know of that automatically hits says so before they go on to explain what the effects are, they do not say it while explaining what the effects are.

Oh gods, it's the blood lance argument all over again...
Saiisil, glad to see you jumped off the bandwagon (although I knew you had already)...

Was never on the 'automatic hit' bandwagon to begin with, I had stated in that thread that I sat on the fence because I wasn't completely sure where to stand but there is enough evidence within the rules that literally leads to the needing a 'roll to hit' is required.

Rolling to hit is a process by which one determines the number of hits. If a unit suffers X hits, then that's the number of hits it gets, that's obviously by passes the rolling to hit process.

Saiisil wrote:How about this king, show me in the rules where it says that "suffers x hits = automatic hits". Everything I know of that automatically hits says so before they go on to explain what the effects are, they do not say it while explaining what the effects are.

I believe that if you check most middle or high-school grammar textbooks it should clear that up for you.

I'm thinking that English Language > Codex Specific wording > BRB rules.