Corollax wrote:azazel the cat wrote:But my point is that there is no ambiguity about this. There is no other way to read the rule.
You know what? You're absolutely right. The rules are not ambiguous. As stated, the words written in that codex can only be strictly interpreted in the manner you've described. This is
RAW, and I admit it explicitly now, just as I did so implicitly in my previous post.
...but let me now point out that this is not the first time this topic has come up. Not the first time on these forums, and certainly not the first time elsewhere. And there is reason for this. Games Workshop has been writing codices for a long time, and in that period they have established a common mechanism for by which their rules work. We roll ToHit, ToWound, ToSave -- this is all very familiar, and it becomes intuitive for anyone that stays in the hobby for for long.
The rule discussed here breaks this. There exist very few mechanisms for inflicting wounds that ignore the unit's profile. Poison is one mechanism. Sniper rifles are another. And so it makes sense to an experienced reader that Hunters from Hyperspace would just be an improvement on the standard 4+ sniper rifles we all know and love.
So when this pattern of recognition, this context is violated -- in such a way that forces you to roll against a 2+ on a
2d6, no less -- the reader can't help but suspect an oversight. And without an
FAQ to clarify, rationality and common sense must play a role in discerning the intent of the designers.
azazel the cat wrote:I know there's a lot of questions up in the air with the Necrons right now, but this one is a 'gimme', because it is clearly written in its entirely and requires no sources other than the Necron codex itself.
And this quote here illustrates precisely what I'm talking about. You're looking at text in a single book without any context of what has come before or the mechanics in which these rules are applied.
In the absence of an
FAQ for designers to correct omissions or add clarification, we have to rely upon the rest of the works that Games Workshop have provided us.
This is why the FAQs for some codices are relevant to rules disputes for others -- because we rely upon the pattern of our rules for to create a realistic and internally consistent mechanism for resolution of combat events.
The amount of debate on this subject is testament to the fact that there is conflict between the
RAW of the Necron codex and the context to which you are supposed to apply it. Given the absence of an official
GW position on the matter, it's perfectly reasonable for a
TO to rule against the combination until such clarification arrives. This is not some kind of vendetta against the player, or Necrons, or Matt Ward. It is a natural reaction to a violation of an established mechanism until such time as clarification arrives.
Even if we all know green paint needs a nerf.
