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.

Just good memory

Seems like he takes a pretty objective view on how the rules are written.

I never understand players that say RAW isn't fair, because it doesn't seem "right". GW writes the rules a certain way for a reason, if they wanted it to say something else, it would, or it would be FAQ'd.

Randall Turner: Except for the fact that he conceded it was poor writing and would not play it that way.
Way to get on the personal attack wagon guys- how about we get back to rules?

Fair is always subjective. Many GW rules are designed to not be "fair"- they definitely give advantages and disadvantages, often disproportionally.

Randall Turner wrote:

copper.talos wrote:I have a fan!

Hey, you do! LOL I was wondering what sort of anti troll nerf-bat superpower you have to get BR to back off his "..in effect he is treated as the target model.." means "don't treat him as the target model" position. Even partially. Usually once he's identified which stance benefits the armies he plays, he digs in like a tick!

The best I can guess is he is claiming some wacky timing issue. You draw the line, then target a model. The line can't be undrawn? It seems like nobody except BR knows how the power really works so don't even try to explain it.

To be honest I don't really understand what some people think this rules forum is all about. Is it to academically argue about poorly written rules, or is it to identify the cases where RAW aren't that clear, and try to give the most fair answer to a question, in order to avoid future arguments on the table? Are 2 pages of posts necessary for an ability that almost everybody agrees that it works against JotWW?

copper.talos wrote:Are 2 pages of posts necessary for an ability that almost everybody agrees that it works against JotWW?

Nice spin. We should just stop now because you think it should.


1000 pages are necessary until it's resolved.

I am talking about the gloom prism. Don't be hasty to jump to the gun...

copper.talos wrote:To be honest I don't really understand what some people think this rules forum is all about. Is it to academically argue about poorly written rules, or is it to identify the cases where RAW aren't that clear, and try to give the most fair answer to a question, in order to avoid future arguments on the table?

Exactly. I need to post some pictures of our mega-games, with my buddies Robbie and Bill arguing while my brother and I are sipping beer. Then the same scene, but with a half-dozen dead soldiers around us, and Rob & Bill *still* arguing. That's the problem. (No, not running out of beer, wasting time trying to puzzle out what's "right".)

okay running out of beer can be a problem too.

Randall Turner wrote:

copper.talos wrote:To be honest I don't really understand what some people think this rules forum is all about. Is it to academically argue about poorly written rules, or is it to identify the cases where RAW aren't that clear, and try to give the most fair answer to a question, in order to avoid future arguments on the table?

Exactly. I need to post some pictures of our mega-games, with my buddies Robbie and Bill arguing while my brother and I are sipping beer. Then the same scene, but with a half-dozen dead soldiers around us, and Rob & Bill *still* arguing. That's the problem. (No, not running out of beer, wasting time trying to puzzle out what's "right".)

okay running out of beer can be a problem too.

This is what roll off is for.

If a player says something like "I know its in the codex but I can't find it" its fair to say - you have 5 minutes to look it up, but then thats it, and the game goes on.

Emerett wrote:

copper.talos wrote:Are 2 pages of posts necessary for an ability that almost everybody agrees that it works against JotWW?

Nice spin. We should just stop now because you think it should.


1000 pages are necessary until it's resolved.

You sir are simply proving his point. You know, its crap like this that starts wars. Chill the feth out guys! Its a game. And ANY time a rule requires THIS much hashing out and an in depth look into the grammatical structure of a sentence, requiring an analysis by a P.H.D holder in English, you know something is wrong with the PLAYER, not the rule, not the writter. It blows my mind the gymnastics people go through to avoid the OBVIOUS meaning of a rule, and resort to, "techinically you cant do this because it DOESNT say I CANT do this yadda yadda yadda."

Now PER the space wolves codex JOTWW IS a psychic shooting attack. GW clarified in their FAQ of JOTWW, you MUST target an enemy model with JOTWW. Per the Necron Codex, if a unit is within 3" of a Gloom Prism Spyder, it can nullify any PSA, or PP for that matter, that targets that unit on a 4+.

So, Necron warrior unit is within 3" of the GP when all of a sudden *gasp* a nasty, chuckling, rune priest raises his furry paw at them, he singles out jackbot, and reaches deep into the nether regions of the World Wolf....s powers ahem... he focuses the power at the warriors and it begins to flow, but as he does, jackbot laughs and disappears into a gloomy darkness that emanates from a dark gloom prism. The hairy and dejected rune priest frowns and goes back to the Wolfrhino "Mcwolfenstien" his power lost in the dark gloomy darkness, and his favorite bone stolen by the robots.

Nemesor Dave wrote:If a player says something like "I know its in the codex but I can't find it" its fair to say - you have 5 minutes to look it up, but then thats it, and the game goes on.

Just how, *exactly*, do we enforce that? With grown men, not kids at a store. Stakes are too high, in terms of personal time invested. The rule goes one way, the game's over and that might be the only game we can arrange as a group for the month, or even a year if buddies are up from other states. Arbitrary die roll may be nice in theory. It's unfair in practice. My buddies don't mind dying from dice - that's part of the game. They just don't want to get cheated out of it.

Randall Turner wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:If a player says something like "I know its in the codex but I can't find it" its fair to say - you have 5 minutes to look it up, but then thats it, and the game goes on.

Just how, *exactly*, do we enforce that? With grown men, not kids at a store. Stakes are too high, in terms of personal time invested. The rule goes one way, the game's over and that might be the only game we can arrange as a group for the month, or even a year if buddies are up from other states. Arbitrary die roll may be nice in theory. It's unfair in practice. My buddies don't mind dying from dice - that's part of the game. They just don't want to get cheated out of it.

You can't enforce it, you all have to agree to it. When it comes to game changing decisions it can be hard to get agreement. For this, INAT helps a lot too if you have some really stubborn people. If that fails, ask someone not involved in the game to make the call.

When we're rolling for the turn 6 or 7 we usually ask someone not in the game to make the roll. It fits with having a neutral influence in the game.

As the OP, I say thank you everyone for your opinions, but this has kinda turned into a flame war. I think maybe a mod should close this thread up. It has served its purpose.

Welcome to YMDC

Randall Turner wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:If a player says something like "I know its in the codex but I can't find it" its fair to say - you have 5 minutes to look it up, but then thats it, and the game goes on.

Just how, *exactly*, do we enforce that? With grown men, not kids at a store. Stakes are too high, in terms of personal time invested. The rule goes one way, the game's over and that might be the only game we can arrange as a group for the month, or even a year if buddies are up from other states. Arbitrary die roll may be nice in theory. It's unfair in practice. My buddies don't mind dying from dice - that's part of the game. They just don't want to get cheated out of it.

I fail to see how its unfair in practice. If you cant hash out an agreeable arrangement then 50 50 seems like the most fair way to go with it? They arent really being cheated out of anything if you ask me.

Just because I am getting called out for favoritism, I will pop back in.

SW are my army and when I see a discussion taking place here about them, I will read and make my points in it if I think they need to be made. I could say the same about Randall and Nemesor considering in the two heated debates regarding Necrons and SW they are the predominate Necron cheerleaders.

However, any check of my posting history has me tackling the RAW arguments for such things as Interceptors Scout move, Dreadknight MC/JI debate, Hive Tyrant with Wings, and many other RAW debates.

As to just dismissing the "timing" of JotWW and that it does not follow the normal rules for a psyhic shooting attack is dismissing the RAW of not only JotWW but of the Gloom Prism. That would be akin to dismissing Thunderclap versus the Gloom Prism, even though it never targets a model as well. In fact, you place the blast marker so that it is touching the rune priest and then any models under the small blast marker are hit.

Brother Ramses wrote:
As to just dismissing the "timing" of JotWW and that it does not follow the normal rules for a psyhic shooting attack is dismissing the RAW of not only JotWW but of the Gloom Prism. That would be akin to dismissing Thunderclap versus the Gloom Prism, even though it never targets a model as well. In fact, you place the blast marker so that it is touching the rune priest and then any models under the small blast marker are hit.

You must be forgetting the JotWW faq: "...The Rune Priest must have line of sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he is treated as the target model;...". As far as I know thunderclap has no similar faq.

You must be forgetting the JotWW faq: "...The Rune Priest must have line of sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he is treated as the target model;...". As far as I know thunderclap has no similar faq.

Checkmate.

Lunchmonkey wrote:Honestly from the sounds of it, BR just really likes his SW's Cheese.

qft

Nothing new about this statement.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
So, Necron warrior unit is within 3" of the GP when all of a sudden *gasp* a nasty, chuckling, rune priest raises his furry paw at them, he singles out jackbot, and reaches deep into the nether regions of the World Wolf....s powers ahem... he focuses the power at the warriors and it begins to flow, but as he does, jackbot laughs and disappears into a gloomy darkness that emanates from a dark gloom prism. The hairy and dejected rune priest frowns and goes back to the Wolfrhino "Mcwolfenstien" his power lost in the dark gloomy darkness, and his favorite bone stolen by the robots.

And one would expect YMDC threads to get heated from time to time. Or more often.

copper.talos wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
As to just dismissing the "timing" of JotWW and that it does not follow the normal rules for a psyhic shooting attack is dismissing the RAW of not only JotWW but of the Gloom Prism. That would be akin to dismissing Thunderclap versus the Gloom Prism, even though it never targets a model as well. In fact, you place the blast marker so that it is touching the rune priest and then any models under the small blast marker are hit.

You must be forgetting the JotWW faq: "...The Rune Priest must have line of sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he is treated as the target model;...". As far as I know thunderclap has no similar faq.

Being treated as a target model is not being targeted per the general rules for psychic shooting attacks.

How about actually following the rules for JotWW and compare them to the general rules for psychic shooting attacks? Post up here when you actually target a model for JotWW.

You pass a psychic test.
You lay down a 24" line.
The first model affected by the power is treated as the target model and must be in LoS.

Yea, I never targeted the first model affected by the psychic power. Not once did I check range or even declare it as my target. In fact, it only was treated as my target model when it was determined to become the first model affected by the power and then am I required to check LoS to it from the rune priest.

Nice try, but again, JotWW never targets a model. It determines a model to be treated as a target model and LoS is checked to that model only after the psychic power has been passed and it is determined that said model is affected.

So again, when do I declare a target with JotWW? When do I check range to my target with JotWW? Read the general rules for psychic shooting attacks and read the rules for JotWW instead of just regurgitating others failed points.

As I read it the first model is targeted or at least treated like the target. I don't see the problem with the power being nullified if that "target" is within 3" of the gloom field.
I would however call over the TO if it was any of the subseqent models on the line that would be trying to use the gloom field.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Nice try, but again, JotWW never targets a model. It determines a model to be treated as a target model and LoS is checked to that model only after the psychic power has been passed and it is determined that said model is affected.

Yes, the FAQ states that line of sight is traced to the first model for the purposes of determining whether or not the condition of line of sight is satisfied.

(quick aside: GW is sufficiently vague here -- either using a PSAs counts as using an assault weapon, or it doesn't. JotWW should be similar to template weapons -- pick a target unit in LOS and place your "line" so that it touches something in that unit. The FAQ just makes things even more confusing, as the first model affected [btw: all hits "happen" at the same time, so how is there a first model affected?] is treated as the "target model." Shooting attacks aren't resolved against models -- they are resolved against units.)

But...

Space Wolves FAQ wrote:
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow the Rune Priest
to target specific models within squads? (p37)
A. Yes.

JotWW does target models. However, Gloom Prism can only be used if the psychic power targets the Canoptek Spyder or a friendly unit. So if the Spyder (or single model units within 3"?) is under the JotWW line, it can use Gloom Prism. Otherwise, no.

Models are part of a unit. Your reasoning is flawed.

elrabin wrote:

Space Wolves FAQ wrote:
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow the Rune Priest
to target specific models within squads? (p37)
A. Yes.

I think this finally cleared it up. JotWW DOES target. Therefore it can be nullified.